.
Complaint to the PCC by the ME Association about the 2011 Telegraph article by Max Pemberton (Psychiatrist and media doctor):
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/2011/11/9393/
ME Association 2011:
Our complaint against the Daily Telegraph rejected by the Press Complaints Commission
The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has rejected a complaint from the ME Association about an article by Dr Max Pemberton which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on August 29 at the height of the ME research ‘death threats’ saga – while upholding the right of newspapers to publish commentaries that are clearly distinguished from fact.
The PCC ruling was issued on 11 November but held back by us while we checked out whether a confusing confidentiality clause attached to it was intended to have a gagging effect.
The PCC ruled that an earlier online version of the article – in which Dr Pemberton wrote that the MEA was being “disingenuous” in claiming that there had been virtually no government-funded research into the illness – and a later version which appeared in the printed paper itself, where this reference had been removed, had both conformed to its Code of Practice.
The PCC stated: “…the columnist was fully entitled to express his views and the Commission did not consider that the reasons given for this view were significantly inaccurate or misleading such as to constitute a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy). Although it did not establish the claim represented a breach of the Code, the Commission welcomed the newspaper’s decision to remove it from the version published in the newspaper and ultimately published on the website.”
While the cause and treatment of ME/CFS remained highly contentious, both sides were entitled to express very different opinions and no “significant” inaccuracies were published, said the PCC.
The PCC noted that, while the Daily Telegraph had failed to publish any letters in response to the article in the printed edition, that did not in itself represent a breach of the Code of Practice. The selection of material for publication was a matter for the discretion of individual editors.
A PCC official confirmed to us on November 25 that we were free to publish the Commission’s decision. The confidentiality clause was used to try and protect the complaints process while complaints were under investigation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The 2011 Telegraph article by Max Pemberton (Psychiatrist and media doctor), which the PCC ruled did not breach PCC rules:
On-line copy
‘Protesters have got it all wrong on ME’
‘That people feel threatened by the idea that ME has a psychological component says a lot about the stigma of mental illness.
By Max Pemberton 7:30AM BST 27 Aug 2011
‘It might seem strange that a group of doctors would be subjected to harassment, bullying and death threats for attempting to help people. Even more baffling if the death threats should come from the very people they were trying to help.
Yet earlier this month, Prof Simon Wessely, a doctor and pioneering researcher into ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis), disclosed that he and other scientists working on the condition had received death threats from a small group of protesters who have ME.
In addition, the protesters have made complaints to the General Medical Council, universities and ethics committees – all of which have been proved to be baseless – in an attempt to disrupt further work.
The reason for their behaviour is that research is focusing on the psychological basis of the condition; as a result of the findings, ME is now considered to have a significant psychiatric component. While the protesters represent only a tiny fraction of those with ME, it is true to say that many others feel strongly about the suggestion that it has any basis in psychology at all.
Symptoms of ME include extreme fatigue and muscle pain. Sufferers are often bed-bound or have to use wheelchairs. Many claim that their condition is the result of a viral infection or exposure to environmental toxins. Research to date has failed to support conclusively this hypothesis, much to the chagrin of sufferers who feel frustrated and angry that doctors remain sceptical that this is the actual cause.
The ME Association, while condemning the death threats, said that sufferers have a justifiable complaint, as almost no ongoing government-funded research is looking into the bio-medical basis of the disease. This is disingenuous.
Firstly, research is being carried out into the viral aspect, with the Medical Research Council backing a recent study into precisely this.
In addition, years of research have already been undertaken, and has produced underwhelming, inconclusive results to support a bio-medical cause. It wasn’t until psychiatrists such as Prof Wessely started treating the condition as a mental illness that real progress was made.
The current gold standard for treatment is a combination of supervised exercise and talking therapies. A major British trial published in The Lancet found that at least one in three patients with ME recovered using this approach. The biggest hurdle faced by doctors is persuading people to actually attend and engage with treatment. They resist because they refuse to be seen as mentally unwell. It does seem bizarre that those with such a debilitating disease would refuse treatment because it was given by a psychiatrist.
Most people are more than happy to be seen by any specialist. If you have a painful knee, for example, you might be seen by a rheumatologist and an orthopaedic surgeon. If the condition was seen as involving one more than the other, that would never be considered evidence that no one was taking you seriously, or that your welfare was undermined.
Microbiologists and immunologists have been unable to help ME patients, and so psychiatrists have become involved.
But that is considered outrageous. People refuse to go to outpatient appointments and refuse treatment, despite evidence that it works. Accusations are thrown around that the medical profession is not taking them seriously. But just because doctors frame a condition in terms the sufferer does not like does not mean doctors are not taking it seriously.
That people feel threatened by the idea that ME has a psychological component says a lot about the stigma of mental illness.
It’s an attitude that dogs the lives of many people living with mental health problems. Yet, for me, a psychological explanation is a very real one. It doesn’t mean someone is faking it; it doesn’t mean the illness does not exist. It also does not mean that people should be able simply to pull their socks up and get better, or that is under conscious control. However, it is testament to the complexity of the brain that the mind is capable of such stark physical symptoms.
As a model for understanding a condition, it’s as valid as any other.’
