Tom Kindlon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,734
[Abstract from the IACFS/ME 2016 Conference]
ME/CFS: Discrimination Within Social Institutions
Geoffrey Hallmann, Dr Rosanne Coutts, Dr Yvonne Hartmann
Southern Cross University
OBJECTIVES: To examine the nature and impact of discrimination experienced by persons with ME/CFS when engaged in interactions with social institutions.
METHOD: The initial phase of the research involved a thorough review of the available literature to establish the interaction of those with ME/CFS with social institutions. Social institutions are the complex social forms that are found within governments, family, universities, hospitals, incorporated entities, legal systems and other social structures and organisations. This paper focuses on the incidence, nature and effect of discriminatory behaviour that participants experience during interactions with social institutions..
In the data collection phase, a pilot study involving an investigation of the Australian perspective of the experience of ME/CFS was obtained. This was expanded in the main study and participants were provided the opportunity to reveal their stories. Participants were required to have a diagnosis of CFS, ME or ME/CFS from a medical practitioner and self-select themselves as compliant to the Fukuda CFS Criteria, Canadian ME/CFS Criteria and Ramsay ME Criteria.
A background questionnaire was provided to give an insight into the history of the participant, particularly interactions with social institutions and pathways to diagnosis. The interview drew upon the questionnaire for guidance, with the primary questions derived from information gained from the literature review. The interviews were transcribed, coded and the relationships and issues identified in order to guide the second phase of the research which was conducted further into the study.
The pilot study involved 3 participants, followed by a second, more comprehensive phase comprising 16 participants. Stories emerged from within those interviews with respect to interactions with society and these were broken down to reveal particular themes relevant to those experiences.
RESULTS:
A total of 19 interviews were conducted. The average age of participants was 41.95 with all 14 females and 5 male participants. The mean duration of the condition was 17.66 years, with 8.35 years from onset until diagnosis. A number of issues arose, revealing an insight into the nature of the relationships that exist between persons with ME/CFS and various social institutions. Participants reported interactions that were both positive and negative. Such interactions were directly impacted by the diagnosis of ME/CFS. All participants had experienced some form of discrimination, with the majority being negative discrimination. Within these experiences, issues such as knowledge and understanding of the condition played a significant role in the discriminatory interaction. Misconceptions about the condition played a primary role. Abuse (verbal, physical and mental), withholding or withdrawal of goods and services, individual avoidance, social isolation, adverse employment decision, prescription of no or inappropriate treatment and the like were levelled against participants throughout their experiences. The ability to take action against discrimination was limited because of the effects of the condition and/or a lack of knowledge or desire to go about it.
CONCLUSION:
Participants with ME/CFS who engaged with social institutions were subject to various factors (such as abuse, attitudes, behaviours, comments, misinformation, misunderstandings, beliefs and policies) that directly or indirectly arise because of their diagnosis and the contested nature of the condition.
These factors play an important role in the form of discrimination that participants experienced across all social institutions. Positive discrimination was provided in the form of assistance, management, attitudes, comments and accommodations. Participants revealed circumstances in which discrimination was negative, including the refusal of assistance or accommodation, derogatory comments, malicious treatment and behaviours, inappropriate physical environments (due to noise, smells, access, furniture, line ups, public transport, etc.), inappropriate policies or procedures (eg onerous requirements, poor time frames, inability to be accessed remotely) or misinformed statements, treatment that was adverse (ie insufficient, inappropriate, adverse, deficient or damaging, and resulted consequences that were harmful to the physical, emotional or other interests of the participant). Of significance was the incidence of bullying behaviour that was associated with discrimination.
Those with more visible symptoms and presentation of ME/CFS (ie wheelchair and bed bound) received greater assistance at times, while those with more invisible symptoms and presentation found access to assistance a more difficult and at times impossible task.
Negative experiences had an adverse impact upon the person’s condition as well as their emotional wellbeing On occasions the impact and effect was sufficient to constitute trauma. The ability to respond to discriminatory practices was limited by knowledge of process and procedure, the health constrictions that impact the ability to take action, the availability of advocates to assist in such action, and the knowledge of the condition of those taking the action or making decisions. On no occasion was a participant able to follow through on a formal anti-discrimination complaint.
