In December 2017, in addition to requesting an external review from Japan ME Association among other groups on its “ME/CFS Treatment Guidelines for Japan,” the Research Committee on the Development of Treatments and Treatment Guidelines for ME/CFS also solicited comments from the public.
Several organizations and individuals within Japan have shared with us the public comments they submitted to the guidelines research committee. We highlight three of them (translated from the original Japanese) here.
- “According to a 2012 to a survey conducted with the ME/CFS association, 47% of patients visited more than six medical institutions before they obtained a diagnosis. Patients struggled from misunderstanding and prejudice even after receiving an ME/CFS diagnosis, with a lack of understanding from family and friends. They are often viewed as being malingerers. The proposed guidelines include many problems as the patient association has indicated, and will result in further deepening misunderstanding about the disease among medical professionals who do are not familiar with ME/CFS. I hope these guidelines can be reconsidered using reliable factors such as diagnostic criteria and clinical treatment information.” – Dr. Miwako Hosoda, Vice President, Seisa University
- “What patients seek regardless of where they live is discovery of the pathology of ME/CFS and the development of effective treatments. It is unacceptable to have situations that may result in harm to patients even outside the context of clinical treatment. This is because the suffering that accompanies illness onset, diagnosis, and visiting doctors in search of treatment is endured by patients and their families, and more precisely, by patients. Of course, risks accompanying research such as clinical treatment trials may be unavoidable. But such risks must be minimized as much as possible, not just limited to clinical trial research… At the very least, I am uncomfortable with the release of the current proposed guidelines, which have been created without convening a panel consisting of stakeholders such as patients, members of the public, and specialist researchers.” – Natsuko Nojima, Researcher, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
- “In treating illnesses like ME/CFS where the pathology is not yet known, it is only with the passage of time when the actual situation becomes known that medical treatment and medical policies may be truly evaluated. For example, there could be a treatment that may be applied with the best of intentions, but which could constitute a human rights issue. There is a need to be cautious. If there is no treatment with an A-grade recommendation, I believe the guidelines should make clear that there are currently no effective treatments. Since there is no such statement, many clinicians may overlook this important fact and may select graded exercise therapy, which is recommended as a B-grade treatment but has the potential to make patients worse. It could spread the promotion of exercise for illnesses with fatigue even if they make patients worse, as these incidences often remain unreported and patients may end up paying for treatment only to find themselves suffering more.” – Keiji Nakazawa, President, Non-Profit Organization Healthcare Innovation in Japan