We only want the ME patients best! | Nine doctors and psychologists
The ME Association's aggressive rhetoric helps train research that could create better understanding of ME in a biopsychosocial perspective.
Debate
Nine doctors and psychologists
April 8, 2019 20:00 8:37 p.m.
In a post in Aftenposten April 3, "
When the ME-sick are blamed ", Olav Osland and Bjørn K. Getz Wold in Norway's ME-association comment on Aftenposten March 25 by clinic director Erik Borge Skei, "
ME research under patient pressure ».
If the ME sick have "blamed" for the Research Council's distribution of funds, a definition question is. The Research Council is solely responsible for where the money goes and thus also blame if something goes wrong.
Skei believes that it has actually gone wrong, and that this must be seen in light of the ME association's activities and strong influence. To flag our point of view, we agree with Skei, but this comment is primarily about the ME's rhetoric.
Stress and bodily symptoms
Both in the post of April 3 and a number of other posts and writings, the ME association formulates as if we who disagree with them in causal explanation and treatment arrangements, have evil intentions, that we know that our views and recommendations will harm the patients, but still run on.
"We," in this context, are a heterogeneous group that, based on heavy research, broad experience and innumerable testimonies from patients, believe that there is a solid basis for chronic stress to manifest itself in bodily symptoms, including chronic fatigue, and that treatment of the chronic stress level can dampen the bodily consequences. Neither we nor any of our opinionators have other motives than wanting as many as possible to get treatment.
Thought and behavior therapy
Reversing the bodily rash of chronic stress is not easy. These are physiological processes that involve both the hormone balance, the central nervous system and the immune system. We understand that it can be difficult to realize that thinking and behavior processing can affect such systems, but the evidence that the psyche and soma cannot be separated and that both are interacting with the environment has given rise to a biopsychosocial disease concept.
The ME's strong opposition to treating ME with thought and behavior therapy (cognitive techniques) must be understood in light of a historically rooted notion of body and soul as two completely separate spheres of man. This, in turn, has contributed to the fact that illness associated with the psyche has been perceived as second-rate and something that one must take responsibility for. A biopsychosocial model rejects such a vision. If there is something in Osland and Getz Wold's claim for a "paradigm shift for ME", we believe it is moving towards the development of the biopsychosocial model.
Aggressive rhetoric
We hope the ME association in the future will stop mentioning us who also believe in cognitive approach, as if we really want the patients to hurt. There is no purpose in beating each other with research results: We, of course, believe that we have much better foundation for our perception than the ME association has for its and vice versa.
But that's not the point.
The point, on the other hand, is that it is horribly sad that the ME Association through aggressive and partly offensive rhetoric disputes its intentions of opinion opponents and helps train research that could create better understanding of ME in a biopsychosocial perspective. Although patient involvement is one of today's mantras, we are very skeptical of the influence the ME association seems to have had on decision-making in the Research Council.
Georg Espolin Johnson, play in Nav
Maria Pedersen, Dr. med, Child and Youth Department, Vestre Viken HF
Gunvor Launes, psychiatrist, Kristiansand
Sven Conradi, doctor, Sunnaas hospital
Nina Andresen, psychologist, Nav
Lina Linnestad, specialist in general medicine, general practitioner and military doctor
Jon Sundal, Senior Consultant, Health Stavanger HF
Maria Leer-Salvesen, neuropsychologist
Ruth Foseide Thorkildsen, specialist in internal medicine
It’s the usual BS.