We call on The Times to formally review and respond to concerns about Kathleen Stock’s article, “Why Are Young Women Using Walking Sticks?”, and to take appropriate corrective action where claims made in the article cannot be adequately substantiated.

The article presents a deeply troubling portrayal of young disabled women, repeatedly encouraging readers to question whether their illnesses, symptoms and use of mobility aids are legitimate. It moves beyond legitimate discussion of diagnostic uncertainty and health misinformation into speculation about whether disabled people are psychologically constructing their illnesses, being influenced by social media, or seeking attention and sympathy.

The article describes young women using walking sticks as “startlingly fresh-faced”, questions “what kind of pain, exactly” they are experiencing, refers to “strangely unstable” bodies, and ultimately calls on readers to help people “ditch the props” and “stand on their own two feet”.

These are not neutral descriptions of disability. They reinforce the damaging idea that disabled people who do not visibly appear ill must somehow prove that they are genuinely disabled.

The article is particularly concerning in its treatment of fluctuating disability. A person who can walk on one occasion may still require a wheelchair or walking stick at other times. Being able to take some steps does not establish that someone can walk safely, reliably, repeatedly or without significant consequences. Mobility aids are not declarations of permanent incapacity; they are tools that enable people with variable or limited mobility to participate in everyday life.

The article also makes sweeping claims about conditions including POTS, hypermobility, fibromyalgia and ME, while suggesting that young women may be “talking themselves into a disabled state” or may be attracted to illness because it makes them “different, special, excused from the pressures of life” and “pleasingly fussed over by strangers”.

Such claims require considerably more than anecdote and speculation. They risk reinforcing precisely the attitudes that many disabled people already encounter when seeking medical care: that they are exaggerating, anxious, suggestible, attention-seeking or simply unwilling to try hard enough.

This is especially troubling given the article's focus on young women. Women with chronic and fluctuating illnesses have a long history of having physical symptoms dismissed as psychological, emotional or exaggerated. A national newspaper should be exceptionally careful before reproducing those assumptions, particularly when discussing conditions that have historically been underdiagnosed or misunderstood.

We are not asking The Times to prohibit debate about diagnosis, medical practice, health misinformation or social media.

Those are legitimate subjects for discussion.

We are asking for a basic standard of evidence and editorial responsibility when making claims about disabled people and medical conditions.

We therefore call on The Times to:

• Conduct and disclose an editorial review of the article, including the evidential basis for its claims concerning POTS, hypermobility, fibromyalgia, ME and other chronic conditions.
• Substantiate or correct claims suggesting that young women are “talking themselves into a disabled state”, adopting illness identities through social influence, or using mobility aids for attention or sympathy.
• Address the characterisation of walking sticks and wheelchairs as “props”, and acknowledge the potential harm of portraying legitimate disability aids in this way.
• Provide an appropriate correction, clarification or editorial response where claims cannot be supported by reliable evidence.
• Explain what editorial or specialist review was undertaken before publishing medical claims that may influence public perceptions of disabled people.
• Give disabled people and relevant medical experts a meaningful opportunity to respond to the claims made in the article.
• Confirm whether the article is considered consistent with The Times’ editorial standards and the Editors’ Code, including requirements concerning accuracy and the potential for misleading or prejudicial presentation.

This is not about demanding that every diagnosis be accepted unquestioningly. It is about recognising the difference between legitimate medical scrutiny and inviting the public to treat disabled people with suspicion because they look well, have fluctuating symptoms, discuss their conditions online or occasionally manage to walk without a mobility aid.

Disability does not have to be visible to be real. Mobility does not have to be absent for a mobility aid to be necessary. And a person should not have to look sufficiently ill to earn the right to be believed.

We therefore ask The Times to take these concerns seriously, provide a substantive response, and accept responsibility for the editorial decision to publish an article that risks reinforcing harmful misconceptions about disabled people.

If The Times does not provide a satisfactory response, we support pursuing the matter through the appropriate independent press complaints and regulatory processes, including IPSO where applicable.