I have no idea what any of that means. It all sounds very grand but has nothing to do with M.E/CFS except maybe M.E/CFS as some kind of cypher for a subunit generation of
Neos - is that what you mean by 'in general' ? In which case how does that relate to to anything I've written (which is located in wholly specific real world circumstances) ?
I didn't specify (because the previous context had alreadydefined it) but my reply to Orion was specific to the UK - we have wide spread concern about violence toward and harrassment of health care professionals, additionally and in common with other countries there is concern amongst researchers about the long standing threats to individuals and to institutions. It will not take very much to ensure that M.E/CFS advocacy is seen as egregious a source of encouragment of harrassment against both medical staff and researchers who are deemed 'acceptable targets', as is currently the ALF.
It's interesting that you don't see the need (or even disirability) for any unified approach by M.E/CFS organisations, and that you expect some/many to maintain good relations with psychiatry(and thus deflect any backlash against harrassment actions) - perhaps you consider these organisations and their members and supporters to be the useful idiots for your anti (psycho)psychiatry revolution ? Whatever it's an interesting position and I guess it leaves pragmatists like me with a clear idea of what the anti psychiatry M.E/CFSism is about. All rather reminds me of the the British left in the 1980s - especially
Militant; that ended well.
Your analysis of the role of 'scandal' in achieving change in healthcare, at least in the UK is woefully lacking. If anything health 'scandals' have frequently served to ossify the very structures that have produced bad practice, there's crtainly no evidence that they produce rapid change where there is underlying structural problems - you might want to start here:
http://drphilhammond.com/blog/2011/06/23/private-eye/private-eye-1291-medicine-balls-june-22-2011/
IVI
[You earlier stated:]
When we are talking ‘toe to toe’ – it’s not M.E/CFS advocacy against psychiatry, or even a minor school of psychiatry. The potential opposition would be a combination of all health professionals, and all scientists.
The logic of those who want to pursue advocacy via conflict is: that all M.E/CFS patient organisation should engage in a fight with psychiatry.