R.E.S.C.I.N.D.

Now I didn't come to be in favour of ME-itis overnight. It has some things going against it. Its hard to pronounce, at first. But then, so is fibromyalgia). It can be used pejorativly as the "ME" disease -- but then AYDS was a chocolate weight loss candy. But those are heavily outweighed by the arguments in its favour:

1. It has a nearly 50 year history (which will disprove those who suggest that this is a new illness).

2. It is currently in use or known in much of the rest of the world.

3. It is recognized in this country and will not take so much re-education as a "new name" would

4. It has a diagnostic code (323.9) already in place in the US ICD-9CM which will be used through 2004.

5. The ICD-10 has ME in it also, under G93.3 .

6. Restoring the name ME-itis will avoid the hackneyed excuse given by the government that they need to know more about the "pathophysiologic proces or processes associated with chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic fatigue" before they will support a name change. Considering the huge strides in understanding the pathophysiologic process that have been avoided by the government's scientists, we would be in for a long wait indeed.

6a. Note: The government is using the name CFS to study C.F.-something that could keep them busy for many long years to come.

6b. Note: The government didn't need to more about the pathophysiologic processes when they changed the name in 1988

6c. Note that the May '99 CDC pamphlet saying that patients should not be tested for all the things that show physiological pathologies does not exactly inspire confidence in their committment to study the illness in a meaningful way.

7. We can use "ME-itis" now - if our docs will diagnose us with it.

8. Having it as an additional diagnosis will, if anything, shore up our disability claims.

9. By using the old name rather than attempting to create a new one out of whole cloth we avoid many pitfalls and boondoggles.

10. As the work by Jason showed, health care professionals would take this illness more seriously if it had a scientific sounding name.

11. IF there should come a breakthrough which clearly indicates a True New Name is needed, then we haven't added yet another different name to the illness. This disease already has too many names.

My personal doctors have been supportive of the use of ME-itis, and indeed have put it as my diagnosis. One even wrote her rep to find out about whether or not ME would be included in ICD-10. The other docs I have talked to have been more interested in treating the illness than in what it should be called; although they have expressed distaste for the current name and a desire to get rid of the stigma attached to the disease.

Jean Harrison

---