First a disclaimer. I have no legal training, but can read and sometimes but not always correctly interpret some of the meaning in what I read.
The link below takes you to a very simple and clearly set out description of the rules and guidance Coroners have to follow in order to arrive at their conclusions.
https://www.hempsons.co.uk/news-articles/how-coroners-arrive-at-their-conclusions/?cn-reloaded=1
Her conclusion (finding of fact) with regard to cause of death is that M died from Natural Causes ie
Malnutrition as a result of the disease severe ME.
This is an unambiguous finding of fact that M’s death is ‘the normal progression of a natural disease or illness, where a naturally recurring disease runs its full course without any significant amount of medical care or human intervention’.
As to the question of Neglect the guidance make it plain there is a very high bar to clear in relation to establishing that not providing or providing any particular medical care was a definitive causative factor in the patient's death. I have not seen or read all the Coroners determination of the facts with regard to this, but consider it is reasonable for me to infer from the physical cause of death verdict given and her finding of no Neglect, that she considers that M died from a physical disease for which the cause is unknown and that there are no known treatments that can universally prevent that final outcome.
From what I have seen reported it indicates she considers that without knowing causation of the disease and symptoms, all the possible treatments considered were untested and experimental in nature, especially with regard to the presentation of multiple intolerances which are a feature of the disease ME. M physically exhibited those intolerances reacting badly to the Hospital environment and the treatments actually tried. They therefore carried unknown, substantial risks and burdens in that no one could predict success or that M might not be made worse by them. The distinction between the greater freedom of action that Dr Weir as an independent Consultant may have in his prescribing to that of the Hospital staff who must stick more to established protocols is, I think, a valid fact for the Coroner to draw out in this regard.
I am fully aware that some patients are prepared to take considerable risks (we did in desperate circumstances) and fully respect their prerogative to do so with those medics prepared to bear the risks in so treating them.
For me the Coroner has made a clear legal finding of fact that ME is without doubt a natural physical disease leading to death when running its full course. That was the finding of fact (without an inquest) agreed by a different Coroner when my wife died of Inanition (Starvation) due to ME in a Hospice in October 2019.
The current Coroner has also, I believe (from the reporting I have seen) found as fact that there is no known universal successful treatment, and that ‘unevidenced’ medical care (whether psychological or biological) for ME may add to the suffering and burdens born by the patient. She has indicated she may well have recommendations to address this situation if the evidence to be presented in late September indicates this and other concerns has not already been sufficiently addressed.
ME is a very complex serious illness with no easy answers. As many on here keep pointing out we need good scientific studies to quickly test and validate possible treatment suggestions for ME before they are mandated for wide use. The current system of, well try this or that or anecdote only muddies the waters. It added considerably to the burdens carried by my late wife and others. The BPS treatments of curative GET and CBT are a huge example of this. We should not repeat this example in biological medical care which means getting medical science interest and the research grants to do the job.
This Coroners findings of facts and others before her will help open ‘medical eyes’ to the physical reality of ME and its natural course in those who unfortunately go on to develop sME.
