Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by natasa778, Nov 28, 2016.
It would be interesting to know more about this. It seems quite significant.
I guess the fact that the MoD didn't disclose documents was a big reason for the result. But still, for compensation of that magnitude to be suggested by the judge, it required her to recognise Mr Eaglesham's CFS condition is very serious and not able to be easily fixed (e.g. with a bit of CBT and GET).
I've read that if you have Q fever for over 6 months (there's that 6 month deadline again) it's is called chronic Q fever.
"The 35 year old now has very serious chronic fatigue syndrome which is a well-known consequence of Q fever."
Here's another article about it http://www.somersetcountygazette.co...rving_wins_landmark_legal_battle_against_MoD/
From the CDC entry on Q Fever - http://www.cdc.gov/qfever/symptoms/index.html
I had seen this story and initially thought it was setting an interesting precedent. After a bit of thought though I would guess the argument would be it only applies as a precedent if we can show that we had Q Fever prior to our own chronic fatigue syndrome.
Disclaimer: I have no legal training so could be totally wrong.
Interesting development. You might want to put (UK) in the Title @natasa778 , quit a few Plymouths here in the USA
Some Q-fever ME/CFS studies:
Post-infection fatigue syndrome following Q fever
Chronic fatigue syndrome after Q fever
A comparison of patients with Q fever fatigue syndrome and patients with chronic fatigue syndrome with a focus on inflammatory markers and possible fatigue perpetuating cognitions and behaviour
Esther's FITNET buddies claim that they could help the Q fever victim reduce his fatigue by their behavioural interventions.
From @Apple's post above:
All power to Mr Eaglesham.
There is the Dubbo prospective study that followed people with Q fever, Ross River fever and glandular fever in an Australian town.
So I think that a strong case can be made that the CFS condition following Q fever is the same or similar to that following a range of other infections.
This guy was interviewed on Adrian Chiles' show on BBC Radio 5 this morning. If you're in the UK you can find it on the iPlayer - interview starts around 9 minutes in. He's mostly talking about a new kind of wheelchair he's invented but he starts of talking about the illness.
It is funny how if your ME/CFS started as a result of someone's negligence or through somebody's professional actions, you can get awarded $millions. We have seen this before, for example with the $1.1 million cash award plus lifetime medical care expenses paid out in the case of a patient whose ME/CFS was triggered by hepatitis B vaccination. Ref: 1 2
Whereas if your ME/CFS started because you caught an ME/CFS-triggering virus via somebody coughing or sneezing on you, you are entitled to nothing.
Philosophically, I always find that hard to comprehend, even though I understand the legalities of negligence. I am certainly not begrudging anyone who does get awarded such legal compensations — we know very well that they deserve it, and need it in order to live with their disabilities. Best wishes to them.
And it is great and very important that the courts are seemingly recognizing how debilitating and life destroying ME/CFS can be at the moderate to severe levels of disease severity.
But if each of us with ME/CFS were given awards like that, it would for example allow us to pursue expensive but often effective treatments such as Ampligen ($25,000 a year) or rituximab ($50,000 for the first year).
Also for many of us the prognosis would probably have been much better with an early diagnosis and appropriate support.
I wonder whether there is a legal negligence case against NHS, the government, or some other UK professional medical institutions regarding their inaction on the demonstrated association between enterovirus (coxsackievirus B and echovirus) and ME/CFS. There are numerous studies showing this clear association to enteroviruses, dating back to at least 1970.
Since this link between coxsackievirus B / echovirus and ME/CFS is well known, action should have been taken, especially in the form of a coxsackievirus B vaccine.
A coxsackievirus B vaccine is a very feasible proposition, and would have very likely prevented millions of cases of ME/CFS. This thread details several studies which concluded that creating a coxsackievirus B vaccine would straightforward and technically feasible.
(It is not always easy to create vaccines for viruses, due to technical difficulties inherent with particular viruses. For example, with HIV and EBV, there are major technical hurdles to overcome before you can create vaccines; but for coxsackievirus B, there are apparently no such technical difficulties, so there is no excuse for not having organized a CVB vaccine to be formulated and added to the UK vaccine schedule.)
Thus I wonder if there is a legal case that could be prosecuted against the NHS or the UK government for not creating and introducing a coxsackievirus B (and echovirus) vaccine?
A new law in the UK allows US-style class action lawsuits to be prosecuted in the UK. I imagine if the 250,000 UK ME/CFS patients got together on this one.
It would also greatly incentivize the relevant governments to develop effective treatments. But as it stands, they can avoid investing in research, avoid paying for real testing and treatments of patients, avoid compensating patients, and try very hard to avoid paying for disability benefits.
yeah we definitely need more ME/CFS law suits to get the governments off their arses and start funding our research.
The problem is that governments and agencies usually can't be sued, at least in the US. The theory is that it isn't necessary to sue them, because change can be implemented via voting for different political candidates. But bad PR can also be effective.
I'd think more so not easily sued rather then cant be sued. Its taken me ages to be able to get any kind of legal aid to get a court case going against my state government depts. for ME/CFS discrimination as they didn't offer the normal legal aid routes if you want to take them to court eg no normal free legal aid seeing it was against gov. Many gov legal places aren't even allowed to offer legal advice if its against the gov.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.