Choline on the Brain? A Guide to Choline in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
http://phoenixrising.me/research-2/the-brain-in-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-mecfs/choline-on-the-brain-a-guide-to-choline-in-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-by-cort-johnson-aug-2005
Discuss the article on the Forums.

The Significance to ME/CFS of the Landmark Change to the UK Law on Consent.

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Countrygirl, Dec 30, 2015.

  1. Countrygirl

    Countrygirl Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,343
    Likes:
    17,418
    UK
    https://www.facebook.com/notes/rosi...the-uk-law-on-consent-stephe/1015971038446096

    The Significance to ME/CFS of the Landmark Change to the UK Law on Consent. Stephen Ralph 30th Dec 2015

    (14)
     
    Woolie, Skippa and Chrisb like this.
  2. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,949
    England (south coast)
    Valentijn and Countrygirl like this.
  3. Daisymay

    Daisymay Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    Likes:
    4,026
    In the article I did say:

    "All doctors, researchers and health professionals who have for years prescribed CBT/GET without fully informing patients of risks, alternative treatments etc have been in breach of these GMC guidelines on consent."

    I'm sorry but I wasn't meaning to encourage anyone to take action through the GMC or legally if they had been harmed with CBT/GET in the past, prior to this change in the law, I was merely stating a fact.

    And when I went on to quote from the IOM report it wasn't right after that sentence or in the context of that sentence. There was a clear break in the article and a new section.

    I'm not a lawyer so this is just my understanding, I think it would be very difficult indeed for anyone to take action retrospectively on the basis of breach of the 1998 GMC guidelines on consent if they had been made worse with CBT/GET.

    How would patients be able to prove to the GMC or in a court of law that they hadn't been told of risks? It would be their word against the doctor unless there is documentation, a consent form which clearly shows they weren't warned of all material risks.

    But even if they had, what objective evidence, tests of before and after, would patients have that they had been made worse? A patients word wouldn't count.

    And the biomedical evidence from years ago, there would be no IOM report to say ME/CFS is a serious physical disease.

    Plus it would be argued the doctors were following the NICE guide lines which had gone through a judicial review to show they were OK etc etc.

    And how would anyone get funding to take a case? Or who could afford to take a case ?

    I'm sorry but I think to even contemplate taking any action would be very unwise and nigh on impossible.
     
    Countrygirl likes this.
  4. minkeygirl

    minkeygirl But I Look So Good.

    Messages:
    4,678
    Likes:
    4,649
    Left Coast
    If this was in the US, where people sue McDonald's for leaving a pickle off their burger, people for sure would sue if for no other reason than to embarrass them and bring it to light. And attorneys would take the cases pro Bono for the attention/notariety.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page