InfiniteRubix
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Definitely. That word "gain" is wrong, even net arithmetically due to other debits that occur... The whole concept is dangerous are requires extreme care and caveating in the context of ME's history.I think insensitive use of language needs to be called out when it happens, so they can be made aware of it and try to improve.
However, there has been a tendency in some materials from the MEA to play down the more severe difficulties of living with ME and try to 'look on the bright side' which some may find helpful, but many others find upsetting and crassly insensitive. I think insensitive use of language needs to be called out when it happens, so they can be made aware of it and try to improve.
Agreed - suggestions for improvement need to be made. I'd also add that these documents are also for employer consumption - there is a very miserably difficult balancing act to be made in the choice of messaging, between informing and terrifying the potential or current employer. Facts are facts, but tone is a choice. Honestly, I wouldn't like to be on the charity end of serving members who are a mix of unemployable, barely employable and largely employable pwME.
And why publish the document and then ask for feedback? A draft could have gone out for consultation in ME Essential.
Very fair point (Hopefully my own comments already show that I'm definitely not saying that no feedback is needed). Do they normally consult that way? I can think of certain other better funded charities that would also benefit from prepublication consultation...
Back in 2003, Charles Shepherd did not hesitate to whistle-blow on the MEA's senior management and Board of Trustees (which resulted in them sacking him from his paid position of Medical Adviser) - which was covered in the media, including the BMJ and Third Sector magazine.
I wasn't aware of this. An honourable move that I'm sure took some serious consideration. I've been in legally critical whistle blowing contexts, which even extended into a parliamentary enquiry, and it is not fun/cheap/untraumatic to do the right thing. Most of the beneficiaries never even know about it.
I don't think people are being unreasonable on this thread. We are simply commenting on parts of a document that we find disappointing in the hope that it might be improved.
I don't see anyone here being "brutally unfair or cruel" - but exasperated people raising points of concern
I don't see this criticism on this thread as being personal to him or anyone else.
Given specific contexts that I've seen on FB, which is the dominant information source for many people, I am extremely uncomfortable about personalising critique of the MEA around CS (regardless of him not being the MEA in one person). However unobvious it appears, I do see a continuum of pack behaviour around his name, with the topic extending into this thread. It is part of something wider - we are a rightly very frustrated community and he is effectively Dr MEA, which puts him in the firing line and he is all to often rolled into other frustrations. Drawing parallels with A4ME's decimation of sufferers is extremely loaded also.
I just really wouldn't want people who have only gotten their opinions from certain FB discussions to come across this thread without these caveats.
If CS didn't exist, you would have to invent him. And when he retires eventually, he is one of MANY succession problems we face. I'd prefer that he chooses to delay that decision, however near or far that may be.
can assure you he has a thick skin.
In relation to this thread alone, sure, he's a grown lad. In relation to the overall continuum mentioned above, less fun.
Presumably only if all of your family is ill also and you are all stuck in the same bedroom on benefits?
Entirely depends. There are many other situations where the pwME will see more of some family/others because of their ME. Assuming you like seeing them and appreciate seeing them more, that's a plus. But a "gain" it is not....
Last edited: