Is scotland separating ME and CFS?
I read the following from MEA website. Does anyone have further info on this?
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/?p=13117
Over the summer recess, a dispute had grown within one of the subgroups, which was escalated into a demand being placed before the MSPs that the full CPG vote on whether it restrict its remit to ME or expand it to ME/CFS.
The CPG on ME was set up recognising the benefit of emphasising ME over CFS or any hybrid terms of ME+CFS, while also recognising the need to include individual patients with a range of diagnostic labels between ME and CFS when developing service provision, and recognising the danger in sharing terms such as CFS/ME used by those opposed to proper recognition of ME.
The MSPs made it clear that they would not countenance exclusion of patients with a CFS diagnosis from the group’s remit, but acceded to the demand for the vote being placed to the CPG attendees without amendment. The faction who demanded the vote insisted that any inclusion of CFS would hand the remit of the group over to those opposed to proper recognition of ME.
At the CPG meeting on 19 September, it became clear that the basis for the vote was being misunderstood by some people who were not fully aware of the original reasoning in the group’ remit, and who believed in the danger claimed by those who authored the vote. But the MSPs also made clear their position regarding the options in the vote.
At the meeting, and by postal vote, a majority voted for the ‘ME only’ option while a smaller number (including Ewan Dale) abstained (on the basis that the existing remit better represented patients’ interest than either option), and a few voted for ‘ME/CFS’. So the group effectively voted to abandon its activities in the Scottish Parliament – in doing so leaving it open for those it is opposed to having unchallenged influence over development of health policy nominally covering ME.
CGP convenor, Mary Fee MSP, recognised that the vote was not necessarily properly explained or fully understood, and undertook to try to get that vote set aside and a second, properly-stated vote put to the membership, but she will need to persuade her fellow MSPs to accept that, and any future for the group is now hanging on this last decision.
I read the following from MEA website. Does anyone have further info on this?
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/?p=13117
Over the summer recess, a dispute had grown within one of the subgroups, which was escalated into a demand being placed before the MSPs that the full CPG vote on whether it restrict its remit to ME or expand it to ME/CFS.
The CPG on ME was set up recognising the benefit of emphasising ME over CFS or any hybrid terms of ME+CFS, while also recognising the need to include individual patients with a range of diagnostic labels between ME and CFS when developing service provision, and recognising the danger in sharing terms such as CFS/ME used by those opposed to proper recognition of ME.
The MSPs made it clear that they would not countenance exclusion of patients with a CFS diagnosis from the group’s remit, but acceded to the demand for the vote being placed to the CPG attendees without amendment. The faction who demanded the vote insisted that any inclusion of CFS would hand the remit of the group over to those opposed to proper recognition of ME.
At the CPG meeting on 19 September, it became clear that the basis for the vote was being misunderstood by some people who were not fully aware of the original reasoning in the group’ remit, and who believed in the danger claimed by those who authored the vote. But the MSPs also made clear their position regarding the options in the vote.
At the meeting, and by postal vote, a majority voted for the ‘ME only’ option while a smaller number (including Ewan Dale) abstained (on the basis that the existing remit better represented patients’ interest than either option), and a few voted for ‘ME/CFS’. So the group effectively voted to abandon its activities in the Scottish Parliament – in doing so leaving it open for those it is opposed to having unchallenged influence over development of health policy nominally covering ME.
CGP convenor, Mary Fee MSP, recognised that the vote was not necessarily properly explained or fully understood, and undertook to try to get that vote set aside and a second, properly-stated vote put to the membership, but she will need to persuade her fellow MSPs to accept that, and any future for the group is now hanging on this last decision.