Are ME/CFS Patient Organizations “Militant”?

Abstract:

Myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a contested illness category. This paper investigates the common claim that patients with ME/CFS—and by extension, ME/CFS patient organizations (POs)—exhibit “militant” social and political tendencies. The paper opens with a history of the protracted scientific disagreement over ME/CFS. We observe that ME/CFS POs, medical doctors, and medical researchers exhibit clear differences in opinion over how to conceptualize this illness.

However, we identify a common trope in the discourse over ME/CFS: the claim of “militant” patient activism. Scrutinizing this charge, we find no compelling evidence that the vast majority of patients with ME/CFS, or the POs representing them, have adopted any such militant political policies or behaviours. Instead, we observe key strategic similarities between ME/CFS POs in the United Kingdom and the AIDs activist organizations of the mid-1980s in the United States which sought to engage scientists using the platform of public activism and via scientific publications.

Finally, we explore the contours of disagreement between POs and the medical community by drawing on the concept of epistemic injustice. We find that widespread negative stereotyping of patients and the marginalization and exclusion of patient voices by medical authorities provides a better explanation for expressions of frustration among patients with ME/CFS.

Source: Blease, C. & Geraghty, K.J. Are ME/CFS Patient Organizations “Militant”? Bioethical Inquiry (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9866-5

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and the biopsychosocial model: a review of patient harm and distress in the medical encounter

Methods: A narrative review methodology is employed to synthesize the evidence for potential iatrogenesis.

Results: We identify seven potential modalities of iatrogenesis or harm reported by patients:

  1. difficulties in reaching an acceptable diagnosis;

  2. misdiagnosis, including of other medical and psychological conditions;

  3. difficulties in accessing the sick role, medical care and social support;

  4. high levels of patient dissatisfaction with the quality of medical care;

  5. negative responses to controversial therapies (cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy);

  6. challenges to the patient narrative and experience;

  7. psychological harm (individual and collective distress).

Conclusion: The biopsychosocial framework currently applied to ME/CFS is too narrow in focus and fails to adequately incorporate the patient narrative. Misdiagnosis, conflict, and harm are observable outcomes where doctors’ and patients’ perspectives remain incongruent. Biopsychosocial practices should be scrutinized for potential harms. Clinicians should consider adopting alternative patient-centred approaches.

  • Implications for rehabilitation
  • Patients with ME/CFS may report or experience one or more of the modalities of harms and distress identified in this review.

  • It is important health and rehabilitation professionals seek to avoid and minimize harms when treating or assisting ME/CFS patients.

  • There are conflicting models of ME/CFS; we highlight two divergent models, a biopsychosocial model and a biomedical model that is preferred by patients.

  • The ‘biopsychosocial framework’ applied in clinical practice promotes treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise therapy, however, the evidence for their success is contested and many patients reject the notion their illness is perpetuated by dysfunctional beliefs, personality traits, or behaviors.

  • Health professionals may avoid conflict and harm causation in ME/CFS by adopting more concordant ‘patient-centred’ approaches that give greater prominence to the patient narrative and experience of illness.

SourceKeith J. Geraghty & Charlotte Blease (2018) Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and the biopsychosocial model: a review of patient harm and distress in the medical encounter, Disability and Rehabilitation, DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1481149

Chronic fatigue syndrome: The male disorder that became a female disorder

Previously long-term fatigue was considered a male disorder caused by societal pressures. Today women comprise the majority of ME patients, and they feel that their condition is their own fault.

Throughout history some people have suffered from a lack of energy and long-term, physical fatigue. Today these symptoms are classified as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) or chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

It is commonly thought that chronic fatigue has mainly psychological causes and that it affects perfectionistic women who cannot live up to their own unreasonably high standards.

This has not always been the case. Just over 100 years ago it was primarily upper class men in intellectual professions who were affected. “Neurasthenia,” as the condition was called at the time, was a physical diagnosis with high status.

No longer legitimate

“The medical understanding of long-term fatigue has changed. Previously the condition was viewed as a typically male disorder; now it is perceived as a typically female disorder. The diagnosis of neurasthenia, which has a male connotation, was changed to the ME diagnosis, which has a female connotation,” explains Olaug S. Lian, a sociologist and professor at UiT The Arctic University of Norway.

Together with Hilde Bondevik of the University of Oslo, Lian has studied how the view of women and perceptions of the body, gender and femininity in two different historical periods have been manifested in the medical understanding of long-term chronic fatigue.

“Long-term fatigue was viewed as a legitimate disorder, a result of the heroic efforts of the upper class male. Today, it is a stigmatizing disorder, understood as an expression of women’s lack of ability to cope with their lives, a kind of breach of character,” says Lian.

Not only has the fatigued patient changed gender. Previously doctors believed that long-term fatigue was a neurological, physical disorder, while today it is categorized primarily as psychological in nature. And while in the past, society was thought to be the cause of the disorder, today the individual is supposedly to blame.

What happened to cause this change?

Upper class diagnosis

At the end of the 1800s neurasthenia was the most widespread diagnosis for long-term fatigue. Neurologists believed the condition was caused by a physical, neurological disease that affected the entire body, causing intense, long-term fatigue.

Although women were also diagnosed with the disorder, the typical patient was a man, and not just any kind of man. He was “civilized, refined, and educated, rather than of the barbarous and low-born and untrained,” according to neurologist George Beard.

Society was to blame

Doctors at the time believed that the cause of the disorder could be found in a rapidly changing society — urbanization, industrialization and women’s entry into working life.

Quite simply, modern civilization ran roughshod over the nervous system of upper class men, who were overstimulated by too much pressure and activity and too little sleep and rest.

“It was regarded as both legitimate and understandable that even the ‘great men’ could fall apart as a result of long-term, difficult intellectual work. It was viewed as positive that the body sent signals when the burden was too great. The body was viewed as an electrical fuse box and the thinking was that it was better for one fuse to burn out rather than for the house to catch on fire,” says Lian.

Different genders, different causes

The comments about the diagnosis also revealed past understandings of biological gender differences. Women could get neurasthenia from sexual frustration, while men could get it from excessive sexual activity, including masturbation.

Moreover, there was a connection between gender and class.

“To simplify a bit, we can say that it was mainly middle class men and working class women whose diagnosis of neurasthenia was explained by overwork. For working class men it was due to sexual escapades, and for middle class women the cause given was heredity or ‘women’s issues’,” explains Lian.

The fall of neurasthenia

Neurasthenia lost its popularity as a diagnosis in the early 1900s. One reason for this was that psychiatry became a medical field in its own right.

“Psychiatry took neurasthenia with it and changed its definition from a physical to a psychological condition. Since women were regarded as psychologically weaker and therefore more disposed to mental illness, the disorder became a female problem,” says Lian.

Fight over definitions

Today ME is the most common name for the disorder, defined as long-term, intense fatigue that cannot be directly linked to a well-defined illness and that does not disappear with rest. The condition is chronic, it cannot be cured with medical treatment and there is disagreement as to the cause.

“The lack of scientifically generated findings, medical explanations and effective treatment make ME a diagnosis with low status and low legitimacy within the medical community,” says Lian.

Currently the main theory is that ME results from an inability to handle stress and that perfectionistic people — the “good girls” — are especially at risk. The debate about how ME should be understood and explained is highly polarized, between those who believe that it is an illness caused by infections or vaccination and those who believe that ME has mainly psychological causes.

“I would like to see some humility about what we actually know about the disorder and not present value judgments as facts. Doctors must also be honest and acknowledge that we have very little hard-and-fast knowledge about this condition,” states Lian.

Blame and shame

The two historical periods have almost identical depictions of the phenomenon of long-term fatigue, although the names are different. But there is one important difference: the disorder is no longer regarded as a legitimate, anticipated outcome of overwork.

“Today the medical community is searching for explanations of ME at the individual level. The ME patient is depicted as a woman with five-star goals and four-star abilities — with character traits that make it hard for them to cope with their own lives,” says Lian.

“When the entire problem is seen as the patient’s fault, the person experiences blame and shame because it is the patient, not society, who is the cause of the illness. It is therefore the individual who is responsible for coping with the illness, such as by changing her own thought patterns,” says Lian.

Wrong kind of tired

She points out that the ability to cope with one’s own life is an important value in Western culture. Mental disorders, however, are associated with weakness. The current understanding of long-term fatigue is also linked to how we think about tiredness, according to Lian.

“There are strong norms for when you are allowed to be tired and worn out and how you are supposed to show tiredness in daily life. If you have been awake all night with a sick infant, you have a good reason to be tired at work. Other reasons are less legitimate. Workplace reports of absence never state that someone is at the psychologist, while it is completely acceptable to say that someone is at the dentist.”

“Being tired for the wrong reasons is seen as a sign of weakness, which must be overcome and hidden. It is in this context that we must understand the medical theories on a lack of coping ability and the objections of ME patients to these theories,” says Lian.

She believes such norms often make ME patients feel that the psychological explanation is a burden, although doctors do not necessarily mean for it to have this affect.

“What is it about the ME debate that makes the opposing sides so obstinate?”

“The doctors and patients talk past each other. The doctors think that an ME diagnosis is value neutral, but the patient hears ‘it’s my fault that I am sick and it’s my responsible to get better’. But although most people feel that mental disorders have lower value than somatic disorders, it is not a given that the doctors do,” says Lian.

Gendered explanation disappeared?

Although about three of four people who are diagnosed with ME today are women, the explicit, biology-based gendered explanations have disappeared from the debate, according to Lian.

“This may simply be because today we put greater focus on gender equality — which makes it less legitimate to claim that women are naturally inferior to men,” says Lian.

However, she believes that the ME diagnosis embodies a view of women that has long historical roots.

“The profile of the upper class woman from the 1800s who cannot cope with pressure and stress both inside and outside the home is still with us today,” says Lian.

Cultural bias

“How can your analysis contribute to the current debate about ME?”

“We show how the medical understanding of fatigue and lack of energy is impacted by the norms and values of society at large, for example, that medical knowledge reflects the view of women in our culture. Norms and values combine with biomedical knowledge in a way that makes it difficult to see what is what,” says Lian.

 

Source: KILDEN – Information Centre for Gender Research in Norway. (2014, February 20). Chronic fatigue syndrome: The male disorder that became a female disorder. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 4, 2017 from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220083145.htm

 

Epistemic injustice in healthcare encounters: evidence from chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

Chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) remains a controversial illness category. This paper surveys the state of knowledge and attitudes about this illness and proposes that epistemic concerns about the testimonial credibility of patients can be articulated using Miranda Fricker’s concept of epistemic injustice. While there is consensus within mainstream medical guidelines that there is no known cause of CFS/ME, there is continued debate about how best to conceive of CFS/ME, including disagreement about how to interpret clinical studies of treatments.

Against this background, robust qualitative and quantitative research from a range of countries has found that many doctors (and medical students) display uncertainty about whether CFS/ME is real, which may result in delays in diagnosis and treatment for patients. Strikingly, qualitative research evinces that patients with CFS/ME often experience suspicion by healthcare professionals, and many patients vocally oppose the effectiveness, and the conceptualisation, of their illness as psychologically treatable.

We address the intersection of these issues and healthcare ethics, and claim that this state of affairs can be explained as a case of epistemic injustice (2007). We find evidence that healthcare consultations are fora where patients with CFS/ME may be particularly vulnerable to epistemic injustice. We argue that the (often unintentional) marginalisation of many patients is a professional failure that may lead to further ethical and practical consequences both for progressive research into CFS/ME, and for ethical care and delivery of current treatments among individuals suffering from this debilitating illness.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

 

Source: Blease C, Carel H, Geraghty K. Epistemic injustice in healthcare encounters: evidence from chronic fatigue syndrome. J Med Ethics. 2016 Dec 5. pii: medethics-2016-103691. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103691. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27920164

 

Working with uncertainty: A grounded theory study of health-care professionals’ experiences of working with children and adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

This grounded theory study explores conceptualisations of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis from semi-structured interviews with 10 health-care professionals working with children and adolescents. The findings suggest that a lack of a clear empirical understanding of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis leads to ‘working with uncertainty’, whereby health-care professionals utilise previous experiences to make sense of the condition and inform their clinical practice. How health-care professionals make sense of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis may influence the labels given to young people and the interventions they receive. The findings provide insight into a currently understudied area, and highlight potential avenues for further research and clinical practice.

© The Author(s) 2015.

 

Source: Marks MR, Huws JC, Whitehead L. Working with uncertainty: A grounded theory study of health-care professionals’ experiences of working with children and adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome. J Health Psychol. 2015 May 8. pii: 1359105315583367. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25957226

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome: a patient’s perspective

In 1999 I contracted a throat infection that receded after many weeks, but I was still unbelievably exhausted with the most intense flu-like malaise. Two years later I was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) and joined the 240 000-plus people in the UK with this illness. I assumed that a diagnosis would lead to effective treatment, but I was in for a shock.

Initially my GP suggested I see a psychotherapist. It seemed a strange recommendation, but I trusted his judgement and decided to see if this would help. Unfortunately it had no impact at all on the illness. My GP then referred me to an endocrinologist who boldly announced that, as the test results were all normal, everything was fine and offered to prescribe antidepressants. I was deeply frustrated by the suggestion that clear test panels meant I should be treated as a depressed patient. I was not inclined to agree that antidepressants were the best treatment when my experience of the symptoms was closer to that of an infection than a mood disorder. In fact, I have been told a number of times that I’m simply depressed, or that I am de-conditioned and just need to exercise. I wouldn’t mind if either diagnosis were true, as there are effective treatments available, but they are inadequate explanations.

CFS/ME waxes and wanes but also causes post-exertional malaise: when patients go beyond their usual (restricted) activity level they suffer a worsening of symptoms which can be severe. Patients often refer to this as a crash. For me this can mean being bedridden for weeks with muscle weakness, dizziness, loss of appetite, and indescribable physical and mental exhaustion. It’s worth noting that my GP has only ever seen me when the symptoms are at the lesser end of the scale. During a crash I am too ill to leave my bed, let alone travel to the surgery.

When I first got sick, CFS/ME seemed to be largely treated as a mysterious psychological condition, with doctors encouraged to limit the number of tests done, and with patients left to self-manage. Since then things have improved a little in that there are fatigue clinics in some areas, but the overall treatment situation remains poor, with most patients receiving little or no effective treatment through the NHS.

The PACE trial is the largest study performed into CFS/ME treatments, primarily cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET). I think the £5 million cost would have been better spent on immunological studies, exercise physiology testing, and understanding the disease mechanisms. A recently published PACE trial paper reported on ‘recovery’ rates.1 However, the letters published in response to the paper show that the study’s post-hoc definition of ‘recovery’ was seriously flawed, and so much looser than the recovery criteria outlined in the trial’s protocol that the ‘recovery’ outcomes bear no relation to what an average person, or clinician, would define as recovery of health. PACE was an un-blinded study and the primary outcomes were all subjective self-report measures at risk of response bias. Changes from the trial protocol2 also meant that it was easier for patients to be classed as improved, yet even then the addition of CBT and GET to specialist medical care led to only an extra 11–15% of patients reporting improvement.3 This simply underscores the need for more research across all areas to find effective treatments.

CFS/ME presents difficulties for both patients and doctors, reinforcing the need for them to work together in partnership. A recent BMJ editorial4 entitled Let the Patient Revolution Begin could not have said it better:

‘ … health care won’t get better until patients play a leading role in fixing it.’

You can read the full comment here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3839372/

 

Source: Cornes O. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a patient’s perspective. Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Dec;63(617):648. doi: 10.3399/bjgp13X675458. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3839372/ (Full article)

 

Understanding medical students’ views of chronic fatigue syndrome: a qualitative study

Abstract:

Chronic fatigue syndrome receives little attention in the medical curriculum. This study explores UK medical students’ knowledge of and attitudes towards chronic fatigue syndrome. Semi-structured interviews (average length 22 minutes) were conducted with 21 participants (7 females and 14 males) in years 3 (n = 4), 4 (n = 11) and 5 (n = 6) of their studies. Inductive thematic analysis taking a realist perspective produced three themes: limited knowledge, influences on attitudes and training needs.

Students acquired their knowledge and attitudes largely from informal sources and expressed difficulty understanding chronic fatigue syndrome within a traditional biomedical framework. Incorporating teaching about chronic fatigue syndrome into the medical curriculum within the context of a biopsychosocial understanding of illness could encourage more positive attitudes towards chronic fatigue syndrome.

© The Author(s) 2013

 

Source: Stenhoff AL, Sadreddini S, Peters S, Wearden A. Understanding medical students’ views of chronic fatigue syndrome: a qualitative study. J Health Psychol. 2015 Feb;20(2):198-209. doi: 10.1177/1359105313501534. Epub 2013 Sep 20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24058124

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome–a patient centred approach to management

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalomyelitis) is a diagnosis that can attract feelings of stigma in the patient due to the lack of a definite diagnostic biomarker. To ensure that the patient firstly understands the diagnosis, and subsequently is comfortable with the treatment suggested, a patient centred approach is advised within the consultation.

OBJECTIVE: This article presents a hypothetical case and uses this to give guidance on methods for negotiating the diagnosis and treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome.

DISCUSSION: It is important to reassure the patient that negative investigation results and the suggestion of treatment options that are also used for depressive illness (eg. antidepressants and cognitive behavioural therapy), does not mean that their illness experience is fabricated or that they are being treated for depression. Once red flag features are ruled out and any exclusory illnesses identified, a multidisciplinary pragmatic rehabilitation program can be implemented. This includes strategies for increasing social support, liaising with employers and graded return to activities in a ‘What matters to you?’ approach.

 

Source: Arroll M, Arroll B. Chronic fatigue syndrome–a patient centred approach to management. Aust Fam Physician. 2013 Apr;42(4):191-3. http://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2013/april/chronic-fatigue-syndrome/ (Full article)

 

Views on the nature of chronic fatigue syndrome: content analysis

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), has provoked much controversy and led to arguments between the medical profession and patient organizations. A particular focus for debate is the categorization of the condition as physical or psychological in its nature. The aim of this study was to compare how the written media, patient organizations and medical authorities regard the illness.

DESIGN: Content analysis of newspaper articles, ME patient organization websites, and medical websites and textbooks were assessed by two independent assessors.

SETTING:Three national UK newspapers, UK ME websites, and UK medical websites and textbooks, were accessed during 2010.

PARTICIPANTS: 146 source files were scored from 36 patients’ organizations, 72 media articles and 38 medical authorities.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURED: The overall opinion of an article or website was rated using a five point Likert scale, from ‘extremely psychological’ (scored as 1), ‘moderately psychological’ (2), ‘both psychological and physical’ (3), ‘moderately physical’ (4) or ‘extremely physical’ (5).

RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent (32 of 36) of ME patient organizations considered the illness to be physical, compared with 58% (42/72) of newspaper articles, and 24% (9/38) of medical authorities. Sixty-three percent (24/38) of medical authorities regarded the illness as both physical and psychological. The inter-group differences of the Likert scores were statistically significant (χ(2) = 27.37, 2 df, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: The considerable disagreement, particularly between ME patient organizations and medical authorities, may help to explain the gulf in understanding between doctors and patients and the consequent reluctance of some patients to engage in behavioural treatments.

 

Source: Hossenbaccus Z, White PD. Views on the nature of chronic fatigue syndrome: content analysis. JRSM Short Rep. 2013 Jan;4(1):4. doi: 10.1258/shorts.2012.012051. Epub 2013 Jan 14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3572659/ (Full articles)

 

Do you think it’s a disease? a survey of medical students

Abstract:

BACKGROUND:

The management of medical conditions is influenced by whether clinicians regard them as “disease” or “not a disease”. The aim of the survey was to determine how medical students classify a range of conditions they might encounter in their professional lives and whether a different name for a condition would influence their decision in the categorisation of the condition as a ‘disease’ or ‘not a disease’.

METHODS: We surveyed 3 concurrent years of medical students to classify 36 candidate conditions into “disease” and “non-disease”. The conditions were given a ‘medical’ label and a (lay) label and positioned where possible in alternate columns of the survey.

RESULTS: The response rate was 96% (183 of 190 students attending a lecture): 80% of students concurred on 16 conditions as “disease” (eg diabetes, tuberculosis), and 4 as “non-disease” (eg baldness, menopause, fractured skull and heat stroke). The remaining 16 conditions (with 21-79% agreement) were more contentious (especially obesity, infertility, hay fever, alcoholism, and restless leg syndrome). Three pairs of conditions had both a more, and a less, medical label: the more medical labels (myalgic encephalomyelitis, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction) were more frequently classified as ‘disease’ than the less medical (chronic fatigue syndrome, high blood pressure, and impotence), respectively, significantly different for the first two pairs.

CONCLUSIONS: Some conditions excluded from the classification of “disease” were unexpected (eg fractured skull and heat stroke). Students were mostly concordant on what conditions should be classified as “disease”. They were more likely to classify synonyms as ‘disease’ if the label was medical. The findings indicate there is still a problem 30 years on in the concept of ‘what is a disease’. Our findings suggest that we should be addressing such concepts to medical students.

 

Source: Erueti C, Glasziou P, Mar CD, van Driel ML. Do you think it’s a disease? a survey of medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2012 Apr 3;12:19. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3383512/ (Full article)