The campaign against discrimination by British psychologists

Back in February, Occupational Psychologist Prof. Adrian Furnham published what might be called 'a guide to malingering' in the Daily Telegraph. Among his list of handy medical excuses for the work-shy and stupid were post-viral fatigue ("watching Richard and Judy is said to alleviate the worst symptoms"), dyslexia ("all the rage"), and post-traumatic stress disorder ("you can select anything, but play up the trauma"). Aside from being insulting and offensive, the article also contained factual inaccuracies.

I knew that psychologists belonging to the British Psychological Society (BPS) have a clause in their Code of Conduct which prohibits them from making public statements which are inconsistent with the scientific evidence. I therefore sent an official complaint to the Society. So did Dr. Shepherd from the ME Association. To our surprise, they turned us down.

Here are some extracts from the letter we wrote to the Psychologist (journal of the BPS):

It is generally accepted that people are entitled to their opinion, but a recent article by an occupational psychologist made us wonder just where the BPS draws the line.

Aside from misrepresenting the disorders, we felt that the article would increase discrimination against the patients and exacerbate their distress. The general population simply isn't sufficiently knowledgeable to distinguish between genuine sufferers (to whom they'd be sympathetic) and 'malingerers' (whom they'd reject).

In the Code of Conduct, clause 1 requires psychologists "to value integrity, impartiality and respect for persons and evidence". Clause 5.7 is more specific, insisting that psychologists "value and have respect for scientific evidence and the limits of such evidence when making public statements that provide psychological information". Furthermore, clause 5.6 requires psychologists to respect the relevant evidence when expressing a professional opinion. Since the statements made by the author were not only factually insupportable but also highly offensive, we submitted a complaint to the Disciplinary Committee...

In the wake of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, we expected the BPS to be more sensitive to the effects of discrimination and prejudice. Hence we thought the author would at the very least be asked to apologise, and to think more carefully in future about the contents of articles written for the media. However, the Committee rejected our complaint and closed the case.

The decision sets a precedent. Unless it is overturned, any psychologist who makes factually inaccurate, derogatory or offensive public statements about sick and disabled can point to this ruling in their defence.

We don't see how psychologists can claim to be one of the caring professions, if they don't challenge colleagues who misinform the public and reinforce their prejudices. The letter from the Society asked us to accept its position. We're afraid, we can't.

 

Dr. Shepherd and I really do not understand why the article wasn't covered by clause 5.7. For instance, does the decision mean that psychologists can make fun of schizophrenics or ridicule epileptics? Will they permit sarcastic remarks about a particular ethnic group?

The Disciplinary Committee obviously believe that we should just laugh when psychologists make fun of the sick and disabled. I think this attitude is prehistoric. It's also difficult to accept that the same organisation will strike a member off the register for having sex with one client.

Dr. Shepherd contacted other organisations and so did I. For instance, I asked for support from the BCODP, GLAD, the British Dyslexia Association and MIND. I also asked the group of Psychologists working with the Disabled (SIGPHD) to support us.

Just to keep things in perspective, the Press Complaints Commission ruled some years ago that doctors can pass on inaccurate medical information in a feature which carries their name (e.g. their column). Such information apparently represents an 'opinion', not a medical fact. Meanwhile, the GMC (who determine what is and what is not acceptable behaviour for physicians), have no rules to discourage the misrepresentation of illnesses or research findings. In other words, British doctors can write what they like! At least the BPS addressed the issue when formulating their Code. All they need to do now is to apply clause 5.7 in relation to the sick and disabled.

I've done as much as I can. If you agree with me (and Dr Shepherd) that people with physical and psychological disabilities deserve the same consideration as Blacks, Jews and other groups suffering from discrimination, why not write a short note to the president of the BPS? I believe that any public statement which is inconsistent with the available evidence and thereby undermines understanding of an illness and/or encourages prejudice against a particular group should be regarded as professional misconduct. Otherwise what's the point of clause 5.7?

UK residents who are interested in helping can contact Dr. Pat Frankish by e-mail: president@bps.org.uk, or by fax at the Psychology Dept, Rampton Hospital Authority on 01777 247316.* Do remember though, that this is not really about ME, dyslexia or PTSD but about a principle.

The letter which Dr. Shepherd and I wrote to the Psychologist was rejected for publication. So was the letter sent by GLAD. The issue has been swept under the carpet, but there's no reason why we shouldn't sweep it right back into view. So, let the BPS know that articles like the above are hurtful and damaging. Tell them that chronically ill and disabled people are not prepared to accept insulting behaviour from health professionals. If we don't educate them, who will?

Ellen Goudsmit

If you want to read the original article first, contact me via David to 'borrow' a copy, or see the extracts below. You'll also find information on page 3 of the Summer issue of Perspectives.

*(People from outside the UK, who are not directly involved but who'd like to show their support, can e-mail me . I will collect the best arguments and try to use them later, when appropriate).

Extracts from the main text

Nobody's fault - but especially not your own.

Source: Daily Telegraph 18.2.99.

Reproduced here for private study, educational purposes and in order to understand the criticisms in the article above.

"Have you come to accept the fact that your work ambitions and dreams may never be realised? Is it now dawning on you that you will probably end up among the mediocre, middle-brow, middle managers in dreary suburbs? Is your fine future behind you?

For those suffering a middle-aged crisis, the fact that they will probably never make it is difficult to accept. ...how do you explain this unfortunate state of affairs?

Certainly, it is easier to admit to bad luck rather than bad judgement. It is unfashionable now to blame your parents, and politically incorrect to blame your spouse...

But wait - there is no need to be depressed. There is now a whole psychobabble industry based on medicalising mediocrity. There are a wealth of serious conditions that can be fashionable excuses.

Now you can discover that your lack of success has been a sort of medical condition that you have always suffered from. This is extremely good news.

First, no one (save God and your genes) is to blame. Not your teachers, employers, spouse etc. or, of course, yourself. You have had, and do have, a serious and seriously ignored condition which has hampered your attempts to lead a successful life. You are not dim, work-shy or lazy. No indeed, you are a chronic sufferer from a recently discovered syndrome!

Indeed, this medical problem - for which there is no known cure - can probably account for all the setbacks you have met in life... This condition explains it all.

Further, finding the root of your problems means both that you deserve sympathy (rather than blame), and perhaps even compensation by various bodies that failed to spot the problem. So what are your options?

Chronic fatigue.

There are lots of possibilities here, and all are to do with a mysterious virus which renders you incapable of any sort of hard work for months, or even years. There is no cure, although reclining on a sofa while watching "Richard and Judy" [UK morning TV show. Ed.] is said to alleviate the worst symptoms. You certainly cannot do tedious tasks such as putting up shelves or shopping, which only makes matters worse. This could account for the fact that you never seemed to achieve much at school, or that your work rate was well behind others...

Post-traumatic stress disorder.

Wonderful opportunities here too, because the stress which causes the trauma may go back years. Bullying at school may help explain middle-aged work malaise.

The idea is that a stressful event (choose anything you like) causes a serious reaction that, uncounselled of course, may last for years. Because stress is subjectively defined, you can select anything¹*, but play up the trauma. Long-buried memories of having your sherbet dip nicked in the play-ground can be built up into something truly spectacular...

There are countless conditions to choose from in the standard psychiatric textbooks. How about undifferentiated somatoform disorder, characterised by unexplained physical complaints lasting at least six months...

Adrian Furnham is professor of psychology at University College, London.

*Editorial note:

1. Factually incorrect. The diagnostic criteria for PTSD limit diagnosis to certain types of stressful events.

For more extracts, e-mail David .

Be sure to see the many other valuable articles at our Main M.E. Home Page