Section 1.16 of the NICE ME/CFS Guideline requires that health and social care providers ensure that all staff delivering care to people with ME/CFS have an understanding of the patient experience. Doctors with M.E. asked the CFS/ME Research Collaborative Patient Advisory Group (CMRC PAG) what patients make of the new NICE guideline. They shared the…Continue readingGetting compliant with NICE guideline – the patient experience requirement
Tag: Discrimination
Doctors with M.E. stands ready to work with partners and organisations to bring medical education up-to-date and assist in developing the right services for ME/CFS patients. “The new guideline represents a positive and total paradigm change, uniting around the science, official disease classification and medico-legal compliance implications.” “This translation of scientific knowledge into clinical practice…Continue readingNICE 2021: A Triumph of Science over Discrimination
The current NICE debacle and extraordinary deviation from normal procedure and published protocol is further evidence of institutionalised discrimination by large sections of the UK medical establishment. That one professional and patient group should be treated in a manner at odds with clear and growing scientific knowledge would be unacceptable in any other disease. Yet…Continue readingThe NICE debacle – will NICE survive?
Science’s rejection of psychological dogma Doctors with M.E. Honorary Fellows Dr. William Weir and Dr. Nigel Speight co-author a newly published opinion piece that discusses the past, present and possible future of ME/CFS. In order to give context as to how ME/CFS came to be incorrectly viewed as a psychological disorder, the article draws on…Continue readingA Review of ME/CFS: Past, Present and Future
A call for change in the face of long-standing regulatory failure The following public communication from our Governance Board regards the opportunity for a new “Medical Regulatory Agency”, ready for the post-brexit and the machine learning digital eras. The letter also contains background pertaining to long-standing regulatory failure, unlawful medical norms, contra-scientific medical belief systems and…Continue readingPublic Letter to DHSC, MHRA, HoC, NICE: Call for a ‘Medical Regulatory Agency’
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
Is it just me, or is the BMJ’s take on those NICE guideline committee resignations maybe a little biased? The BMJ are reporting that four members of NICE’s guideline committee on ME/CFS have stood down. One is the medical advisor of the ME Association, who stated yesterday that he found it too difficult to combine…Continue readingHonorary Fellow comments on the BMJ and NICE Guideline Committee Resignations
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
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