Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Define 'harm' ! Many interventions involve negative effects, if a certain number of people are helped, then health service providers are going to be attracted to that intervention. A 'they shall not pass' approach is unlikely to be persuassive, and something rather more tactical is needed if M.E/CFS patients are to impact upon what is offered by the NHS. On the face of it the Frenchay model looks somewhat more patient friendly than anything that came out of PACE, it may therefore be a useful negotiating reference.
Hard to define harm without just using terms like 'injury'. I don't think I'm using the term unusually though, so should be widely understood.
It's true that there does seem to be a strange resistance to the notion that people can be truly ill, and yet there is still no respectable way for doctors to make money out of treating them. Maybe this time of cutbacks might leave people more open to the possibility though. I wouldn't be that surprised if those medical staff facing cutbacks outside of CFS are a bit confused as to why money for CBT and GET for CFS should be found when their results are poor, and they are unpopular with so many of the patients who have tried them.
I don't know much about the patient voucher thing that is coming it, or how it will relate to CFS. Maybe that will give patients more choice over how funds are spent upon them, and letting those who think CBT and GET would be a good priority to decide that for themselves (I want a bouncy castle for an exercise aide... or maybe I could hire a doctor to churn out intimidating medical reports for the DWP).