Tilly
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It worked for me but will attach the word document for you hereIf I click on the attachment, I get a white screen.
It worked for me but will attach the word document for you hereIf I click on the attachment, I get a white screen.
Thank you! I get the white screen again (with s4me.info in the header).It worked for me but will attach the word document for you here
There are no words to explain the fear I feel for all our children/young adults as the Government are ensuring support to get them into education or work. BACME and their lack of understanding is going to cause unprecedented numbers of accusations and with ME A accepting or ignoring FND as diagnosis alongside ME, it is going to be unstoppable.If you read my blog from 2019 of my open letter to McFarlen
https://tillymoments.blogspot.com/2019/ is open on my blog but have attached the letter sent
I haven't found any, the state knows what it is doing that is the problem, this is why there has been no change for decades. There are good people out there but they are targeted tooIs there any legal recourse for these cases? ME/CFS is a documented illness and we have the NICE guideline.
I am very worried about the children, too; what are they supposed to do? Is it possible to legally protect them from the state's failure to recognize their disability and health consequences?
That nothing generally shows up in blood tests will only further the accusations against mum .The argument would be that there are significant concerns the child is being abused, and must be removed from the parent. This would need to be argued to a judge to make an order for removal.
The problem is that the “state” cannot provide the sort of care a child with ME needs, and the child is likely plonked with some foster carers or in a hospital bed.
The removal period would allow time to assess the child away from the parent suspected of FDIA, which is all well and good except when they finally do find there’s no evidence, and the child actually just has ME, you’ve got a much sicker kid at the end of it as well as a traumatised parent.
I think when mum is removed from the situation, yet the problem persists it generally indicated that mum isn’t the problem.That nothing generally shows up in blood tests will only further the accusations against mum .
I mean, how do they ascertain that the problem is persisting in a way they couldn't have ascertained before? If you can deny it before it seems you can just continue to deny it somehow.I think when mum is removed from the situation, yet the problem persists it generally indicated that mum isn’t the problem.
But it appears that there will be no inquest, according to this thread of tweets:An inquest was being prepared for - the paediatrician seems to have provided information to the coroner which changed his mind from a "death by natural causes" to focus on parents.
The FII info for clinicians is very problematic when it cones to ME/CFS
Medical records had been obtained and a host of inaccuracies found.
There are many cases of children being removed from their family and failing to improve, because objectively the child is the same or worse after time, it’s documented time and time again because the child is ill and the parent isn’t the cause.I mean, how do they ascertain that the problem is persisting in a way they couldn't have ascertained before? If you can deny it before it seems you can just continue to deny it somehow.
I mean I guess if people are determined they can just say the parent caused the initial illness that the child has not recovered from? But I don't understand why they are acknowledging that the child is ill in the second case and not the first, really. If they are determined not to "believe in" ME/CFS, basically, why do they suddenly accept the child is ill? Just the passage of time away from the parent? How long do you have to be separated from the parent for the alleged effects of FII to go away, according to such people?There are many cases of children being removed from their family and failing to improve, because objectively the child is the same or worse after time, it’s documented time and time again because the child is ill and the parent isn’t the cause.
Usually until lawyers interveneI mean I guess if people are determined they can just say the parent caused the initial illness that the child has not recovered from? But I don't understand why they are acknowledging that the child is ill in the second case and not the first, really. If they are determined not to "believe in" ME/CFS, basically, why do they suddenly accept the child is ill? Just the passage of time away from the parent? How long do you have to be separated from the parent for the alleged effects of FII to go away, according to such people?
Cognitive dissonance is truly stunningI mean I guess if people are determined they can just say the parent caused the initial illness that the child has not recovered from? But I don't understand why they are acknowledging that the child is ill in the second case and not the first, really. If they are determined not to "believe in" ME/CFS, basically, why do they suddenly accept the child is ill? Just the passage of time away from the parent? How long do you have to be separated from the parent for the alleged effects of FII to go away, according to such people?