Trial By Error: Some Thoughts About an Upcoming Article

Yvonne said:
Medical professionals, in particular, have a duty to treat patients with respect. The onus is on the professional in the doctor-patient relationship to uphold standards, not on the patient. Talking about alleged death threats or other harassment by patients in public, is surely an abuse of their professional position.
Click to expand...

I agree. I also think it is an abuse of that position to recommend a colleague who has been behaving the same way for a prize for such behaviour.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I agree. I also think it is an abuse of that position to recommend a colleague who has been behaving the same way for a prize for such behaviour.
Click to expand...
Well, he serves on the board of the organization that awarded the John Maddox prize. So it could be seen as giving himself an award.

(Although it could have been getting one or more BFFs to do it, too.)
 
Yvonne said:
I have not fully followed this thread, so I apologise if I'm posting this in the wrong place. But with regard to any allegations of death threats or other forms of alleged harassment by ME patients against professionals, I have never understood how senior professionals get away without being challenged as to their judgement by making such behaviour public, even if they are true.


Medical professionals, in particular, have a duty to treat patients with respect. The onus is on the professional in the doctor-patient relationship to uphold standards, not on the patient. Talking about alleged death threats or other harassment by patients in public, is surely an abuse of their professional position.


In fact, the Science Media Centre conducted a media campaign, involving the BBC and mainstream media, to discredit ME patients as extremists, using animal extremism as a model, and to portray researchers as their beleaguered victims. The SMC wrote about this campaign quite blatantly in its brochure. Medical professionals who took part in this campaign were, in my opinion, abusing their professional position. I think that senior medical professionals who took part in this campaign should have been disciplined over this.


In summary, our focus should not be on the harassment, and whether it took place or not, but on whether it is ethical for professionals to talk about it in public.
Click to expand...

I agree absolutely. These are highly paid, experienced medical healthcare professionals. I personally know many people who are working in low paid care worker roles (in mental health support) who receive face to face death threats from their 'clients' on a regular basis. These workers are not 'registered healthcare professionals' and are paid little more than minimum wages rates, yet are expected to continue working with these individuals and are not permitted to discuss their work on public or social media forums!
 
Last edited:
It would be a tactical error to use the fact that there is apparently an investigation, to challenge the commendation. What if the investigation clears her? The case for continued opposition would be substantially weakened. The outcome of investigations can never be predicted.

In my opinion.
 
chrisb said:
It would be a tactical error to use the fact that there is apparently an investigation, to challenge the commendation. What if the investigation clears her? The case for continued opposition would be substantially weakened. The outcome of investigations can never be predicted.
Click to expand...
Good point. I retract my suggestion. I have no doubt what the investigation SHOULD find, but what it actually will find could be another matter. The academic/medical establishment here seems to have many ways to justify bad behavior, and clearing someone in an investigation despite evidence appears to be one of them.
 
Speaking of awards ... some quotes from the year 2013:
The SMC's work on mental health research has produced more awards than any other area of our work.
Click to expand...

The SMC ourselves won the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology’s inaugural Media Award for science in the media for our championing of evidence-based science in the face of received wisdom, public prejudice and special interests, and our efforts to ensure that the most critical issues currently affecting science and public health are debated on the basis of accurate and objective scientific information.
Click to expand...

Tom Feilden, science correspondent for BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, won the UK Press Gazette's first ever specialist science writing award for breaking the story the SMC gave him about the harassment and intimidation of researchers working on CFS/ME. The SMC had nominated him for the award.

Tom Feilden was shortlisted for a MindMediaAward for his package that came directly from an SMC briefing on the role of mental health experts in Broadmoor Hospital.
Click to expand...
The SMC jointly nominated Simon Wessely for the inaugural Sense About Science John Maddox Prize for Standing upfor Science for his courage and bravery in speaking out on CFS in the face on intimidation, which Simon won.
Click to expand...

Review of the first three years of the mental health research function at the Science Media Centre, February 2013 by Dr Claire Bithell, Head of Mental Health, Science Media Centre,
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...arch-function-at-the-Science-Media-Centre.pdf , p.4
 
Last edited:
Barry said:
Indeed. Is it in fact libelous to falsely accuse someone of libel?
Click to expand...
Well, basically yes. The problem is that to win a libel case you really need to prove damages. Since Esther's false accusation enhanced my reputation and undoubtedly helped my subsequent crowdfunding, it would be impossible to make any argument that I suffered any damages. Not that I would have sued in any event. I have no interest in suing anyone and certainly I had not one iota of desire to do anything like that in this case.
 
MSEsperanza said:
Review of the first three years of the mental health research function at the Science Media Centre, February 2013 by Dr Claire Bithell, Head of Mental Health, Science Media Centre,
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...arch-function-at-the-Science-Media-Centre.pdf , p.4
Click to expand...

Yeah I wrote about that at some point. It's all an inside job. I like how they "gave" Tom Feilden a story and then nominated him for the prize for the story they gave him. And then he gave a glowing testimonial for SMC's 10th anniversary promotional report. Very cool how they all support each other!
 
Simbindi said:
I agree absolutely. These are highly paid, experienced medical healthcare professionals. I personally know many people who are working in low paid care worker roles (in mental health support) who receive face to face death threats from their 'clients' on a regular basis. These workers are not 'registered healthcare professionals' and are paid little more than minimum wages rates, yet are expected to continue working with these individuals and are not permitted to discuss their work on public or social media forums!
Click to expand...

Although not allowed to discuss their situation it does get into the media at times. I think many of us are aware of the situation faced by poorly paid allied health workers. I mention this because I think that the 'harassment' narrative is meant to consciously plug into that whole wider context which is in fact real and can be dangerous for the workers. But that problem is a whole other conversation.

MSEsperanza said:
Speaking of awards ... some quotes from the year 2013:







Review of the first three years of the mental health research function at the Science Media Centre, February 2013 by Dr Claire Bithell, Head of Mental Health, Science Media Centre,
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...arch-function-at-the-Science-Media-Centre.pdf , p.4
Click to expand...

Was going to share an opinion on that. Sometimes an emoji says it all. :sick:
 
MSEsperanza said:
Speaking of awards ... some quotes from the year 2013:







Review of the first three years of the mental health research function at the Science Media Centre, February 2013 by Dr Claire Bithell, Head of Mental Health, Science Media Centre,
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...arch-function-at-the-Science-Media-Centre.pdf , p.4
Click to expand...

This had largely passed me by, but didn't Tom Feilden really deserve his award for all his hard work and effort in 2012.

www.pressgazette.co.uk/british-journalism-awards-2012-showcase-science-journalist-year-finalists.

So that was one article on animal rights activists-I think we can guess where that came from. One article on Torrent of abuse hindering ME research- not much doubt about that one. And A golden age of discovery in neuro science:

It's a positive view that's warmly endorsed by the professor of Neuroscience at Oxford University, Colin Blakemore. "Undeniably brain research is going through an extraordinary phase of development" he says, "a golden age of discovery fuelled by a combination of all the new knowledge coming from genetics, and the dramatic improvements in imaging technology".

Oh dear, what a giveaway!

You cannot to bribe or twist,
Thank god! the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do unbribed,
there's no occasion to.
Humbert Wolfe
 
Yvonne said:
Medical professionals, in particular, have a duty to treat patients with respect. The onus is on the professional in the doctor-patient relationship to uphold standards, not on the patient. Talking about alleged death threats or other harassment by patients in public, is surely an abuse of their professional position.
Click to expand...

Jonathan Edwards said:
I agree. I also think it is an abuse of that position to recommend a colleague who has been behaving the same way for a prize for such behaviour.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know if anyone has ever made a formal complaint about this? If not, is it worth considering, or would it be counterproductive at this stage?
 
Robert 1973 said:
Does anyone know if anyone has ever made a formal complaint about this? If not, is it worth considering, or would it be counterproductive at this stage?
Click to expand...

I made a formal expression of concern to the CEO of SAS and also to the head of the trustees, who referred me to the CEO. I got no reply. I had replies from two members of the committee and from the originator of SAS, Lord Taverne. There was an agreement that the procedures were not robust and that this was regrettable.

I see little point in taking it further since SAS are entitled to award prizes however they like. The identity of the recommender remains technically unknown.
 
dave30th said:
I like how they "gave" Tom Feilden a story and then nominated him for the prize for the story they gave him. And then he gave a glowing testimonial for SMC's 10th anniversary promotional report. Very cool how they all support each other!
Click to expand...
Isn’t this a good example of what you once referred to as a “circle jerk”?

Jonathan Edwards said:
I had previously assumed it was likely that this video has remained mysterious because Wessely and colleagues were advised that it should not be discussed - probably because the author was deemed to be mentally ill. If that were the case it was clearly irresponsible for Wessely even to hint at it in the form of a 'death threat' and accept a prize for his standing up to it. If it should not be discussed it should not be alluded to, because prurience will inevitably drag it up again.
Click to expand...
It occurs to me that had The Thing Were Are Not Discussing ever been made public, it would almost certainly have been less effective as propaganda. If keeping it private was a calculated decision, rather than a legal necessity, it might be considered an act of Machiavellian genius. These people may be lousy doctors and scientists but they are masters of manipulation and PR.

Jonathan Edwards said:
I realise that I am myself discussing the video but my impression is that none of us should now be mentioning it. I don't think VES's motivation for mentioning it makes sense. It helps nobody and might do untold harm.
Click to expand...
I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom