-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
UK Parliament: ME/CFS Announcements: Statement by Health Secretary Sajid Javid, 12 May 2022
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
- Status
Andy
Retired committee member
I don't disagree with that - I have voiced strong criticism of them previously.
And I'm not arguing for or against anonymity, just saying that it is understandable.
Lou B Lou
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Right, I hear you Andy.
I do think we need to know who is representing us. Looks like some kind of (online) system is needed so patient reps do not become overloaded with questions/communications from patients who are, at this stage, deeply concerned about how they are represented. Some form of online question/feedback system .... that can be responded to by reps when they can do that - not necessarily right at the moment patients are asking the questions, .... um, just thinking aloud there and trying to see a way
I do think we need to know who is representing us. Looks like some kind of (online) system is needed so patient reps do not become overloaded with questions/communications from patients who are, at this stage, deeply concerned about how they are represented. Some form of online question/feedback system .... that can be responded to by reps when they can do that - not necessarily right at the moment patients are asking the questions, .... um, just thinking aloud there and trying to see a way
Robert 1973
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I think it’s understandable but probably not desirable. History suggests things work best without secrecy. If patients want to represent other patients then I think we should know who they are and what they are saying. I know that is difficult or impossible for some but if patients want to remain anonymously I think they should ask others to represent them.
Andy
Retired committee member
Sorry, I don't understand that argument. How does anonymity stop someone from being able to represent a community? And how does knowing the name of a patient representative ensure that they are able to represent a community?
Personally, I would only apply to be a PAG member if it were possible to remain anonymous. There are plenty of reasons why people may want to remain anonymous. However, I can see both sides. It could be argued that being identifiable is a necessary part of the job and one of the requirements of the role.
It seems that the current PAG members didn't sign up to be publicly identifiable and so it would be problematic to name them at this point. According to twitter there will be a recruitment round later this year so perhaps the option to remain anonymous could be removed then. Or maybe there needs to be an allocated spokesperson for the group who can keep other patients informed via social media?
Suffolkres
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It depends who that patient rep is and which community they represent. I know lots of Patient Reps who have not represented the community I am part of and have therefore been problematic to me and my group/or groups I support.
LocalME was set up due to the very problem of so called 'patient reps' from Groups who's stance did not work towards our common goal.
Same applied to some of the charities and their paid officers and reps who messed up big time in early 2000-2007....
Last edited:
John Mac
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
If they are anonymous who decides they are suitable to represent patients?
I can understand an individual wanting to be anonymous for whatever reason but that is of no importance to the patient community. We need to know who is representing us and what they are saying/doing.
Should MP's be given anonymity if they felt it made their jobs easier? They have far greater reasons to be anonymous than patient representatives.
No patient representative should ever be anonymous, it's just common sense, not difficult to understand at all. It's a very basic protection against corruption - openess. They HAVE to be answerable to the community they claim they represent. If anonymous they are only answerable to themselves.
Last edited:
Some have no role but cover specialities that may be of interest. I think that is part of the point in terms of getting research going we need to identify the best researchers in related areas and get them interested in ME. So having some non-connected researchers can help provide a perspective as to what it takes to get people involved.
The PAG is a patient advisory group for the MERC (renamed from the CMRC). I am a member of the group and that is how I got an invite to the round table.
Andy
Retired committee member
How does it depend? If you know them, then that shows that knowing who they are does not necessarily ensure that they will represent the community in the way that you desired. And how does it depend on the communty?
The people who appoint them to their role.
Different circumstance to the one we are discussing. MPs are elected by voters to their position, patient representatives are typically selected by people involved in whatever project the representative will be involved in.
And to me it is common sense that anonymity simply does not mean that a patient representative is unable to represent their community will or will be involved in corruption of any sort.
To spell out my own position clearly, it would be my preference for all patient representatives to feel that they are able to do so openly and in their own name - transparency is to be prefered - but I believe there are times when anonymity is understandable. For example, it's why all members here are able to take part using a pseudonym should they wish.
I don't think patient members are representing patients rather they are individuals or groups that are bringing the patient experience to the table. Representatives would be a very different thing and there is no selection criteria for such a role (or even a well defined set of patients that could make such a choice). There is also a diversity of opinions amongst patients (with some groups with their pet theories and views).
Binkie4
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I feel uncomfortable not knowing who the patient members are and what is their remit. Is their remit to represent themselves as patients or to represent the patient community? They are different.
If they represent the patient community, there needs to be a way for the community to interact with them. If they represent themselves, - I am struggling here- how do we know that our individual views will be heard ?
If they represent the patient community, there needs to be a way for the community to interact with them. If they represent themselves, - I am struggling here- how do we know that our individual views will be heard ?
John Mac
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
And who are they? Are they anonymous as well? Non patients who decide who they think is suitable to represent patients. That is the exact opposite of representation.
Andy
Retired committee member
Well that obviously depends, doesn't it. In the specific example we are discussing,
" for assessment by the PAG and three CMRC Board members:
- Prof Chris Ponting (CMRC Deputy Chair)
- Dr Charles Shepherd (The ME Association)
- The Countess of Mar (Forward ME)"
We have all had a chance for our individual views to be heard on research priorities via the Priority setting partnership, and our views on treatment and care via our submission to NICE.
I hope patients and carers who are directly involved in this new process set up by Javid will feel able to identify themselves, but if that wasn't set as a requirement when they agreed to participate, I don't think they should be identified without their permission.
We knew the names of the 5 lay reps at NICE, but I have no idea what views 3 of them have, since only 2 of them that I'm aware of are active on this forum.
I hope patients and carers who are directly involved in this new process set up by Javid will feel able to identify themselves, but if that wasn't set as a requirement when they agreed to participate, I don't think they should be identified without their permission.
We knew the names of the 5 lay reps at NICE, but I have no idea what views 3 of them have, since only 2 of them that I'm aware of are active on this forum.
John Mac
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Well I now have absolutely zero confidence in the 'patient' representatives.
This is an organisation that appointed Esther Crawley as their scientific adviser.
Last edited:
We’re all on here many if not the majority not using our own names…….. just saying
John Mac
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Yes..... but representing yourself.
I would hate anonymous people being able to post on here using my name/account.
Last edited:
- Status