Tuesday 17 February 2015

The Conventional Responsibility of a Medical Professionalist is Archaic

Qualification is not a thing that increases per number of memorized facts and scholastic hoops hopped through, and a doctor couldn’t cure a wet paper bag, while a specialist is just someone who’s seriously lacking in skills. Both are little more than pharmaceutical salespeople, or salespeople for their clinic / practice’s own services and for those of the closed medical system.

Contrary to what is wholly self-benefiting for one to state, the opinion of a medical professional can be grossly inferior to a person’s own researched judgement, and the greater truth is that any semi-honest person with some search engine skills can find better information and guidance concerning most things through 10 minutes in front of their computer than they are ever likely to receive by taking 40+ minutes to visit and communicate with an accredited professional. But because in many cases the authorized means of an accredited professional is needed, they still must be approached – but at this point they serve more as barriers, and highly inaccurate bullshit filters than as aiding assets.

Something that I’ve read from other pain sufferers online is true: The one way to ensure a person does not receive the medication that works for them is to appear to be knowledgeable about it and directly request it before a practitioner. Feigning cluelessness and uncertain willingness to try a known medication after a doctor suggests it in response to the patient naming symptoms which they know lead to that medication is the road to receiving what’s needed.

And if severe pains exist yet elicit no outward showiness, claims of suffering will be ignored - but if no pain exists and a person pretends to be in pain, composing themselves outwardly to appear like it, they will quickly receive undeserved benefits.

Most doctors are so innocent themselves of the experiences of pains, due to various dispositions of theirs, that they don't know that outward manifestation of pain often ( but certainly not always ) requires the willingness of the person to display it, even when extreme and blinding pains are prodded from the outside. People with articulated thought will have greater trouble justifying acting with painful motions in order to receive what is deserved on the basis of having pain, and not on the basis of performing an act of drama. But a dishonest person will not think twice about it and will see that they receive their share of benefit, and the shares of others who were denied.

The presence of articulated thought is itself a scaffolding that prevents experienced pain from manifesting outwardly, because it instead is considering through their thought structures.

Everything about a medical professional is antithetical to how conduct in a healthy system ought to be – if a person suffering approaches, who is knowledgeable of their own experience, needs, and the studied information of the subject of their situation, a doctor who is none of those things will react in suspicion and mistrust of the person, rather than in comfort that the person views their health, and their actions with an objective seriousness.

So, deceitfulness is rewarded by practitioners, yet showing any kind of responsibility will incur rejection. How can a medical professional ever hope to make a positive contribution towards people's health if they take positive signals as reason to deny accurate health treatment, and negative ones as reason to lather them on?

And which doctor is willing to do what is producing of comfort for their patients, rather than for themselves? Very, very few. Most will turn away someone suffering if addressing their suffering would mean doing something unconventional, complicated, or if they won’t get paid for it - even when they believe it would help, and all this by many of their own admissions. To a doctor and specialist, the Hippocratic Oath be damned!

When, for many things, a neighbourhood drug dealer can genuinely and easily hold more hope-bearing helpfulness, knowledgeable counselling, and practicable / effective solutions than doctors and specialists, who is the greater and more credible authority? Which is the one who cared for their patient?

And still, five different doctors can commonly give 3 to 5 different consensuses over one issue, and each of them will scoff before their patient at the consensus that isn’t their own, naive and ignorant of their arrogances. And how many ever find themselves lacking the energy to care, and so are uninterested in what they're relegated to be addressing? What is more uninspired than an uncompassionate medical aide who doesn't have the energy to care? Energy comes from first genuinely caring, not the other way around.

Furthermore, the position of medical practitioner is that of an unreliable witness. When they serve a controlling and denying system that requires their authorities, they serve themselves, and are the benefactors of that controlled system. The medical professions are like magnets for people of sociopathic disposition.

Doctors, and specialists, to a significant extent, are most unreservedly sociopaths veiled by the auspice of being for the care of others, while their profession is about their status, their reputation, their earnings and their corner of authority over others - not compassion, not justice, not equality, and most definitely not their patients’ betterments. For all things there is an ordering of considerations, and if a doctor’s practice is firstly about themselves, then it is impossible that they can be effective carers for the people who come to them. And for whichever doctor that is so, their practice, their job, their reputation, themselves, all substantiate as lies.

This is true: A person is willing to trust other people only to the extent that they believe themselves to be trustworthy. Because of lower consideration for others, sociopaths tend to assume that other people are as they are, and they justify their behaviours by this belief. When a doctor believes they are rightful in over-riding others' own experiences, testimony, and judgements, it is only because they themselves are of a low caliber mind.

The continuation of things as they are is egregiously detrimental to society, and is murder to societal quality of life, and its collective physiological well-being.

Because their memorized indoctrination of static facts is intellectual worthlessness, because their dependence on observation makes them blind, because their high dopamine / low consideration disposition makes them crippled towards being just or recognizing where and how to be compassionate, that they might humanely and successfully address a person’s suffering, and because they reward unscrupulous activity and oppose responsible conduct, the qualification of a medical practitioner is roughly that of a form stamper - and so that is all that at this point they should be permitted for.

A person's health is firstly their responsibility, and so a practitioner, who is required for medical access, needs to acknowledge that, and leave ultimate judgement to the patient. Anything else is an unjust hypocrisy.

Related post: The Hypocritic, Not Hippocratic Oath is What Applies
Related post: Why is Observation a Sociopathism? + Consideration Engagement
Related post: The Problem with Willed-Determination & Observation Being Authority


No comments:

Post a Comment