We are very disappointed to hear of the ‘pause’ in publication of the NICE ME/CFS Guideline, already delayed in April. Following the hard work of the Guideline Development Group, we received news of the further delay of guideline publication with both dismay and profound concern for practitioners, their organisations and patients. Continued delay or deviation…Continue readingRapid Response and Expert Comment: NICE Guideline Delay and Accommodation of Unlawfulness
Tag: Covid
Your questions regarding the new NICE Guideline announcement this week have been broken down and addressed by Doctors with M.E. Honorary Fellow, Professor Brian Hughes: 1. What’s going on? 2. How is the new guideline different to the old one? 3. Why is the new guideline being welcomed? 4. Why was the old guideline problematic?…Continue readingHonorary Fellow on the new NICE Guideline for ME/CFS: Ten Questions Answered
The “Purple Book” – a benchmark text for clinicians and practitioners This guide, co-authored by Doctors with M.E. Honorary Fellow Dr. Charles Shepherd and Consultant Neurologist Dr. Abhijit Chaudhuri, provides a comprehensive review of research, diagnosis, symptoms, and all aspects of management regarding ME/CFS/PVFS. It is an essential evidenced-based summary for all health professionals and…Continue readingReference Text: ME/CFS/PVFS – An Exploration of the Key Clinical Issues
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…Continue readingObligation to not abuse power and authority
Care should be taken to reassess existing expertise sources in the field of post-viral disease and to distinguish between 1) the marketability or familiarity of expertise versus 2) disproportionate risk of divergence from legally sustainable standards. It is rare for institutionalised medical norms to exclude scientific consensus to the degree witnessed in this field. This…Continue readingExpertise procurement risk and reputational risk – medical and legal
Although the jurisdictional focus is the United Kingdom, direct equivalence can be found in other jurisdictions and markets. The policy, contractual and legal requirements on medical practice and indemnification provision follow a similar structure in most locales: neither official edict, professional body, private contract, the habitual nature of unlawful care nor eminently misinformed obfuscation can…Continue readingJurisdictions and markets (UK and international)
The absolute clarity of the legal status of ME/CFS is of immediate risk management importance, due its statutory, policy and third-party contractual implications frequently being ignored. These stem from habitually unlawful clinical judgement and arbitrarily discriminative administrative treatment that fail to account for the clarity of classification and associated lawful obligations. The absolute clarity of…Continue readingObligation to not negate ME/CFS legal status
The law does not allow clinical judgement to be discriminatory or to breach duties of care – a normally uncontroversial statement with an unusual degree of unmanaged consequences for this field of disease. The law does not allow clinical judgement to be discriminatory or to breach duties of care – a normally uncontroversial statement with…Continue readingUnlawful clinical judgement (flu and covid vaccination examples)
Informed by the scientific, statutory and policy contexts outlined above, the following simple tests of clinical judgement lawfulness further outline lawful policy implementation requirements, mitigating the elevated probability of normalised unlawful clinical judgement in this context. Contrary conclusions constitute unlawful discriminatory implementation of policy, an arbitrary evasion of clear wording, thus discriminating on the very…Continue readingTests of clinical judgement lawfulness
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 affords patients, litigants and the scientific community several routes to highlight policy, reveal shortcomings and to enforce lawful clinical and administrative decision-making. It must be noted that the low and/or prejudicial standards of communication and record keeping that are often normalised in this professional field (link) can be revealed…Continue readingFreedom of Information Act risks – flawed clinical judgement, discrimination and education refusal