| In the United States and other English-speaking countries, the medical condition known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) is often not taken seriously by members of the medical community. The most likely explanation for this lies in the name itself, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Unlike Breast Cancer, the mere mention of CFS automatically elicits negative concepts in the minds of most people. As with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, the medical community can become unfairly biased for or against an illness due to its nomenclature. When a word is spoken or read, it automatically elicits a concept in the mind of the listener or speaker (Whorf, 1956). A good example of this is how the French word �terrain� represents a way of thought in France. The French �terrain� is an all-encompassing concept of the body whose meaning does not fully translate into English. The concept behind �terrain� actually accounts for distinct differences between the French and American approaches to medicine (Payer, 1996). Payer explains the difference: �While...American doctors tend to focus on the insult, the French...focus on the reaction and are more likely to try to find ways to modify the reaction as well as fight off the insult� (p.61, 1996). If a single concept (represented by a word) can cause the difference in medical practices between the United States and France, then concepts (represented by words) implied by names of illnesses can most certainly explain the differences in the way patients of one illness are treated compared to patients of another. With Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (for definition, see attachment), common doctor opinion is evident in the satisfaction of their CFS patients. The majority of CFS patients are dissatisfied with their treatment by the medical community; major complaints usually include doctors blaming a psychiatric problem where none exists, poor doctor attitude (including skepticism and open disbelief and reluctance to order tests and referrals), and doctors with little or no knowledge of CFS. In 2001, Alicia Deale and Simon Wessely conducted a study measuring the satisfaction of CFS patients in the United Kingdom. Roughly two-thirds (62%) of the 68 patients who took part in the study were dissatisfied with the quality of medical care they had received since the onset of their illness (Deale and Wessely, 2001). An unacceptable (misdiagnosis) of psychiatric illness was made in 74% of dissatisfied patients and in 60% of all patients. Sixty-four percent (64%) of dissatisfied and 50% of all patients encountered doctors who were skeptical or openly disbelieving of them. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of dissatisfied and 79% of all patients dealt with doctors that did not know about CFS. Taking into consideration all patients� responses and comparing them to other similar studies conducted in the UK and Australia, Deale and Wessely concluded that access to a supportive doctor who believed in the patients symptoms was of great worth (Deale and Wessely, 2001). If the medical community believed in the validity of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as an illness, it is very likely there would be proven treatments and the disease would be better understood, resulting in better patient care. Presently, there are only a handful of treatments that exist in the world, each of which is only administered by a doctor in his/her private practice. The funding to research these treatments as well as to develop a better understanding of the illness is very slim. In 1999, it was revealed that the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) misspent $12.9 million intended for CFS research on research for other diseases (Summary Report, 1999). If CFS were taken seriously, there would be more funding for research and subsequently a better understanding in the medical community, better patient care, and more available treatments. Continued... |
 |