The wording in the BMJ article is 'medical professional' and 'doctor' but I would be surprised if it did not apply to health care professionals generally. It would be interesting to know.
This will be an important part of my testimony to the NICE committee. I personally do not think CBT and GET for ME/CFS are ethical because they inevitably involve giving 'information' that is simply not true: i.e. telling the patient that there is reason to believe they will get better if they change attitude and do more activity, or, as Dr Gerada said, that we know the treatments are safe.
I think physios should be legally liable for misinformation just like doctors but the chain of responsibility may be quite complicated. Lack of knowledge in itself may be excusable. In the Montgomery case the issue was failing to provide information in the context of delivering a treatment because it was thought better the patient did not know. The problem at the moment is that physios are failing to provide patients with realistic information because they have been taught to think GET is beneficial.
Where I think physios themselves must be considered responsible is in a situation where it is widely known in their profession that the evidence for GET being effective and safe is unsound. That is where spreading the word amongst the profession would be very helpful.
