- 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.
It is common that patients with ME/CFS must repeatedly pursue enforcement action of their pre-existing rights under statutes, policy and common law. It also known that successful enforcement of pre-existing rights can be followed by retributory abuse of power and authority. It is known that flagrantly retributory liability generation can include punishing qualified professionals who have leveraged their knowledge of policy, rules and law to enforce lawful requirements in a context of ME/CFS.
Such abuses of power substantiate numerous breaches of law and professional standards, not limited to discrimination and liability for consequences. These abuses often come with breaches of record keeping obligations. These abuses of power often openly and unlawfully suspend compliance norms and other legal obligations e.g. by arbitrarily refusing lawful implementation of unambiguous policy when confronted with ME/CFS, without lawful justification to dismiss discrimination or other consequent claims.
Habitual outcomes from holding practitioners to account for normal medical and legal standards include:
- removal of complainants from patient lists entirely
- removal of medications
- introduction of administrative burdens not applied previously
- applying identical or analogous abuses of power to family members
These efforts to remove or discourage a patient’s registration are closely related to the obligation to not mislead and to provide sufficient detail: