Sunday Times FII investigation
A major article appeared in the Sunday Times on 20 July 2025 concerning its investigation into the impact that unsubstantiated Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII) allegations are having on countless families. The article ‘I tried to get help for my daughter. Doctors accused me of abuse’ can be accessed by clicking here – but only if you have a Times subscription.[1]
The article investigates the growing misuse of the FII label, which is being wrongly applied to parents of disabled or chronically ill children who seek help or second opinions.
For many years, families, disability and carer support organisations as well as researchers have been expressing grave misgivings about 2021 guidance issued by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH). This includes: concern that the vast majority of FII allegations appeared to be mistaken; that the guidance contains no cautionary note about its potential to adversely discriminate against disabled parents and contains no warning as to the traumatising impact an inappropriate FII allegation is likely to have on a family; that the RCPCH’s alerting signs of FII conflict with Martha’s Rule – for example the RCPCH guidance suggests that such a warning sign might be a parent ‘inappropriately seeking multiple medical opinions’ or a parent ‘not able to accept reassurance’ or insisting ‘on more, clinically unwarranted, investigations ‘sometimes based on internet searches’.[2]
The Sunday Times investigation features the case of Elly Chapple, who was separated from her deafblind daughter for eight months after being falsely accused, and Karina Driscoll, whose daughter Melody died amid a disputed FII investigation.
The article cites the relevant research, including a major Cerebra funded study by Leeds University and new research by Professor Andy Bilson. Andy’s research materially undermines claims made by the Royal Colleges concerning the prevalence of serious harm resulting from FII. A copy of the paper can be accessed by clicking here.[3]
The RCPCH responded to the Sunday Times investigation by stating that when its guidance was ‘updated in 2021 “a multi-disciplinary expert working group” considered the published evidence available, “alongside extensive consultation with relevant professionals”. It added that the guidance was due for an update and that “any new evidence will be considered.”
Well… .
As to the “multi-disciplinary expert working group” – the guidance states that this comprised the RCPCH Officer for Child Protection and involved ‘representative Consultants currently practising within the National Health Service from paediatrics, child and adolescent mental health, neurology, allergy, rheumatology and safeguarding’. The 2022 BASW guidance on FII notes that ‘in the list of consultees who “agreed to be listed” (p.6), there is an absence of organisations representing key safeguarding bodies including social work, education, and the police’.
As to “extensive consultation with relevant professionals” it appears that a number of professionals (including Professor Bilson) did respond to the consultation, but that their views did not make it into the 2021 guidance.
As to the guidance being ‘due for an update’ when ‘any new evidence will be considered’ – this is not dissimilar to what the RCPCH said over 18 months ago when Channel 5 News aired a critical story (November 2023) concerning the impact of FII allegations. At that time, it said: “When we come to review our guidance documents we will be reviewing and taking into account all available evidence at that time”.
In the face of the evidence that families are experiencing severe and unnecessary trauma as a result of flawed guidance – how can any reasonable body exercising functions of a public nature delay taking decisive action: action to withdraw the guidance, pending its thorough revision?
.
[1] It is possible to subscribe for 3 months for £1 and before the expiry period to unsubscribe.
[2] In this context see Budycha, K., Helmsa, T, M, & Schultz, C. ‘How do patients with rare diseases experience the medical encounter? Exploring role behavior and its impact on patient–physician interaction’ Health Policy 105 (2–3) May 2012, pp 154-164 which notes that due ‘to poor knowledge of rare diseases and the limited therapeutic options of treatments, physicians may not act as competent technical experts who provide relevant information to the patients. The patients are thus forced to become experts on their own disease state’ and this is difficult for some physicians to handle.
[3] A Bilson and A Talia ‘Fabricated or induced illness in England: Examining mortality and serious harm’ The British Journal of Social Work (May 2025).
Picture Afon Llugwy, Betws-y-Coed
Posted 21 July 2025