CRPD/C/17/D/27/2015 entitled to a post-surgical diagnosis and medical treatment before submitting evidence for her claim. 2.13 In July 2013, the author reported the situation to the General Medical Council, submitting that several consultants who had treated her in the period 2007-2012 had been negligent in their care. The Council found that the consultants in reference had not been negligent. 2.14 In 2013 and 2014 the author continued to have incapacitating upper cervical spine and head pain, causing her to be in full-time need of a wheelchair. She attempted to seek treatment in the United Kingdom for her condition, but no treatment was available. In September 2014, the author underwent a brain and spine scan at the National Magnetic Resonance Research Center in Ankara, which revealed cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics dysfunction. In November 2014, the author consulted with a professor and neurosurgeon in the United States; the professor noted that the author suffered from several cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamic related disorders, including Tarlov cysts at every level of the spinal canal, a large pseudomeningocele in the lumbosacral spine, pseudotumor cerebri and weakening of the meningeal connective tissue interaction between nerves, the nerve roots and the arachnoid of the exiting neural foramina. The professor advised that initial diagnostic testing should include a contrast-enhanced venogram to monitor stenosis of the dural venuous sinuses, and spine and brain intracranial pressure monitoring in order to assess the cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamic system. 2.15 At the time of the submission of her communication to the Committee, it had taken the author seven years to find a consultant able to address her medical condition. She claims that she has been unable to obtain adequate medical care or a definite diagnosis in the State party. She requests the Committee to order 19 remedies from the State party, which include: to take immediate action in granting the author the medical funds needed to access an international specialist neurosurgeon of her choice; to ensure that funds needed to cover ongoing treatment and rehabilitation costs are secured for the future; to enforce accountability for negligent practices within the health-care setting; to make the reporting of iatrogenic illness mandatory; to ensure that the State party advances the art and science of clinical research and training within the field of cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics and its associated rare disorders; to advance professional and public awareness and education of the aetiology, treatment, prognosis and management of cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics disorders; to advance professional and public awareness and education of the aetiology, treatment, prognosis and management of arachnoiditis; to promote treatment for acute phase arachnoiditis to control neuropathic pain; to ensure that National Health Service organizations are both neutral and ethical in their decision-making process; to ensure that the State party reforms the General Medical Council, abolishes self-regulation and introduces regular assessments of the competence of medical professionals; to ensure that patients receive comprehensive information prior to providing their informed consent to undergo invasive spinal procedures, including the possibility of developing arachnoiditis and a cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics disturbance; and to ensure a review of the role and efficacy of the State party’s medico-legal expert witnesses. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that her rights under article 5 of the Convention have been violated by the State party. She claims that she has not received equal protection and equal benefit of the law and that she has been subjected to continuous discrimination for seven years. She claims that her needs as a disabled person with multiple rare neurological disorders have not been met and that she has continuously faced hostility and insurmountable obstacles in her efforts to obtain treatment. She argues that she has systematically been denied medical consultants by the authorities of the State party, and that she has therefore been subjected to discrimination. The author further claims that she was denied post-operative care and specialist medical treatment following a rare surgical complication that caused multiple rare disorders, all of which resulted in her being left with complex neurological symptoms that remain untreated. The author also argues that it is discriminatory to force her to seek medical care abroad while she is seriously ill and without funds. 5