![]() |
|
|
Protecting
the Needs of Children with ME M.E. sufferers commonly meet with disbelief and rejection from their doctors, when what they need is support and sympathy. However, in the case of children and young people with M.E. there are much worse ways in which they can be treated by professionals, and families can end up wishing that the doctors had rejected them and left it at that! Over 10 years ago there was the terrible case of a boy from the Isle of Man who was subjected to a court order and admitted to Great Ormond Street Hospital against his will. The court order was eventually reversed and everyone heaved a sigh of relief and assumed nothing of the sort would ever be tried again. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Over the last two years there have been a number of cases in which a similar approach has been threatened and one case in which a 15 year old boy has actually been detained in a Child Psychiatry Unit for 7 months, against his will and that of his parents. Why are professionals behaving in this way in more and more cases and how should families behave when faced with these threats? I personally believe that the main factors behind these cases are:
Suffice to say that the evidence for the efficacy of these approaches is extremely weak and they are certainly not curative. This leads to an initially well meaning but, I believe, misguided approach characterised by therapeutic enthusiasm, as in "We have ways and means of making you get better". This view was summed up in a lecture by a prominent Child Psychiatrist to a national meeting of Britain's paediatricians last year in which the speaker concluded, "This (M.E./CFS) is a treatable condition and parents who stand in our way should be treated with court orders". This school of child psychiatry is probably unconsciously applying the model of anorexia nervosa to M.E./CFS. They are used to getting court orders to enforce life-saving tube feeding against the child/adolescent's will. This can be justified in terms of medical ethics in that the patient genuinely believes he/she is over-weight, and therefore is not competent to withhold informed consent. In the case of M.E./CFS, the situation is very different. It is rarely life threatening, and the efficacy of the treatment prescribed is extremely questionable, therefore parents and young M.E. patients are perfectly entitled to withhold consent, and in my opinion it is basically unethical for doctors to attempt to enforce it by court orders. Typical Sequence of Events Usually the child is too unwell to attend school. In addition, he/she is usually either not under a paediatrician at all or under a paediatrician who doesn't really believe in M.E. and feels it is his duty to refer the young person to a Child Psychiatry Unit. The parents and young person usually stoutly decline to see the Child Psychiatrist on common-sense grounds, or they see the Child Psychiatrist and are unimpressed by the arguments fo admission to the psychiatric unit. The paediatrician (often a Community Paediatrician) then feels (misguidedly) that it is his/her duty to actuate Child Protection Procedures on the grounds that the parents are not acting in the child's best interests by not taking medical advice. This is naturally very threatening for the family. The local social services departments therefore have a duty to investigate and arrange a Case Conference. At this conference the family are threatened that if they don't agree to psychiatric admission the child's name will be placed on the At Risk Register with a view to possible court proceedings. This is a nightmare scenario. How to Survive Such Threats to Your Family It is difficult to give one package of advice to meet all circumstances as a lot depends on the beliefs of each of the agencies involved. In general, the following advice suits most cases:
Even if you don't go down the judicial review route, there are plenty of lines of defense through the child protection system. The case of the 15 year old boy was exceptional in lots of ways, even there things are finally going in the right direction. I know of four other cases where the social services have retreated or been forced to retreat at an early stage. So even though the threat still remains in some parts of the country, I am optimistic that we are beginning to win the arguments in most cases and protect children from "Emotional and Physical Abuse by Professionals." Reprinted from 'Action for ME'. Latest News | Research | Information | Advocacy | Conference | Guidelines
|