Note added June 2020: The action promoted below appeared to be very effective at the time (Oct/Nov’19) with a strong majority of comments supporting keeping PA as an Index Term. However, in February 2020 it was removed. That’s all I know.
Prior to May this year (2019), parental alienation had been the subject of academic debate regarding its validity as a psychological condition. But that debate came to an end in May.
In May with the World Health Organisation Member States agreed to adopt the eleventh revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, commonly known as ICD-11. Parental alienation appears in ICD-11 as an Index Term under code QE52.0, thus providing clinical validation of the condition as a mental health issue.
The feminists were not pleased. Just before WHO made their announcement in May, a “Collective Memo of Concern” with 173 signatories was sent to WHO seeking to reverse the decision. The lead author, Linda Neilson, was joined by a cast of lawyers, criminologists, sociologists and representatives of the VAWG lobby.
This axis is still intent on reversing the position by petitioning WHO accordingly. Inaction will leave the field open for them to succeed. Here’s how you can help defeat this backlash…
Go to icd.who.int/dev11/l-m/en
Register – it doesn’t take long – you don’t need to answer all the questions.
Once logged on type “parental alienation” in the search box, and then click on the words “parental alienation” which subsequently appear.
Next click the blue tab called “Proposals” on the far right of the screen.
Scroll down until you see the entry by Linda Neilson title “Delete Entry Proposal”. She is proposing that PA is deleted from ICD-11.
Scroll down to the end of her text, just before the comments on her proposed deletion, and click “Disagree”. You should see the associated count reduce by one (which will mean, if it’s negative, that the number gets one bigger in magnitude).
That’s it. Well done.
Pingback: Speech to mark International Men’s Day 2019 by William Collins – Human Rights And Wrongs
I was away for 3 weeks and just got round to sorting this – it appears that Nielson’s proposal has been rejected as of 17 November 19 – with a negative count of 282?
There’s been a substantial backlash and renewed focus & attempts by these men-haters Michael!
If you look at the rationale for WHO rejecting the proposal: parental alienation is a serious problem some women don’t admit and think it’s just a personal sex war and forget about children
The likes of Meier and Nielson features strongly from the STATED feminist activist group CSMS!
When oh when will there be equal rights, AND REPOSNSIBILITIES, so that our future generations are cured from at least this one plague!
Here’s the link – if you want to go down the rabbit hole:
I will gladly show my support for this.
Done. Each proposal to delete disagreed with.
Thank you for alerting us to this.
Excellent. The instructions worked very well. Will circulate widely and encourage all to do the same. Just had a fabulous training week with Calvin Bell . The need is for a new generation and new breed of open minded risk assessors . David
There are now 13 proposals to delete the adoption of this classification, although most are frivolous.
Al are in negative vote territory.
Yes I noted the others & that they seemed all negative. I didn’t ask people to downvote them all (though I did) for fear of putting people off & Neilson’s is the main threat.
done, I thought it was interesting and i hope that more people will follow your instructions and have an active part in doing something. I am so ready to actually do something, at least to know i am trying to make a difference.
I am just grateful that parental alienation is having awareness brought to it, no matter what terms are used to classify it, i know it exists, i am the parent being alienated, I am the biological parent of a little girl who is in the custody of a man who is not legally by marriage or blood any relation to my daughter. Had the police followed the federal law when i first reported the abduction, my daughter wouldn’t be going through this, nor myself or her siblings. Police need to follow the law when a parent reports someone took their child, age 7, to another county without permission and is refusing to return them. The police should not be allowed to tell the parent to give them a few days, and if they don’t return her, they will contact law enforcement in that county and report as a kidnapping. This was a kidnapping and he obtained custody, ex parte , during the time that police should have forced him to bring the child back to the parent.
I see from their newsletter that the Male Psychology Group are also on to this. As I suppose they would be as this really is a case of politics, feminists, against science. This is something that can occur to either mother or father but predominantly fathers cue to them far more likely to be living separately. If one were to take the feminists line as used in DV the minority of cases should simply be ignored completely. But I have never heard anyone working in this field suggest alienated mothers are somehow to be ignored or treated as authors of their own problem.
It is a tragedy that feminists have turned this into yet another battleground.
The responses at the end are interesting. One of the more telling themes is summed up by
“In this text the word women appears 67 times, law appears 64 times, legal 23 times and the word children appears 30 times. Men never appear.
I don´t understand how can someone talk on gender bias when they write women 63 times and never write men.”
Of course, feminists will often talk how terrible gender bias is, all the while exhibiting terrible gender bias.
One commentator accurately points out that
“Incorporation of a term for classification purposes does not indicate WHO endorsement or any sort of formal recognition. It is only an acknowledgement that it is a term that may be used in health care settings and therefore may need to be classified.”
It is a sign of how much feminists are panicking that they want to quash even the possibility of parental alienation being talked about, let alone formally recognised.
Susan Ilkov-Moor of Queens University, Canada beat me (very comprehensively) to a list of the many ways that parental alienation is against the UN rights of the child. In my experience of fighting at international level, it is just this kind of dogfight over which policy (VAW or UNCNC or UDHR) is paramount that often determines the outcome of a lower-level action document. Unfortunately, the United Nations is an openly feminist organisation and so it can be hard to wriggle through: no matter how many argue, nor how well, the feminists are in control of what actually happens in the WHO.
My tuppence contribution:
The disturbance to children of split families and divorcing/separating parents is often life-long even if the parents get on as well as average. The psychological splitting caused by parent/child alienation is on top of this trauma and is identifiable as having different symptoms even from parental abandonment. The research may be in relative infancy (only going back about 40 years, I believe) but most of the indications and reports I have seen are that parental alienation is a psychological problem for, first, the child; second, the parent who is alienated and, thirdly often the parent who is doing the alienating.
Done. I would advise a little care when following these instructions, then there should be no problem. Tell all your friends.
The MR movement should do more of this collective engagement.
Thanks for organising this.
The tip that not all question require an answer was good information, and got me to reject this ludicrous proposal. Cheers!