Do you aware that bureaucratic thinking is distorting our perceptions and thus becoming a big contributor to mental disease in society?
In my mind, I see mental disease only as a disorder of perception. it's the degree that determines the extent to which it becomes a clinical disorder of behavior and action. Hence, a doctor must clear up his perceptions first before he offers any psychological state advice to a patient.
If the doctor's perceptions are equivalent because the patient's, then how can he possibly help that individual? Therefore, acquiring self-knowledge and learning to know the thinking process is most vital for any health care provider. we've to find out the way to turn a negative perception into a positive one.
What I even have discovered In my mind is that there's no such thing as a broken heart or a traumatic experience that lasts forever. All experiences in life are meant to form you a far better and wiser person by teaching you a lesson in life. Therefore, all experiences in life, good or bad, are eventually good for you. That's my perception and observation.
So if a patient involves me for help, what I will be able to attempt to do is help him change his perceptions and help him to return to terms with the experience. Of course, if the patient has no desire to vary or help himself, then obviously my assistance will be minimal.
Just labeling an individual as affected by schizophrenia or manic depression, PTSD, etc. doesn't change his perceptions. All it does is give him reason for continuing together with his present state of mind. For instance, he will say that "At last, the doctors have found something wrong with me. I now must have ADHD".
In my mind, bureaucratic thinking which is that the most base of governments and institutions everywhere the earth is also a principal factor contributing to the mental ill-health of people today. it's turning all folks into zombies. Bureaucratic thinking is naive thinking applied to manage and regulate people.
Please let me provide you with some examples. A long time ago, during a tiny low country town, I accustomed be approaching a T junction from a street in my car. There was a halt sign. As there was no traffic on the road, I slowed the car and twisted in. A policeman, waiting on the opposite of the road, hailed and stopped me. He asked, "Did you see the Stop Sign?" I said, "Yes." I had broken the rule and regulation. Stop means stop, and he booked me for the offense.
Can you see here how only the letter of the law was applied? There was no use of sense or consideration of traffic conditions on the road. No deep thinking, moral, or ethical approach was within the police officer's mind. There's often no argument with what he did. He was only doing his job.
Let us try the law that forestalls parents, instructors, and police from disciplining children. Here again, they literally follow the letter of the law. You cannot give any punishment. However, when the kids are out of control, one can use whatsoever force necessary to contain them.
Is there any use of any sense in this? Violence isn't allowed in one instance, but it's okay to use force within the subsequent. This type of contradiction is bad for a condition. It creates confusion in mind and sends wrong messages to children also as adults.
From the above, you would like to determine that bureaucratic thinking has great limitations. There is no deliberation for ethics, sense, or reason. It's just a transparent, simple application of the letter of the law. One can see it affects our status and behavior. It makes us feel intellectually handicapped. So you would like to think the medical profession would be the first fighting against this type of thinking, Right?
Wrong. These professionals who should assistance us clear up our perceptions are themselves stricken by a disorder of perception. they have themselves to become bureaucrats who try and con the final public into thinking that we are working a high standard of medication by having a bureaucratic QI & CPD (Quality Improvement & Continuing Professional Development) system. Nothing is commonly beyond the truth.
In this system, a doctor is given points to need part in certain educational activities. He's required to attain a minimal number of points in three years, after which he's given a certificate of completion. This certificate qualifies him for further registration with the medical board and implies that he has met the standard required of him. Does it now mean that this doctor is currently practicing a high standard of medicine? You would be very naïve indeed to think that way.
In my mind, it is the individual doctor's moral attitude to his work that sets the standards in medicine. One may attend as many lectures, and hold as many certificates together may like, but if one has no ethics and spirits towards his fellow beings, you'd possibly also say goodbye to standards.
It is time for the health profession to forestall indulging in bureaucratic thinking and examine the role it should be playing in society. It should protect society from bureaucratic thinking, not become an element of it. If we become part of the matter, how can we solve it? There must be an ethical approach to spice up standards in medicine. Applying bullying and coercive measures is not the due to go.
They're equivalent techniques of modifying behavior used once i used to be a toddler at school. The teacher will say "You won't be allowed to travel home until you bring me 100 lines "I must not talk within the classroom". I'm wondering whether we've progressed or regressed.
When people have any mental disease, the medical community puts them into boxes and several categories consistent with their behavior and symptoms. It doesn't necessarily mean the doctors comprehend what's happening inside the person's mind. They're going to counsel and advise as best they will consistent with their personal experience and skill, then it's for the patient to return to terms with the matter.
But if the patient has no insight into his mind, then no doctor can support that individual except give him drug remedy. So once we are treating an individual with a mental disease, what we try to try to help the person change his perceptions with psychotherapy and-or drug therapy.
In my mind, I see mental disease only as a disorder of perception. it's the degree that determines the extent to which it becomes a clinical disorder of behavior and action. Hence, a doctor must clear up his perceptions first before he offers any psychological state advice to a patient.
If the doctor's perceptions are equivalent because the patient's, then how can he possibly help that individual? Therefore, acquiring self-knowledge and learning to know the thinking process is most vital for any health care provider. we've to find out the way to turn a negative perception into a positive one.
What I even have discovered In my mind is that there's no such thing as a broken heart or a traumatic experience that lasts forever. All experiences in life are meant to form you a far better and wiser person by teaching you a lesson in life. Therefore, all experiences in life, good or bad, are eventually good for you. That's my perception and observation.
So if a patient involves me for help, what I will be able to attempt to do is help him change his perceptions and help him to return to terms with the experience. Of course, if the patient has no desire to vary or help himself, then obviously my assistance will be minimal.
Just labeling an individual as affected by schizophrenia or manic depression, PTSD, etc. doesn't change his perceptions. All it does is give him reason for continuing together with his present state of mind. For instance, he will say that "At last, the doctors have found something wrong with me. I now must have ADHD".
In my mind, bureaucratic thinking which is that the most base of governments and institutions everywhere the earth is also a principal factor contributing to the mental ill-health of people today. it's turning all folks into zombies. Bureaucratic thinking is naive thinking applied to manage and regulate people.
Please let me provide you with some examples. A long time ago, during a tiny low country town, I accustomed be approaching a T junction from a street in my car. There was a halt sign. As there was no traffic on the road, I slowed the car and twisted in. A policeman, waiting on the opposite of the road, hailed and stopped me. He asked, "Did you see the Stop Sign?" I said, "Yes." I had broken the rule and regulation. Stop means stop, and he booked me for the offense.
Can you see here how only the letter of the law was applied? There was no use of sense or consideration of traffic conditions on the road. No deep thinking, moral, or ethical approach was within the police officer's mind. There's often no argument with what he did. He was only doing his job.
Let us try the law that forestalls parents, instructors, and police from disciplining children. Here again, they literally follow the letter of the law. You cannot give any punishment. However, when the kids are out of control, one can use whatsoever force necessary to contain them.
Is there any use of any sense in this? Violence isn't allowed in one instance, but it's okay to use force within the subsequent. This type of contradiction is bad for a condition. It creates confusion in mind and sends wrong messages to children also as adults.
From the above, you would like to determine that bureaucratic thinking has great limitations. There is no deliberation for ethics, sense, or reason. It's just a transparent, simple application of the letter of the law. One can see it affects our status and behavior. It makes us feel intellectually handicapped. So you would like to think the medical profession would be the first fighting against this type of thinking, Right?
Wrong. These professionals who should assistance us clear up our perceptions are themselves stricken by a disorder of perception. they have themselves to become bureaucrats who try and con the final public into thinking that we are working a high standard of medication by having a bureaucratic QI & CPD (Quality Improvement & Continuing Professional Development) system. Nothing is commonly beyond the truth.
In this system, a doctor is given points to need part in certain educational activities. He's required to attain a minimal number of points in three years, after which he's given a certificate of completion. This certificate qualifies him for further registration with the medical board and implies that he has met the standard required of him. Does it now mean that this doctor is currently practicing a high standard of medicine? You would be very naïve indeed to think that way.
In my mind, it is the individual doctor's moral attitude to his work that sets the standards in medicine. One may attend as many lectures, and hold as many certificates together may like, but if one has no ethics and spirits towards his fellow beings, you'd possibly also say goodbye to standards.
It is time for the health profession to forestall indulging in bureaucratic thinking and examine the role it should be playing in society. It should protect society from bureaucratic thinking, not become an element of it. If we become part of the matter, how can we solve it? There must be an ethical approach to spice up standards in medicine. Applying bullying and coercive measures is not the due to go.
They're equivalent techniques of modifying behavior used once i used to be a toddler at school. The teacher will say "You won't be allowed to travel home until you bring me 100 lines "I must not talk within the classroom". I'm wondering whether we've progressed or regressed.
Comments
Post a Comment