.
Post with research on some manifestations of psychiatric stigma in the psychiatric community
Louis and I said friends from now on before they were friends of my essays here, working together on a study so long ago, so long that I might have just learned to live without my babies, yes their study was in 1988.
Then they asked a simple question: Are we in the psychiatric sector in general and psychiatrists in particular we don’t prefer to work with patients with personality disorders It sounds like a normal question, but the reasoning of each question is how big it is, These two men showed short cases of illness to psychiatrists, and these cases carry symptoms of personality disorders. When they asked their question and presented these cases, Louis and I said, there was a great debate about the diagnosis of these personal disorders, and even the diagnostic references, there was a confusion between these diagnostics and the lack of a very clear boundary between them, these arguments from (Lack of clarity) made the answers and analysis of psychiatrists that these patients are people (manipulative, attention-seeking, disturbing and even the most in need of health care) They don’t know what their problem is, and they don’t get any closer to knowing what they are. (And they stigmatize them) in these qualities, and they notice that these workers are stigmatizing people who have come of their own volition to their clinic and not to people that we may have the utmost knowledge of just electronic letters or what the public say about them. The results of these friends’ study summarized that psychiatrists in the study sample then showed a negative bias stigmatized by deficiency to these patients. You might say these are people who have gone ahead and we children today are away from your friends and your breastfeeding and it’s at least real from my babies. But a near-recent study in 2017 presented my friends’ questionnaires and the results were close.
Perhaps one of the most commonly used definitions of stigma with reviews emanating from Goffman’s 1960s thesis because perhaps one of the first to address stigma from a psychiatric perspective away from racial, religious or sexual stigma, Goffman sees stigma as a (severely contaminated description converts a full and natural person into a damaged and inferior person) Perhaps personally, I see myself in harmony with Bruce and his friends when they describe that labelling occurs from a gathering that is more powerful in the scope of any human gathering, and is there more powerful than a white robe in the lobby of our hospitals? Maybe sometimes yes to those in the department’s offices, but stick with my thesis a little bit:)
This power of knowledge, experience and science gives a person some self-justification to judge this and that and treat them in a way that is inferior, generally setting out a specific definition in which it is difficult and this is due to different aspects of stigma.
Point of Order
Here’s an important point of order before I start in my lines: the stigma when I address it here you should not take that harsh and violent part of its applications and manifestations. and the stigma of psychiatrists if the phrase is correct, its manifestations are softer and streamlined, When it comes, it’s not straightforward, it’s often a good net structure, and in a context that has nothing to do with labelling or otherwise, they may be welcomed and praised, but indirectly it puts a new building block in building this negative stigma in the recipient’s mentality. Most of them were presented by many before me, and more importantly, they are not specific to a particular society, but they are widespread among all those working anywhere and that I have personally outlined were from my work environment, whether in Sweden or in Saudi Arabia.
Many theses (in relatively small research figures) on the prevalence of stigma of psychiatric illness among psychiatric health workers, regardless of occupational specialization (Even nurses from us who have been in some reviews are the worst or the best in labelling) And some studies, their results were (scary), and in every letter of the scary word, you’ll find a reference to research that found that mental health workers may have a high or close percentage of stigma compared to the general community, especially against schizophrenia patients. Many of the most widely discussed explanations are workers’ belief in the difficulty of healing and complexity of symptoms, so their knowledge of this makes them more black in their analysis.
With soft looks..
Did you hear about the Goldwater rule? This rule belongs to a former U.S. presidential candidate, where a magazine conducted a questionnaire involving psychiatric workers to investigate this presidential candidate. The questionnaire concluded that the majority of professionals found this candidate to be psychologically inappropriate to lead America. “The man was the judge of the journalist and won his case. A law was then passed in the American Psychiatric Organization prohibiting any psychiatrist from issuing his opinion and psychiatric analysis in a person who did not meet him personally.
I think one of the smoothest manifestations of stigma for psychologists is exactly what happened with Goldwater. This spectacle of dragging specialization and withdrawing it to fields where it has no banner and no gain, This is the appearance of donating psychoanalysis and throwing diagnoses here and there for everything. But to make all things normal also have a psychological analysis and depth, This act may be spontaneous and I find it justified by the same competent’s privilege or lack of jurisprudence to invalidate this act, but if the psychological specialization is conducted for things that are not (Essem) His field to achieve the purpose or to pass policies I think that this work abuses any misdiscipline and its factors, do not enter our dear specialization into wars in which he has neither the elegance nor the sword, this dumping in the analysis of everything that encourages the recipient to find or even the relative invention of the (No) satisfactory or (no) disorder in what we have addressed. If what we have addressed is very negative and disturbing, this appearance makes us in the eyes of others just people who see insanity and disorder in everything and this is an alphabet of stigma about psychologists.
One of the soft manifestations among mental health workers that increases stigma is the appearance of Psychiatric disorders. The correctness and purpose of the term is our focus in raising awareness that psychiatric disorders are biological or genetic diseases like any other organic disease. One study found that this tendency of raising awareness that psychiatric diseases are in fact organic diseases that make the recipient yes improve in not blaming patients but the majority after this organic awareness have come to think that these patients are human beings from a lesser degree and there is an enlargement of the nozzle between us. (Healthy) And among them they are (poor) and the idea of no therapeutic improvement, which was probably the aim of the educational campaign, has deepened to refute this idea. And this member’s long-term psychiatric outcomes are more rigorous with patients and the stereotype about them. In fact, this member makes the recipient nice, perhaps in his blame and the surface of his actions seems sympathetic, but in the same decision the stigma is still constant about the same patient, so the recipient is then in a state of internal conflict in himself when he is near the patients and it shows in his antics then social distance between patients and their relatives on the one hand and the community around them on the other increases and makes it more difficult to deepen this organic biological picture of a society’s psychiatric illness, This part of the member needs a lot of depth, and if God writes me an age, I’ll give her a special blog post.
Perhaps one of the applications of this organic soft look is our divisions of patients between us and our expressions (Skizophrenia, Paipolar and EPS patients as they are called here in Sweden for diagnosis of the first personality EIPS) These expressions may be unique in their own right in another soft appearance of labeling in the worker cutter, this exact type of description of patients applies to the definition of (stigmatization), and maybe here he might say: And what’s the problem with that distinction? There are several problems, the most important of which is that these discriminatory words pigment the patient with all the pathological aspects of the complexity and diagnostic requirements of each diagnosis. It makes us see this patient as any other patient with the same diagnosis of negativity and complexity, And this scientific distinction is not true, and our brains are not divided like dividing psychiatric diagnostic books. The conversation here is prolonged, but I may refer you to a scientific article that makes this distinction, but calls for the elimination of the current diagnostic classifications of its controversial Professor Sami Tamimi, Of course, discrimination in the current diagnostic system is inevitable, but it is the discriminatory term and its suggestion when pronounced and the therapeutic environment in which discriminatory words take place that plays the biggest role. Perhaps distinguishing patients in another phrase will alleviate the stigma of this appearance.
Start listing the following soft look with this cartoon, but let me explain it to the last of this text, one of the six pillars of the stigma related to psychiatric illness put forward by Jonas and his friends in their book was a corner. (Source of Disease), a large proportion of others view psychiatric illness as stemming solely from the same actions, decisions and illness as a consequence, which makes the other see psychiatric illness as something manageable and controllable, and biological, genetic and social aspects have little role to play, so – I think – this momentum of stimulus texts, honed videos and repeated morning brightening phrases from psychological workers in social media (which is undoubtedly effective in many things and therapeutic spaces) This view of control in our lives in general, and in particular in the lives of our patients, may benefit the recipient. When a physician or psychologist who uses these bright resonant phrases thinks they are our tools in our clinics with our patients, so those with psychiatric disorders must not have applied our tips and did not control their lives, thereby becoming sick and stigmatizing in all this scene growing and rising, On the other hand, that psychoanalysis of all human beings and the manifestations of their actions and the analysis that concludes that the actions of some human beings are the product of hidden things and otherwise, etc., I say that this sumptuous analysis (repetitive) psychiatric personnel dye it with psychiatric dye even if it is at the heart of a person’s opinion and literature This is why the other followers think about themselves and see that these repeated analyses do not match them and those around them. They therefore see these analyses as mere tornadoes of these psychologists and their psychological disorders.
The cartoon portrait belonged to the character Lucy in the Benotz cartoon series (the longest tale told in human history), where Lucy stood at the centre and offered psychological advice for a sum of money. The characters of the series came to her to solve their usual problems and she gave them the worst psychological advice (by the way, this kind of TV offering is also considered a medial stigma of psychiatric illness).
This previous appearance reminded me of another soft appearance that I think is unhealthy and increases the nozzle of stigma: that our theses and our pathological and therapeutic analyses we psychologists all revolve around the patient’s orbit and the patient’s own. For example, if you follow our official and institutional job combustion theses, you will find that most of them revolve around the combustion risk factors of the same employees and their tips to avoid combustion and how to treat it and otherwise, This proposition may look good in its appearance, but it carries with it another dependent in increasing the nozzle of stigma. When we focus on the same person and he’s the cause of the problem and with him he starts solving it and he just focuses, We tell him that the error from you and the source of the problem in you and we do not turn to any social or economic reason or in the same functional installations that may increase combustion factors and are scientifically proven reasons in the simplest thesis of functional combustion. And even functional combustion among physicians there is a great debate now as to how much it really is an injury and ethical injury in doctors that medical institutions, economics and governments have caused more than a medical diagnosis. Compare this discussion that reduces the stocks going towards the doctor and between, but not limited to, the supportive program created by the Commission and the observations I spoke earlier in another blog post about some of its negatives in which it hints and stigmatizes despite the program’s superiority and quality in fact.
The example of doctors here is just for example this kind of psychological subtraction centered solely on the same person, in which he or she is more concerned about their suffering, and in which we intensify self-stigma (which is a type of stigma of psychiatric illness).
And what about other manifestations?
Here I have touched on soft hidden manifestations, but naturally there are clearer manifestations and their clarity is the evidence of their ferocity. (such as forcing the patient to hypnotize despite not needing it, not telling the patient and his/her parents about his/her possible diagnosis such as schizophrenia, subconscious treatment of psychiatric patients in general and schizophrenia in particular, reducing any physical exposure from them and interpreting it as the product of their psychiatric illness, etc.) And because it’s such a misery, I thought the psychiatric community was so far away from it.
There are also other types of stigma that I argue are more important in our region than my blogging this about soft stigma, including institutional stigma like (Patient’s rights in general and psychiatric in particular in the health and community institution, insurance rights, lack of budgets for mental health, psychiatric departments like prisons that are located there in the back of the veiled hospitals, lack of psychiatric departments in public hospitals and making them separate buildings or independent hospitals that create an atmosphere of darkness around them, shortness and twice as long as students teach psychiatric health colleges, etc.) These belts of regulations and policies do not shy away from society’s stigma about psychiatric illness, but they do dispense with a deeper stigma that is the stigma of the patient about himself and his own illness, as Crocker described them in her thesis.
I’m not going to be so self-inflicted and all of the sector, we’re probably more sometimes than the victims of this stigma, one kind of stigma is stigma or courtesy stigma.
A study found that 60% of people working in the psychological sector had laughed at their psychological field and 30% had experienced family pressure to leave their jobs with mental health.
Do not forget the role of the society we live in and its impact on our ways of thinking from the earliest of nails, we have not landed from space on it, but we are children and part of its context and cells. (Its collective mind), and our society has a very high stigma rate for psychiatric patients according to studies, so any manifestations of it are the product of a number of things, and scientific impartiality overlooks the impact of the environment on us as workers in the field, if not the biggest factor, not to mention numerous studies confirming that psychological workers are less stigmatized than other health sectors.
Psychological workers. We are all wonderful. We have faced this many stigmas and obstacles and advanced this wonderful field. Our guide to this wonderful awareness tide on the ground was awesome with awareness campaigns as well as by means of communication, discussion of the Consultative Council specializing in prenuptial psychological examination. (which I tweeted personally about in Twitter and wrote about here a blog post and changed a lot to also warn of its harm to patients and stigma if approved) He was the most prominent of his exhibitors by Twitter, according to me, are proudly working in the field of psychiatry. Although this objection was surprising to the public and this is a natural situation perhaps in the climate of our society that I have spoken about and its impact upwards, This extraordinary amount of awareness campaigns and educational videos emanating from you mental health workers and we are proud of them do the many actions in reducing stigma.
Back to my friends Lewis and saying, they are actually only professors working in England and I have nothing to do with them except these letters and I don’t want any more, because at the end of their study they recommended that the diagnosis of personality disorders be removed from the diagnostic references because of the problems they cause to patients and clinics, because I thought they wanted to save the Trojans and they were her horse!
In conclusion, I’m not writing here to exonerate myself. It’s an attempt by me to analyze.
