What’s in a name? It has been a lottery in the past now at last clarity for CFS/ME from The World Health Organisation (WHO)

A statement from Andre l’Hours – WHO Headquarters dated 23rd January 2004 states:

“This is to confirm that according to the taxonomic principles governing the Tenth Revision of the World Health Organisation’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10), it is not permitted for the same condition to be classified to more than one rubric as this would mean that the individual categories and subcategories were no longer mutually exclusive”. He also stated that if a country accepts the WHO regulations concerning nomenclature (which the UK does), then that country is obliged to accept the ICD classification. For the avoidance of doubt, the UK has registered no reservations about the ICD-10 and therefore formally accepts it.

What does this mean in plain English?
Changes will have to be made. The new edition of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Primary Care Guide will unify CFS and ME in a single neurological code (ICD-10 93.3).

Previously the guide has linked CFS and ME to different classifications – Psychiatry for CFS and Neurology for ME. In a statement by the Institute of Psychiatry on the classification change they wrote “The debate has also highlighted the very real fear that if one’s disorder is labelled as psychological rather than physical, then the inevitable consequence is of barriers to access to sickness benefits and to cover under the medical insurance system”.

This single classification will help to remove the difficulties over the name of this illness. It will remove the confusion for doctors and patients. The choice of name has often reflected a specific doctor’s preference rather than a scientific difference, leading to some concerns of a doctor’s judgement as to the cause of this illness.

Professor Rachel Jenkins, Director of the WHO UK Collaborating Centre says;

“We hope this (change) will enable sufferers, carers and practitioners to look beyond the vexed question of classification to that of advice and support”.