SAYING NO CAN BE POSITIVE - Info for Those who wish to refuse psychological therapies

[Sly Saint]

Taken from the Grace Charity for ME (updated 2017)
"This document was originally written in response to the Chief Medical Officer’s report in 2002 which triggered the current NHS Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis clinics, set up across the country. These clinics consist mainly of psychological therapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy. This document may empower sufferers who choose to refuse attendance of the clinics; bedbound/housebound sufferers who are advised to have these therapies on domiciliary visits may also find this document helpful. It may also help those pressurised to undertake CBT and Graded Exercise Therapy by Private Health Insurers.

Those who wish to refuse psychological therapies for M.E. can be supported by the following facts:"

http://www.thegracecharityforme.org...0/SAYING_-NO_CAN_BE_POSITIVE_updated-2017.pdf

(whatever you think of the Grace charity they are anti-BPS)

 

[Woolie]

Thanks for posting, @Sly Saint. It has some good information, but also some that's incorrect/unjustified. It would be great if they could collaborate with someone from here that knows about psychological therapies. To really make all the arguments fully justified and watertight.

Quite a few of the arguments rest on the claim that ME is most definitely a disease with a biomedical origin. These arguments would be stronger if they did not have to rely on that claim (which can always be countered).

So for example, there was this bit:

1) The law protects patients from unwanted treatments if the patient is deemed to be mentally competent. Medical practitioners cannot give a treatment to a patient without the patient’s consent. Scientifically, M.E. is NOT in Mental Health, see below.
2) An M.E. patient doesn’t have to comply with the NICE guidelines on CFS/M.E., supported by the above law, because M.E. is not scientifically in mental health.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that patient consent is all about competency to consent and not really anything to do whether M.E. is "scientifically in mental health" or not.

Plus, you can be crazy as anything, but the onus is still on a professional to justify why you should be considered incompetent to give consent. People have the right to be as fruity as they wish, as long as they have sufficient capacity to understand risks vs. benefits and to make an informed decision about the treatment.

(Edit: I suppose unless they pose a serious danger to themselves or others)

A lot is good, though, and its an excellent idea to gather this kind of information together for patients.

 

[Inara]

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that patient consent is all about competency to consent and not really anything to do whether M.E. is "scientifically in mental health" or not.

If you have a "mental illness" diagnosis, it can happen easily that your legal competence is removed (even if it violates UN human rights convention - no discrimination of disabled or sick people). According to law, this is not possible if you have a physical illness (without "mental issues"). Therefore it is not entirely irrelevant to have ME as a physical illness.

Edit:

Edit: I suppose unless they pose a serious danger to themselves or others

This can be easily claimed; a psychological "expert" will give his expertise, and a judge will follow because 1) he lacks time, 2) he has no knowledge, 3) he probably doesn't care.