The following may be mere non-quantitative opinion about prerogatives, but if it was my child with ME/CFS symptoms in the UK medical environment of psychologisation and dismissal, I would not be automatically assuming they need psychological treatment only because a healthcare professional issued a diagnosis of psychological ill health. Parents also have a responsibility to ensure that their child is given the best treatment available to them, but it is not necessarily clear to anyone involved what that is.
I certainly wasn't arguing that parents should have to accept diagnosis without question or that parents have no role in establishing the best medical treatment for their chidren - I was responding to the material in the Tymes Trust and BBC documents which start from a position of claim supported only by selective testimony. We don't know what the health status of any of the children of parents contributing to the TT and BBC material actually was, all we know is that parents were claiming that their children exclusively had M.E. The proposition from the parents/TT/BBC was that wrong or inappropriate interventions were forced on children solely because of medical prejudice over M.E - but we have no evidence to support this because the only source of material was parent testimony.
To be clear, I am not arguing that what the TT and BBC were focussing on, was without merit - undoubtedly children and young people with M.E/CFS have been as exposed to poor medical practice as much as, if not more than, adults with the condition. However that must not blind us to the difficulties that Paediatricians, GPs and Social Workers face when dealing with children and young people who have illnesses that are poorly understood, particularly where a working relationship with parents/carers may have proved difficult to establish. The reality is that in the UK at least, there is a legal and societal expection that professional intervention will take place where there is any suspicion of potential 'mis-care' by parents/carers that is likely to impact a child or young person's health. This is not M.E/CFS specific - it is the way current UK society is.
Whether one interprets the UK situation as the actions of an overbearing State, or a proper level of protection for children and young people is a matter of perspective. From the M.E/CFS point of view, progress will only be made in improving the situation for children and young people with M.E/CFS where change
that reflects wider societal and legal concerns is argued for. Coming up with a fanciful presentation of thousands of kids under threat of imposed secure unit in patient care (which is what some of the postings in this thread appear to amount to), is no basis to achieve real improvement for the treatment and support for children and young people with M.E/CFS, and their carers.
IVI