Diary
Sarah Rigby
Last week I walked home from Shepherd’s Bush Green. It isn’t far – people who come to visit say it takes them about ten minutes – but it felt like a considerable achievement. I haven’t been able to walk that far since I’ve lived in this part of London. It wasn’t just that I could cover the distance – at a push I could have done that six months ago – but I didn’t have any pain in the days which followed, which was an indication of how much I’ve improved. Two years ago, when I first moved here, I couldn’t comfortably walk from one room of my flat to another, and when I tried to ignore the pain and go further, it always got worse.
You are not Logged In
- If you have already registered login here
- If you are a print subscriber using the site for the first time please register here
- If you are not yet a subscriber you can subscribe here
- If you are a member of a subscribing institution or University library please login here
- If you have an Institutional print subscription and online access is not included, find out about our Institutional online subscriptions
Letters
Vol. 20 No. 18 · 17 September 1998
From Simon Wessely
In her account of her struggle to overcome chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), Sarah Rigby (LRB, 20 August) suggests that a recent article of mine in the Guardian ‘silently contradicted’ the views of Elaine Showalter. In fact there is no contradiction between the research I described in the Guardian and the position taken by Showalter in her book Hystories or in the Diary she wrote for the LRB. Our work showed that the majority of those who come to a specialist clinic such as the one I run at King’s College Hospital do indeed come from the professional classes. Nearly all believe they are suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), and many do not fulfil established international criteria for CFS. An illness which preferentially affects the successful middle classes is inherently implausible, and provides the basis for Showalter’s critique. However, when we looked outside the clinic, we found the opposite. Operationally-defined CFS was more common in lower socio-economic groups, but most of those affected did not use terms such as ME to describe their illness. There is thus no discrepancy between our epidemiological studies of CFS and Showalter’s historical analysis of ME – we are describing different constructs and concepts, so it is not surprising that we reach different conclusions.
Simon Wessely
Vol. 20 No. 20 · 15 October 1998
From Sarah Rigby
Simon Wessely (Letters, 17 September) now claims that he sees a distinction between ME and CFS, two years after his instrumental role in the Royal Colleges committee whose final report specifically (and, many felt, inappropriately) recommended that ‘ME’ should be renamed ‘CFS’. Even if he now makes a distinction between the two terms, he certainly did not do so in his Guardian article, on which I based my assumption that he disagreed with the position Elaine Showalter took on CFS and class in Hystories.
In that book Showalter suggested that, CFS, like neurasthenia, ‘was most commonly seen among the upper social classes’. In the Guardian, using the same historical parallel, Simon Wessely said that in Victorian times CFS was, ‘oddly enough’,
thought to be an illness that predominantly affected the upper echelons of society. So is it yuppie flu, then? The Victorians gradually learnt that it wasn’t, and we are slowly finding the same. My clinics do contain rather more teachers, doctors and nurses than one would expect, but when we extended our studies to general practice and the community we found that CFS was common in all social classes.
In his letter Wessely suggests that in his Guardian article he was writing about CFS, and that Elaine Showalter had been giving an account of ME. In his article, however, he uses the two terms as though they were interchangeable, and writes under the title ‘No-name illness’. The only distinction he made between them was this: ‘ME is the term that dominates the clinic and the media, but doctors talk and write about CFS. Encephalomyelitis … is a misnomer while chronic fatigue syndrome is instead neutral … but is it, whatever we call it, new?’ The implication must surely be that he sees (or then saw) the two terms as different names for the same thing, not as ‘different constructs and concepts’, as he now claims.
In her book Showalter also used the two terms as though they were synonymous, noting that ‘ME’ is the name ‘used in the UK’. ‘Whatever the official definition or name of the syndrome,’ she went on to say, ‘doctors use it in lax and general ways.’ This last point certainly seems to be true, and it’s the reason for the British ME charities’ aversion to the term ‘CFS’, which they see as a large and unspecific category, consisting of many sub-groups with different causes and symptoms. Their point has usually been that as it is already widely used in Britain, the term ‘ME’ should continue to be used here until a more satisfactory alternative can be agreed on. However, neither Showalter nor Wessely mentioned sub-groups in what they wrote. The symptoms Showalter described, as well as her historical account of the illness, clearly indicate that she was writing about CFS as a whole and was not making the distinction Simon Wessely now makes in his letter. In print, if not necessarily in intention, there can be no doubt that Wessely did contradict Showalter’s views on this issue.
Sarah Rigby
Norwich
