@ In Vitro Infidelium - please read the TYMES Trust reports links that I have posted.... as you appear to be in denial of the facts re the ongoing mistreatment of children with ME.
“In denial” – where would you be without Freud ?
I’ve rather lost track of all of the fallacies that you’ve added to this thread, but the most egregious is that of conflating the particular with the general. Yes there have been individual cases where young people have been treated appallingly – this was not primarily a failing of M.E/CFS care, but a grotesque failing of mental health care for young people throughout the UK – it is what the
CAMHS was developed to address, and which hopefully has begun to make a difference. The limited number of apparently M.E/CFS related cases that the BBC and Tymes Trust identified either in 1999 or since, does not amount to some grand generality of harm – it remains what it is an indictment of particular lapses in standards of care in particular circumstances.
Please note - that due to the secrecy of the Family Courts, it was only when mothers of cot death children were accused of the criminal offense of murdering their babies, and heared in open criminal courts, that the 'pernicious' 'theories without science' of Professor Roy Meadows (MSBP) were exposed to wider analysis and found to be dangerous. The mothers in those criminal cases were found to be innocent - the charges against them being one of the biggest medical scandals of our time.
Family Courts are not ‘secret’ – they operate in closed session for entirely sound reasons. Again you are using the fallacy of conflating the particular with the general, the failings of Roy Meadows and the Court system that led to wrongful convictions do not have wider implications. Crap things happen and relation to Meadows the legal system has shown itself capable of adjustment. But the Meadows case tells us nothing about children and young people who may not receive the healthiest nurturing from their own families – this will remain a profoundly difficult area and it is absurd to believe that a claim of M.E/CFS can mean families are exempt from medical and social worker attention.
.
An exclusive survey for the BBC's Panorama found that 60% of families of children with CFS were told their symptoms were a result of psychological problems.
ME children treated as mentally ill
Children suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) are being pressurised into having psychological treatment which may not be appropriate, according to a BBC survey.
Some 25,000 children in the UK are estimated to be suffered from the syndrome, also known as M.E. (myalgic encephalomyelitis), and it is recognised by the Department of Health.
In a disproportionate number of cases, doctors had suggested that the children's parents had Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy - a condition which causes parents to harm or fake symptoms of illness in their children in order to gain attention.
Some who had opposed psychological treatment for their children had been threatened with having them taken into care.
NB: 60% of 25,000 = 15,000. Please bear in mind the figure 25,000 is a 1999 figure. New cases of ME/CFS are diagnosed every week.
The figures:
(1) No one knows what the prevalence rate of M.E/CFS is in under 18s (16 is often a service level boundary point) in the UK. The 25,000 figure appears justified as a calculation of 10% of the estimated 250,000 total prevalence.
(2) 60% of a derivation from an estimate equals what ? However one employs mathematics, no meaningful answer can be arrived at, it’s just heaping uncertainty on top of uncertainty.
(3) Incidence (new cases) does not of itself equal increased prevalence – with an age limited measure, even if recovery or death do not occur, the patient gets older and passes out of the count. For increased incidence to lead to increased prevalence, incidence has to surpass the combined recovery and death rates, or otherwise the rate of aging in the patient population if the measure is age limited.
(4) 60% of families: That is 60% who responded to a survey – self selection in such a case favours a highly biased contribution set.
The claims:
(1)
(a)
60% of families of children with CFS were told their symptoms were a result of psychological problems. >
(b)
Some 25,000 children in the UK are estimated to be suffered from the syndrome, also known as M.E. (myalgic encephalomyelitis), and it is recognised by the Department of Health.
A gross false equivalence is presented – the diagnosis given at (a) has no quantitative relationship to (b). A reasoned deduction of what is stated at (a) is not that 60% of the survey reported children wrongly diagnosed – but that 60% of the survey consisted of parents with children who been given a diagnosis of mental ill health – while the parents preferred their own diagnosis of M.E .
(2)
Children suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) are being pressurised into having psychological treatment which may not be appropriate, according to a BBC survey.
This is a circular and semantic proposition. If the diagnosis is one of psychological ill health, then psychological treatment would be appropriate and pressure would not be an issue it would be a matter of medical responsibility for the health professionals (as required by law) to ensure that a young person was given the best treatment available.
(3
) In a disproportionate number of cases, doctors had suggested that the children's parents had Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy - a condition which causes parents to harm or fake symptoms of illness in their children in order to gain attention.
If true this should be a source of continuing concern because of the very narrow reference frame of the legitimacy of MSP diagnosis – but this is not a specific M.E/CFS issue and burying it within M.ECFS is unlikely to achieve clarity for anyone.
(4)
Of all the (disproportiately large numbers of) families of children with ME being subjected to unneccessary child protection investigations over decades, not one case has been proven or accepted as cases of abuse. ie the children were officially accepted as medically ill. But only after horrendous legal battles.
Where do these assertions come from – none of the Tymes Trust material states how many people comprise its survey panels, so by what definition is disproportionate arrived at ? In fact nothing in Tymes Trust work appears to have quantitative validity.
IVI