-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
(Daily Telegraph) “How I became a target for the ME militants” by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick
- Thread starter Dolphin
- Start date
Dx Revision Watch
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
My understanding is that there was a single injunction against an individual*.
An individual subsequently removed content from the internet or it was removed by the hosting platform.
*Prof Sir Simon Wessely is on record as having stated in a media article that an injunction was taken out against an individual.
Edited for clarity.
An individual subsequently removed content from the internet or it was removed by the hosting platform.
*Prof Sir Simon Wessely is on record as having stated in a media article that an injunction was taken out against an individual.
Edited for clarity.
Last edited:
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It somehow gets newspapers to publish whiney grievances op-eds as if they're a news report so hard to fault them for abusing a formula that works 100% of the time. You do have to question why a newspaper would publish a whiny grievance op-ed of no journalistic value, though, that's the inexplicable part. Rants like this go on personal blogs, normally.
So the question is whose dirty hand was behind this, and why did a newspaper editor comply with such a ridiculous stunt?
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Since they can't really help themselves and always reveal what they consider to be harassment, criticism for things they did, it really sounds like they're asking not to be held responsible as they exert power over other people. The opposite side of power is responsibility, without responsibility there can be no accountability, the lack of which is how things have been FUBAR for several decades.
The whole point of a profession is that there is responsibility attached to it, derived from the power it grants people who practice it. Without the responsibility part, well, you get what we have now: complete and total disaster. So by all means if they don't want to be held responsible for anything that's OK, but that means not participating, in effect voiding their contributions so far, because when millions of lives are the topic at hand, it's simply not an option for the people making those decisions to be completely detached from any accountability.
When an engineer signs on a plan and that plan is later revealed to have been flawed, they are held legally responsible and can even be criminally prosecuted if it's found that they knew enough and failed to respond. That this is completely missing from medicine is simply absurd and cannot go on, if anything it's the profession that demands the highest level of responsibility attached to exerting their power. Anyone who doesn't want their name signed to their work can simply find a hobby elsewhere.
Barry
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Because these folk are world class at networking (it is their key skill, because it gets them lots of what they want) and because newspapers are the first to fall for this tripe. Most of them just care about their circulation figures I suspect, little to do with any sense of professionalism.
ETA: And part of their networking skill is to obfuscate their involvement in any of it. Choreographing others is how they operate.
Judgement is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/452.html I think item 34 answers your questions but I've only skim read today for the first time in years. The whole approach of the claimants was pretty much a 'how not to' example of seeking JR.
As a wholly off topic aside - an RCP cadre Munira Mirza is currently serving the nation well: https://goodlawproject.org/update/testing-tory-fixer-matt-hancock/
Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Thanks for that @CRG .Very helpful.
The most significant quote from Simon seems to be from this
The most significant quote from Simon seems to be from this
Afterword
- I have already expressed my concern at the nature of the allegations that were made against members of the GDG. There are two points that arise from the Claimants' approach to this litigation.
- First, unfounded as they were, the allegations were damaging to those against whom they were made; and were such as may cause health professionals to hesitate before they involve themselves in this area of medicine. A perception that this is an area of medicine where contrary views are not to be voiced, and where scientific enquiry is to be limited, is damaging to science and harmful to patients.
- Secondly, these types of allegation may also have the effect of putting people off from serving on GDGs. Professor Baker expressed this concern at §26 of his 2nd witness statement.
... I would also like to note that the fact that such allegations have been made in legal proceedings, and the fact that the individuals involved have had to submit their own version of events to the court in witness statements in order to defend themselves means that it is likely that they will think twice before being GDG members again. There is a real danger that health professionals will become reluctant to serve in GDGs again.
The comment is fair; and explains the robust approach taken by NICE in defending these proceedings.
Andy
Retired committee member
I'm afraid that I have no idea what your first sentence means, due to the use of what appears to be very obscure language. My guess would be you are using legal terms in Latin but it doesn't help my understanding.
For my benefit, and the benefit of others, please could you avoid the use of such language where it is possible, life with brain fog is bad enough with out having such mental challenges crop up.
The ratio decidendi is the rationale for a decision in a case, which is binding as precedent on decisions made in lower courts. Obiter dicta are other things said by a judge that do not form part of the ratio decidendi, so things said by the way or 'in passing'. Stare decisis is the principle by which judges must follow precedent established by previous decisions. Obiter dicta is not binding but may be persuasive in coming to judgements in other cases.
Last edited:
Forbin
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Hoopoe
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
From what I understood the Spiked group views ME as good example of medicalization of personal problems. They think ME is a fig leaf that people use to cover up other, non-medical problems.
In this world view, the mistreatment of patients makes sense because patients must not be rewarded for expecting doctors to solve their non-medical problems. The obsession with finding a hidden psychological cause of the illness also makes sense.
They think they're helping patients take responsibility for their own problems.
In this world view, the mistreatment of patients makes sense because patients must not be rewarded for expecting doctors to solve their non-medical problems. The obsession with finding a hidden psychological cause of the illness also makes sense.
They think they're helping patients take responsibility for their own problems.
Last edited:
Authoritarianism / totalitarianism. This is conceptualised as the horseshoe theory although this has been criticised as overly simplistic.
how about the science media centre
Thank you for that there is something really wrong with that guy just have a look at the following from your link:
He is trying to say that my is not a physical disease despite all the abnormalities because:
"On the other hand, there is also a long list of conditions that were once believed to have an organic cause but are now considered to have a psychosocial basis:...and, most notoriously, drapetomania (the inexplicable tendency of slaves in the American South to run away from their masters)." So according to him it is inexplicable that slaves want to have their freedom back.