V.R.T.
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
State sanctioned deterioration and death in the guise of 'confidence building'
Norway: 2026 Guidelines for chronic fatigue and ME/CFS - draft published
- Thread starter Kalliope
- Start date
bicentennial
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I may say these views are warranted by the notorious results of unruly enforcement across the English-speaking world for a long time to date.
Hence the research and development which has already brought Norway's draft enforcement procedure to be a bit better than the UK's current enforcement procedure.
In the preliminary procedure this matters enormously. An improved pre-requisite for any enforcement
There is always room for improvement. In the UK, that principle is still upheld by the BASW (social workers), but not yet adopted by the RCP (physicians). For evidential reference one can present the BASW FII Guideline
Abbreviated Practice Guide for Social Work Practitioners: Fabricated or Induced Illness and Perplexing Presentations, May 2022, Dr. Gullon Scott et al
Also discussed on S4ME here and with the evidence it relies on here, thanks to @Maat :
In the UK there is still no way a Safeguarding procedure can do what a Court can do - require and review the evidence in a dangerous dispute with vulnerable people in the front line of fire, vulnerable people who must balance all risks in the field, with no power, and their own authority suspended by means of suspicion.
But upon very considerable, undisputed evidence, the NICE Guideline (1.7) flags up that risk of confused safeguarding. This is still sinking in because the dispute is not just between the client and the service, or between service agents, or between expert medical witnesses. It is still a Guideline dispute between the professional bodies, and between their respective Guidelines, waiting for the resolve of Courts and Coroners
Norway is still being used in pursuit of this persistent dispute, pursued by the contention of expert contenders. So is Australia used, and so is the UK.
In the UK one is advised not to agree on a plan one cannot safely comply with, because then non-compliance is all the more grounds for enforcement. But - some "compliance" requirements can be hightly questionable, as proposed with no good reason (a mere device). UK services are far too embarrassed by the UK's safeguard. procedures in case of ME/CFS. So they cannot be mentioned in the public service presentations
Norway may draft a good Guideline to prevent such unnecessary, avoidable, anomalous and dire fall-out
Hence the research and development which has already brought Norway's draft enforcement procedure to be a bit better than the UK's current enforcement procedure.
In the preliminary procedure this matters enormously. An improved pre-requisite for any enforcement
There is always room for improvement. In the UK, that principle is still upheld by the BASW (social workers), but not yet adopted by the RCP (physicians). For evidential reference one can present the BASW FII Guideline
Abbreviated Practice Guide for Social Work Practitioners: Fabricated or Induced Illness and Perplexing Presentations, May 2022, Dr. Gullon Scott et al
Also discussed on S4ME here and with the evidence it relies on here, thanks to @Maat :
In the UK there is still no way a Safeguarding procedure can do what a Court can do - require and review the evidence in a dangerous dispute with vulnerable people in the front line of fire, vulnerable people who must balance all risks in the field, with no power, and their own authority suspended by means of suspicion.
But upon very considerable, undisputed evidence, the NICE Guideline (1.7) flags up that risk of confused safeguarding. This is still sinking in because the dispute is not just between the client and the service, or between service agents, or between expert medical witnesses. It is still a Guideline dispute between the professional bodies, and between their respective Guidelines, waiting for the resolve of Courts and Coroners
Norway is still being used in pursuit of this persistent dispute, pursued by the contention of expert contenders. So is Australia used, and so is the UK.
In the UK one is advised not to agree on a plan one cannot safely comply with, because then non-compliance is all the more grounds for enforcement. But - some "compliance" requirements can be hightly questionable, as proposed with no good reason (a mere device). UK services are far too embarrassed by the UK's safeguard. procedures in case of ME/CFS. So they cannot be mentioned in the public service presentations
Norway may draft a good Guideline to prevent such unnecessary, avoidable, anomalous and dire fall-out
It seems to me that Norway's draft for a risk assessment procedure, has more provision than the UK procedure : for presenting the client's case. So this is something to work on, in case the central and local services will follow the procedure.
3. Need for health care in the home or in an institution
To Do .. bit by bit
Contribute possible evidence, reason, perspective and insight:
- maybe list the most relevant S4ME drafts, posts, discussions (and factsheets)
- for example - but I have not I have not checked these for relevance:
Hospital Care Plan and Respite (dysautonomia theory evidentially irrelevant),
An open Letter to BACME,
What people need in the way of services
Severe difficulties with eating
Contribute possible evidence, reason, perspective and insight:
- maybe list the most relevant S4ME drafts, posts, discussions (and factsheets)
- for example - but I have not I have not checked these for relevance:
Hospital Care Plan and Respite (dysautonomia theory evidentially irrelevant),
An open Letter to BACME,
What people need in the way of services
Severe difficulties with eating
The municipality must consider confidence-building measures in relation to service recipients who refuse necessary health care
View previous versions
External consultation:
* In situations where the patient declines services that healthcare personnel consider necessary, the municipality should provide arenas for systematic ethical reflection (ks.no) and interdisciplinary discussions.
* The person themselves, any next of kin, the GP and others involved are invited to the conversations.
* The business manager must ensure that the service investigates the reasons why the person declines help from the public sector.
* Relevant topics to map are, for example:
Has the patient received sufficient information, and is this understood?
The patient's reason for rejecting the assistance?
Does the patient react negatively to someone or something in connection with the provision of services?
What is important to the patient?
And is it taken into account?
Does the patient want a different type of assistance than what is offered?
Is it possible to enter into a dialogue with the patient and reflect on their life situation?
Does the patient understand the consequences of rejecting assistance?
====
The business manager must ensure that the service maps the consequences and risks of not providing services to the patient.
Relevant questions can be:
What are the consequences of a lack of aid?
What measures can limit the consequences?
What is the likelihood that the patient will continue to refuse assistance in the future?
How does a lack of assistance affect next of kin?
What measures can limit the consequences for next of kin?
====
The enterprise manager is responsible for ensuring that the service and those involved discuss solutions based on findings from surveys and assessments of risk and competence to consent.
Relevant questions can be:
How serious is the situation?
What is the risk of health failure or criminal offences?
How great is the need for health care?
What are the social consequences of the patient refusing help?
What have the parties involved agreed on, and what are the disagreements?
How to provide assistance in a way that the patient can accept?
How to interact with the person about the purpose and design of the assistance?
Who does the patient trust?
What can be confidence-building measures?
Should assigned services through the municipality's decision be terminated?
Who is to follow up measures, as well as when and how, must be documented.
Latest academic change: 04 February 2026
View previous versions