I have to disgree with this. Invoking the term 'psychological' invokes all sorts of problems, not just for those with ME/CFS/Fibromyalgia but for for those with depression, and ADHD and such too. The main problem in the case of ME/CFS/Fibromyalgia is that the 'psychological' label imposes the idea that the patient can't be trusted or isn't mentally able to know whether their symptoms got worse through exercise or other stimulus, and that the practitioner knows better (all whilst revoking the burden of proof regarding the practitioner's claims). This is a terrible state of affairs that needs to be changed.
I agree and understand that of course, but I think that's a much more difficult point to get across to the general public than the issue I was focusing on. You've expressed it very well indeed in this quote, and that's certainly a point worth making. I just think that in an article like that one in the Telegraph, highlighting the fact that the classification has a dramatic financial effect on medical insurance is more likely to have an effect. It's a fact, people aren't aware of it and they should be, and it clearly gives the lie to the idea that patients' concern about the issue is irrational.
Particularly when the likes of Wessely and White make the claim that patients are being naive and old-fashioned about 'mind-body dualism', it seems to me that it completely undermines that position when you point out that the people who are saying this are fully aware that a clear financial distinction is made between 'mind' and 'body' classification - and that they are fully aware of this because they are being paid by the very people who would have to pay out if ME were put in the 'body' side.
The thing is, this point about insurance is an incontrovertible fact. It's utterly disingenous and misleading for Wessely to make this argument that the distinction between mind and body is old-fashioned, and he is then
completely exposed when you point out that he
knows perfectly well that the distinction
is made by organisations that he and his colleagues all carry out work for, and that this distinction means they don't have to pay out purely because it is classified in this way. For me, that is an
absolute killer argument: there is simply no disputing it. It exposes the psychiatric lobby arguments about mind/body dualism as pure hypocrisy.
It may not be the most severe effect of the classification on most of us - well, it isn't - but it's a bottom line that exposes the psychiatric lobby's position - it's an incontrovertible fact that completely exposes their comments about mind/body dualism as a philosophical smokescreen to hide the financial realities. If we're trying to change opinion and win hearts and minds, we should be thinking more about what arguments are most effective, and less about what factors are most significant to us. We really need to be very pragmatic when thinking about what messages we want to project when we're entering the public debate. I could be wrong, but I think this particular point is the killer argument about the mind/body subjects this Telegraph article is pushing, so I'm suggesting that we should focus a bit more on getting that key fact across. The beauty of it is: it is a highly relevant fact, and it's one that people thinking about this issue are completely unaware of. If more people realised this was the case, I think that would change perspectives considerably.