Ethical classification of ME/CFS in the United Kingdom
Few conditions have sparked as much controversy as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Professional consensus has long suggested that the condition should be classified as psychiatric, while patients and advocacy groups have insisted it is a serious biological disease that r...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2019]
|
| In: |
Bioethics
Year: 2019, Volume: 33, Issue: 6, Pages: 716-722 |
| IxTheo Classification: | KBF British Isles NCH Medical ethics |
| Further subjects: | B
Informed Consent
B philosophical ethics B CFS / ME B right to healthcare B policy guidelines |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1727506103 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230426130552.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 200820s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/bioe.12559 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1727506103 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1727506103 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a O'Leary, Diane |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Ethical classification of ME/CFS in the United Kingdom |
| 264 | 1 | |c [2019] | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Few conditions have sparked as much controversy as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Professional consensus has long suggested that the condition should be classified as psychiatric, while patients and advocacy groups have insisted it is a serious biological disease that requires medical care and research to develop it. This longstanding debate shifted in 2015, when U.S. governmental health authorities fully embraced medical classification and management. Given that some globally respected health authorities now insist that ME/CFS is a serious biological disease, this paper asks whether it can be ethical for the U.K. practice guideline now in development to characterize the condition as a mental health disorder. Following a brief history of ME/CFS controversy, I offer three arguments to show that it would be unethical for the U.K. to now characterize ME/CFS as a mental health condition, considering the relevance of that conclusion for ME/CFS guidelines elsewhere and for other contested conditions. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a ME/CFS | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Informed Consent | |
| 650 | 4 | |a philosophical ethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a policy guidelines | |
| 650 | 4 | |a right to healthcare | |
| 652 | |a KBF:NCH | ||
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Bioethics |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1987 |g 33(2019), 6, Seite 716-722 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)271596708 |w (DE-600)1480658-7 |w (DE-576)078707986 |x 1467-8519 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:33 |g year:2019 |g number:6 |g pages:716-722 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12559 |x Verlag |
| 856 | |u https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12559 |x doi |3 Volltext | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 3741282650 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1727506103 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220124111620 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 200820||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixzo | ||
| LOK | |0 936ln |0 1550736558 |a NCH | ||
| LOK | |0 936ln |0 1442044888 |a KBF | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||