- Summary
- Context of unmanaged liabilities
- Enforceable obligations
- Obligation to not negate ME/CFS legal status
- Obligation to procure ME/CFS medical education
- Obligation to not mislead or evade diagnosis and to provide sufficient detail (FND, MUS, PPS, ‘dysregulation model’ and Long Covid examples)
- Obligation to not abuse power and authority
- Obligation to recognise ME/CFS patient housebound or carer status
- Tests of lawfulness
- Risks – compliance and operational
- Unlawful clinical judgement (examples)
- Expertise risk and reputational risk – medical and legal
- Illusion of legal authority vs medical law enforcement
- Knowledge-gap risk and audit trails (examples plus research-market inefficiencies)
- Freedom of Information Act risks – flawed clinical judgement, discrimination and education refusal
- Third party risk from preceding unlawful clinical judgement
- Liability, malpractice and indemnification
- Irrelevance of official edicts and officialised redistribution of liabilities to frontline balance sheets (vaccination and NICE guideline examples)
- Compromised indemnification, insurance cover nullification and liability for lost income
- Evaluating duties of care and unmanaged risk exposures
- Risk mitigation
- References
- Version history
These compliance documents are live pre-released drafts that are specifically not structured for scientific audiences. Specific scientific referencing can be provided in consulting contexts, not limited to practice management, claims management, underwriting or litigation support for professionals or organisations.
Copyright and redistribution rights are governed by our terms of site usage. Communication of factual or typographical errata or other suggestions is welcome. This content was originally contained here (external link), has been split into separate compliance sections on our website and is in need of significant ongoing update.
A journalistic summary of these documents for lay audiences will soon be published.
Risk management practice in the field ME/CFS and related post-viral disease commonly introduces unmanaged risks and liabilities, due to widespread normalisation of unlawful clinical judgement and prejudicially low standards. This inherently manifests as unlawful suspension of compliance and legal norms. This implies practical disregard for medical law’s status as a field of law, not medicine. This facilitates over-confident practical assumption that ‘clinical judgement’ provides carte blanche, free from legal governance. This in turns results in the expensively institutionalised misbelief in practice that standards, policy and law apply less when involving ME/CFS or other post-viral disease, if at all.
The reality is that clinical judgement affords zero-freedom from legal requirements. With serious implications for frontline organisations and contracting parties, such as insurers or intermediary agencies, this over-confidence risk leads to unmanaged liability generation, stemming from empirical consensus of medical failure, habitual misinformation and statutory breaches.
Clinical judgement affords zero-freedom from legal requirements. Widespread normalisation of unlawful clinical judgement and prejudicially low standards versus post-viral diseases stem from practical disregard for medical law being a field of law, not medicine.
The liability generation highlighted in this document is an unusually stark example of medical law being external to and not determined by the medical profession. This externality and independence means that medical law is informed by sources that merely include the medical profession. Medico-legal/medical jurisprudential training of medical and therapeutic professionals instructs on how to adhere to and serve the law, in an explicit master-client relationship.
With serious implications for organisations and contracting parties, legally sustainable medical evidence contradicts the deficient norms that are often provided as justification for habitually unlawful practice
This direction of authority can appear reversed by tribunals and arbitration mechanisms depending on medical evidence or opinion. Nonetheless, this is entirely dependent on the assumption that any witness or others provide relevant and accurate evidence and expert-accountability. Evidence that can be shown as neither does not meet that standard and is not legally sustainable – this includes where standards are aggravated by deficient norms that are provided as justification for unlawful practice. This terminal inapplicability also applies to evidence or guidelines originating from state or independent bodies i.e. governmental, regulatory or self-regulatory bodies are equally unable to validate unlawful practice.
Neither the habitual nature of medical failure nor governmental, regulatory or self-regulatory bodies are able to validate unlawful practice