|
ME/CFS South Australia Inc supports the needs of sufferers of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and related illnesses. We do this by providing services and information to members.
Disclaimer
ME/CFS South Australia Inc aims to keep members informed of various research projects, diets, medications, therapies, news items, etc. All communication, both verbal and written, is merely to disseminate information and not to make recommendations or directives.
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed on this Web site are not necessarily the official views of the Society or its Committee and are not simply an endorsement of products or services.
 |
Minister for Health’s lukewarm response to MCS Inquiry
December 15, 2005
The State Minister for Health has now responded, as he is officially required to do, to the recommendations on improving the management of issues relating to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. This response refuses to give priority to some of the modest proposals made by the parliamentary committee.
Read the response for yourself (below). And, if you're concerned, prepare to support the efforts of the ME/CFS Society and other groups to lever some effort out of a health and disabilities bureaucracy which at the moment is telling us: “You’re not a priority.”
Response to the
Social Development Committee
Inquiry
Into
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
(MCS)
November
2005
General Comments
The Committee is to be congratulated on tackling this difficult but important issue, and for completion of its report. The Committee has witnessed the fact that there are wide-ranging views on the central question of causation of MCS, and this is principally because there is currently no scientific or medical consensus on the cause or diagnosis of this condition. Indeed, many who work in this field believe that the term “MCS” is a misnomer, as it is not proven that chemicals are the sole causal factor. This point of lack of consensus on causation and diagnosis must be reinforced, since progress to achieve such consensus is certainly required if there is to be significant advancement in the various clinical, toxicological and social impact areas that were addressed by the Committee.
In spite of the strong submissions made to the SDC on the uncertainty associated with diagnosis and treatment, the Committee appears to have moved to a view that chemicals are the cause of MCS and has based its recommendations on the premise of chemical causation. DH advises that it is not proven that chemicals are the sole causation of MCS. Consequently, the Department believes that it is extremely difficult for SDC or others to identify priority areas of action while the central question of causation remains unresolved. Notwithstanding, it is evident that MCS leads to morbidity in some people and may represent a significant cost to society.
Following is the response of DH to specific recommendations of the SDC. DH notes that some of these recommendations were also referred to other Departments and that recommendations 4 and 6 were referred only to PIRSA. Since SDC has recommended that DH convene an across-Government Working Party for dealing with several MCS issues, the Department has assumed a lead-agency role and has incorporated the responses of the other departments into this document.
Specific Recommendations
1. |
That the Department of Health (DH) monitors the prevalence of MCS in SA and compiles comparative data on the incidence of MCS to enable trend analysis. |
Supported in principle
Through two telephone surveys, the Department has already gathered data from over 4,000 individuals and determined that MCS has a prevalence of about 1 per cent in SA. Whether further surveys can be done will depend on priorities for resources within the Department for surveillance activities.
Surveys have been conducted elsewhere and have shown various incidence rates. It is difficult though to compare surveys, since the wording of questions has not been standardised and the state of MCS knowledge in the public and medical practitioner arenas is likely to be different in different countries. Therefore, any further surveys conducted in SA will need to be carefully designed and interpreted.
3. |
That DH:
|
Supported in principle
The Department has already engaged with several of these stakeholders in discussions over recent years on various aspects of MCS. Importantly, consistent recognition of causes and symptoms is required. Once this is achieved, DH will consult and promulgate as appropriate.
3. |
That DH convene an MCS Reference Group including representatives of relevant Government departments and agencies including PIRSA and the EPA, professional bodies and organisations, community groups, and Councils nominated by the Local Government Association, to maintain ongoing communication and provide up-to-date information on developments in the MCS debate. |
Supported
The Department will convene an MCS Reference Group. PIRSA and the EPA have indicated to DH their willingness to participate in this group.
4. |
That the PIRSA Chemical Trespass Coordinator continue to provide assistance to people with MCS in addressing instances of chemical trespass as they arise. |
Supported
PIRSA will continue to provide assistance to all citizens reporting specific incidents of chemical trespass, including people with MCS, through investigation of the reported trespass incidents and provision of information and advice.
5. |
That the MCS Reference Group convened by DH work to develop best practice guidelines to enable local Councils to establish No-Spray Registers that identify MCS sufferers, and those with chemical sensitivities generally in local communities. This would include identifying current best practice models of No-Spray Registers among Councils to inform the reference group's best practice guidelines. |
Supported in principle
The Department is aware that some Councils have already commenced no-spray registers, and so would draw on the experience of those Councils in expanding such a program.
6. |
That PIRSA:
|
Supported
PIRSA already works with organisations and individuals to implement best practice in chemical application including legal obligations under the Agricultural and Veterinary Products (Control of Use) Act 2002. This work will continue as an integral component of ongoing efforts to improve the management of chemical applications risks generally.
Local government is a significant user of pesticides either directly or through contractors for pest and weed control. PIRSA staff regularly contact Council planners, Environmental Health Officers and Animal & Plant Control Board Officers on a range of pesticide use issues.
Best practice in relation to no-spray registers is proposed for consideration by the MCS Reference Group (Recommendation 5). The results of the deliberations of the Reference Group can flow through to Councils by various means, directly to individual Councils or to Councils as a group via the Local Government Association.
7. |
That the DH collaborates with the Department for Families and Communities (DFC) and other appropriate agencies and organisations, with the view to exploring practical measures that could assist in addressing disability access issues experienced by MCS sufferers, in relation to public facilities and services in the community. |
Supported in principle
This recommendation poses some difficulty, as the lack of consensus on chemical causation means that improving access to public facilities for MCS sufferers may not be as simple as reducing chemical exposures voluntarily or legislatively. Nonetheless, institutions would need to be made aware that some MCS sufferers do have specific needs.
DFC, through the Client Services Office (CSO), is keen to address the disability access issues faced by people with disabilities in relation to public facilities and services in the community. However, MCS does not fall within the scope of disability for this purpose since DFC currently regards MCS as a chronic medical condition, as opposed to a disability.
People affected by MCS would not appear to benefit from the wide range of disability services which are currently offered by DFC. These being respite services, independent living training, accommodation services, therapy services-, home care and family support services, etc. Indeed, in addressing disability access issues as stated in this Recommendation, the expertise of DFC is, in the main, addressing issues arising from people's physical, cognitive, neurological and sensory impairments and relate mainly to making modifications to physical environment through the fitting of rails, ramps, hearing loops, easy-read signs, etc. These are not the same access issues which are faced by MCS sufferers.
8. |
That the Minister for Health place MCS on the Australian Health Minister's Advisory Council agenda to ensure that a co-ordinated national approach is taken to addressing emerging issues, including the need for:
|
Supported in principle
Many issues around MCS will require national leadership and commitment to funding in the areas of aetiological research, development of diagnostic and clinical management guidelines, and understanding of national prevalence and trends.
The Office of Chemical Safety within the Commonwealth Department of Health & Ageing is in the process of conducting a major review on MCS. The findings of this review will be important for informing an agenda item for AHMAC. DH will respond to the findings of this review as appropriate.
9. |
That the DH:
|
Supported
This will require cross-portfolio coordination. DH will convene a Working Group to develop consistent protocol and procedures for dealing with MCS sufferers in hospitals.
9. |
|
Not supported at this time
DH is already supporting moves to establish Working Groups and review teams under Recommendations 3 and 9.1.
10. |
That the relevant State Government Ministers:
|
Supported in principle
As an initial action in support of this recommendation, DH will refer the SDC report to the Office of Chemical Safety and the Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority for their consideration. It should be noted that chemicals other than herbicides are causally related to MCS by MCS sufferers.
PIRSA will refer the SDC report to the Co-operative Research Centre for Weed Management for their consideration.
The Environment Protection and Heritage Ministerial Council has initiated the development of a national chemicals framework to provide guidance on better and more consistent management of chemicals in Australia . This includes pesticides, industrial chemicals, chemicals in food and therapeutic substances.
11. |
|
Not supported at this time
While it is recognized that some MCS sufferers require equipment such as air/water purifiers, oxygen and respiratory masks, these aides are outside the scope of assistance provided by the Department of Families and Communities (DFC) through the Independent Living and Equipment Program. Discussion under Recommendation 7 outlines the current rationale for DFC support of people with disabilities. This Recommendation 11.1 largely falls outside the domain of the Minister for Disability.
This Recommendation would best be revisited subsequent to the outcomes of the review mentioned in Recommendation 8. As with most of the proposals from the Social Development Committee regarding MCS, progress relies heavily on whether MCS can be defined as a bona fide medical condition with consensus aetiology, diagnosis and treatment.
11. |
|
Not supported
As MCS is not recognised as a defined medical condition in Australia , DH is unable to extend its stretched resources to assist MCS patients at the loss of assistance to sufferers of recognised diseases.
|
More Multiple Chemical Sensitivity news |
Previous Page |
Registered Charity 3104
Email:
sacfs@sacfs.asn.au
Mailing address:
PO Box 322,
Modbury North,
South Australia 5092
Phone:
1300 128 339
Office Hours:
Monday - Friday,
10am - 4pm
(phone)