Heresies in textbook on psychiatry

In journal no. 5/2004( 1 ) reported Textbook of Psychiatry by Ulrik Fredrik Malt et al ( 2 ). This book contains erroneous information relating to the description of neurasthenia. The authors classify chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), post-viral fatigue syndrome (PVFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) as neurasthenia, diagnosis code F48.0, and has thus reclassified suffering from a neurological condition to be a psychiatric condition. This was done in Malts first textbook of psychiatry, published in 1994.

WHO has since 1969 classified Thurs the 1st as neurological disease and is not going to change that in the upcoming revision. The English psychiatrists Simon Wessely, Michael Sharpe and their counterparts, often called Wessely School, has spent countless publications in more than a decade trying to to psychiatric ME / CFS, which in part has been internationally condemned.

Leading Norwegian psychiatrists are influenced by Wessely School doctrine, and this doctrine has been continued in Textbook of Psychiatry ( 2 ). In WHO’s Guide to mental health in primary care , which Wessely has helped to develop, is ME / CFS wrongly classified under mental disorders, F48.0. Wrong classification has been debated in the British House several times. WHO were involved and confirmed that ME / CFS should continue to be classified under G93.3 and that no disease can be classified in more than one category. According to ICD-10 is to be post-viral fatigue syndrome specifically excluded before the diagnosis neurasthenia set. Secretary of State for the UK Department of Health, Lord Warner, had in the House of Lords regret their statements in support of Wessely misclassification.

Director of WHO’s Collaborating Centre at King’s College London, Professor Rachel Jenkins has had to bow and accept the WHO’s official position, namely that ME / CFS should be classified under G93.3. The book is stopped and will come in a revised edition. When a country has accepted WHO’s regulations, it is mandatory to follow ICDs classification.

Malt and employee classification of ME / CFS in Textbook of Psychiatry ( 2 ) is contrary to the WHO system. It is highly regrettable that new generations healthcare are taught in heresy by reading the chapter on psychosomatic disorders in this book. In my view, the discussion of ME / CFS is removed, the book withdrawn and come out in a revised edition.

A consensus panel of medical experts has developed new clinical criteria for ME / CFS ( 3 ) These criteria provide a more accurate description of reality.

You can read the full letter herehttp://tidsskriftet.no/article/1015463

 

Source: E. Stormorken. Heresies in textbook on psychiatry. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2004 May 6;124(9):1277; author reply 1277. [Article in Norwegian] http://tidsskriftet.no/article/1015463 (Full article)

 

GPs’ attitudes to a self diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis. Sufferers continue to be misrepresented

Comment on: General practitioners’ attitudes to patients with a self diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis. [BMJ. 1995]

 

EDITOR,-Shonagh Scott and colleagues’ paper on general practitioners’ attitudes to self diagnosed myalgic encephalomyelitis illustrates, if nothing else, the continuing misrepresentation of this illness and those who suffer from it.’ Contrary to the authors’ claims, Action for ME has never encouraged self diagnosis, and nor have the other “active support organisations” in Britain. Moreover, we have never advocated that patients should make unreasonable demands on their general practitioners.

Despite what Scott and colleagues imply, it is not just patients who recognise the existence of myalgic encephalomyelitis but also the World Health Organisation (the disease appears in the International Classification of Diseases (10th revision)), several handbooks, and many doctors. Indeed, positive attitudes to fatigue syndromes such as myalgic encephalomyelitis have been noted in several studies in the past few years. For instance, Ho-Yen and McNamara surveyed 178 general practitioners in Scotland and found that 71% accepted the existence of the disorder.2 In New Zealand the figure was 90%.3

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2549698/pdf/bmj00593-0058a.pdf

 

Source: Arber M. GPs’ attitudes to a self diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis. Sufferers continue to be misrepresented. BMJ. 1995 May 20;310(6990):1330. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2549698/