David Tuller: Trial By Error: Steve Brine's Troubling Claim in Parliamentary Debate on ME

Link to the above: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2019-0014/CDP-2019-0014.pdf

 

Maybe. But there are other explanations too. As the material proves rather embarrassing it could be a covert attempt to undermine as the material is in fact relevant to a briefing. Or coming from a busy bureaucrat it could be that knowing nothing of the topic they simply researched what was needed without actually reading anything. So if it was requested to find whether their was material available for GP education they simply looked around for said material, found it, and included it and moved on.

Either way, they certainly did us a favour. And now the site is have 'issues'.

ETA: I see you had a further post on the subject with other possibilities.

 

Thank you @ladycatlover, I had not read the briefing though I was aware of it. So it seems this was the main basis of Brine's statement, over and above him having seen Unrest.

 

The briefing was mentioned in another thread here - I must apologise to whoever posted it for not acknowledging their very useful input. Brainfog and shutting down browser completely my poor excuse. But the PDF of the briefing remained as not in web browser but just an open file. I think I'd better save it to hard drive!

 

https://www.s4me.info/threads/uk-pa...ay-24th-january-2019.7826/page-12#post-138438

"curiouser and curiouser"
@dave30th shall we call you Alice now?

 

It may be because they didn't realise this training could (currently) be accessed free by any member of the public. I originally subscribed to the RCGP site to try to access their GP training on autism, because the autistic self-advocacy community are aware of the problems of many such 'basic' courses being full of stereotyping, over-simplification of complex issues and potentially harmful advice etc.. However, I just can't bring myself to cough up the £55 I'd have to pay to access the autism training e-course, knowing that it will probably induce stress, anger and other negative emotions.

 

So, after hearing that current exercise recommendations are like telling a frostbite patient to walk through the snow, the Public Health Minister's response was, effectively, "Don't worry. I've checked and we've got plenty of snow"?

 

That's the problem with flawed assumptions, it makes good judgment impossible, even in well-meaning people. Anyone looking at the material before being satisfied that it is worth touting would not know that it is bad and never think it may be problematic. The same thing could have happened with training material that describes the psychosomatic model of peptic ulcers before H. Pylori was shown to be the cause.

And anyway it takes some digging and prior knowledge to make the connection to the course being based on FINE and being aware that FINE showed no useful treatment effect (despite playing on easy mode and using cheat codes). Science works because it is self-correcting. When the most basic ability to self-correct is broken, this is what happens. It's always disastrous and will not improve until flawed assumptions are taken out behind the shed and double-tapped for good measure.

There's probably some analogue to Dunning-Kruger where instead of skill, it's flawed assumptions that make it impossible to find error in judgment. Same outcome, just a different path to failure.

 

Hopefully he didn't mean it addresses the misconceptions of the 27 other MPs who spoke. Surely he didn't mean that. He couldn't.

I suspect the UK government got exactly what they ordered. They may now be examining ways to plausibly deny it and look shocked and horrified. That will probably have to involve throwing certain people under a bus. Or appearing to throw a few people under a bus.

Ahem. Bus. Ahem.

Perhaps @dave30th's series of blog posts should be re-named Trial by Ordeal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal

Past form has shown that the BPS crew really are capable of shooting themselves in the foot like that.

 

I think you are correct, there do not appear to be any UK laws that protect patients from having their benefits removed if they refuse treatments. However, according to an article in The Telegraph (see link below) in 2014 there were rules to protect patients:

I have yet to establish whether the above rule is still in place. However, the focus of this Telegraph article is about “moves towards potential reform” (of this rule) “in order to reduce the “huge” numbers of people who are declared unfit for work due to mental health problems”. The article then describes how the government was launching some pilot trials to “test ways of combining treatment for mental health problems with support to find work”. These pilot trials went ahead in job centres across the UK.

I don’t know the outcome of these trials or whether these “potential reforms” ever occurred or if they are still in discussion. It would be great if someone could shed some light on this if anyone knows!

Some other interesting perspectives from the article:

My bolding.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...ants-who-refuse-treatment-for-depression.html

 

Are they now trying to present DWP driven rehabilitation as something that is distinct from medical 'treatment' that require informed and freely given consent?

 

And indeed, when should enforced rehabilitation be undertaken without medical oversight? Is it even legal?

 

I see it as them trying to sit on both sides of the fence -

On one side they want CBT to be given the gravitas of rigorously trialled medical treatments. In which case there should be detailed evidence of safety and efficacy.

On the other it's not a medical intervention. It's just a talking therapy and can't, in any shape or form, do any harm. Which also undermines the arguments of efficacy and means there's not justification for the health service or anyone else spending money in it.

 

On second thoughts perhaps the laws which give patients the right to refuse treatments should protect them from having their benefits cut if they refuse treatments. In which case the DWP would be breaking the law if it was cutting benefits for this reason. I guess it would really depend on how this law is interpreted. Is there anyone with a legal background who would like to weigh in on this? It would be jolly helpful to clarify whether or not the DWP are operating outside of the law on this matter!

 

We made some enquiries last year via our MP Ed Davey after questions were raised in a local ME support group. This is the answer he received.

ETA: struggling to get this to open. Will try to find another way of posting the response.

ETA2: cannot get whole link across but substance is below, and in view of relevance to the discussion have just posted this. Apologies for the delay.

‘6th June 2018

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your email of 16th May..........


I appreciate your constituents’ concerns and can advise them that neither our Assessment Providers nor Departmental decision makers use GET to assess claimants with ME/CFS when determining benefit entitlements.

.............

From Rt Hon Esther McVeigh’