Blog Post 5

Posted on by
Reply

After reading Leslie Jamison’s “Devil’s Bait”, the group came up with the question that in the context of mental or physical illness, is it possible for an outsider free of the illness to fully empathize with the victim, or just sympathize with them? If not, what factors limit an outsider’s ability to empathize? In order to answer this question, the group looks into two sources, “The challenge of Morgellons disease” from Caroline S.Koblenzer and “Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge” from Nancy Nyquist Potter.

The first source is from Caroline S.Koblenzer who is a dermatologist that focus on skin-psyche. In “The challenge of Morgellons disease”, she describes the challenges that the dermatologist is facing about Morgellons disease and provides the possible solution for it. Koblenzer firsts start describes the sensation that the Morgellons’ patients are feeling and the suffering they are going through. Koblenzer explains that the name “Morgellons” was given by Sir Thomas Browne who first describes the symptoms of Morgellons. The patients who have the similar symptoms soon categorized themselves as “Morgellons patients”. Koblenzer states that the anxious patients would usually make up an explanation of the cause and avoid it extremely to prevent the contagion. The author suggests that Morgellons are related to psychiatric conditions and mostly result from the illusion that drugs bring. Then Koblenzer claims that with the internet, more and more people share their experiences about which Morgellons makes the situation even worse. Because it induces people to believe this disease actually exists while it might just be a delusion. She concludes in the end that Morgellons is curable by taking medication like pimozide continuously. The author gives us a detailed description of Morgellons and her opinion that Morgellons is illusional. The professional evidence helps the group to look at Morgellons disease from a different perspective.

The second source is Nancy Nyquist Potter’s “Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge”. In her essay, she looks at sympathy from different views and thinks that empathy is an important value to be effective clinicians. First, she states that importance of empathy in the society and how it can impact on people. She then connects to these ideas to the clinical experience which also requires a rich understanding of empathy. Because for clinicians it’s necessary to understand what the patients are going through and make the patients feel understand. The author also suggests that world traveling would give the clinicians open perspective which helps them to fully understand their patients. Lastly, The author concluded that clinicians need the moral skills to feel empathy with the patients in order to work effectively with them. This source helps the group to understand the importance of clinicians or doctors to have empathy when facing patients with special diseases.

 

Work Cited

Koblenzer, Caroline S.“The Challenge of Morgellons Disease.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Mosby, 17 Oct. 2006, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962206012187?via=ihub.

 

Potter, Nancy Nyquist. “Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge – Oxford Handbooks.”Oxford Handbooks – Scholarly Research Reviews, 16 June 2017, www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199579563.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199579563-e-021.

 

Blog Post 5

Posted on by
1

After reading “Devil’s Bait” by Leslie Jamison, which explained Morgellons disease and how it affects those who have it, our group responded by creating these questions: In the context of mental or physical illness, is it possible for an outsider free of the illness to fully empathize with the victim, or just sympathize with them? If not, what factors limit an outsider’s ability to empathize? In order to answer these questions, we found two sources that focused on empathy of doctors for their patients. In the first source, “The Challenge of Morgellons Disease,” written by Caroline S. Koblenzer, empathy for a patient is discussed from the perspective of a medical professional, and in the second source, “Empathic Foundation of Critical Knowledge,” by Nancy Nyquist Potter, the same subject is discussed from a physiological perspective. In both sources, the conclusion is reached that a doctor treating a patient, whether that be a patient with Morgellons or any other mental illness, needs to be able to empathize in order to fully understand how to go about helping the patient.

In “The Challenge of Morgellons Disease,” Koblenzer first explains what Morgellons disease is, and what the patients go through when they have this disease. From here, she explains that although what the patients feel or believe may not have any physical symptoms, it is first and foremost important for a dermatologist to assure the patient that what they feel is in fact what they are experiencing (Koblenzer 921). By recognizing that what a patient feels is valid, even if others have told them it is not, a doctor is able to establish a connection with a patient, which may in turn allow them to understand what would best help them. Dermatologists are then able to explain that what they are feeling is a different issue other than a skin issue, and can refer them to other sources that may benefit them. Even though these doctors cannot give a specific reason or diagnosis for their problem, by empathizing with the patient and affirming that that what they feel is actually happening for them, it is easier to help out this patient in a way that they may have never been helped before. This is helpful as it links the original article, “Devil’s Bait,” to our question, as it does specifically address Morgellons disease. However, this can be used to understand how to address and show empathy to people who have other mental illnesses.

In “Empathic Foundation of Critical Knowledge,” Potter first explains that it is extremely important for a clinician to have empathy, even if it may be difficult to do so since they cannot fully see or understand a patient’s condition. She explains that although it may be difficult to have empathy for a patient, doing so allows the clinician to truly grasp what others may be feeling and why they may be feeling this way, and then find a way to potentially go about solving this issue. She goes on to explain how one should go about feeling empathy for a patient, and describes “world-traveling,” which is a process thought up by Maia Lugones. When “world-traveling,” a clinician is able disconnect from the way they view the world to instead process the world the way the patient views and understands it, and thus is able to understand what it is to be the patient (Potter 13). This is a methodology that can lead a clinician to have empathy. This source helps to answer our question as it explains how one could potentially empathize with a mentally ill patient, and it explains that empathy is necessary so that a treatment can be found for the patient.

Works Cited

Jamison, Leslie. “Devil’s Bait.” The Empathy Exams, pp. 27-56.

Koblenzer, Caroline S. “The Challenge of Morgellons Disease.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 55, no. 5, Mosby Inc, Nov 2006, pp. 920-922.

Potter, Nancy Nyquist. “Empathic Foundation of Critical Knowledge.” Oxford Handbook Online, May 2013.

Blog Post 5

Posted on by
1

After listening to the NPR Invisibilia podcast “The Problem with the Solution,” we were struck by the concept that what society considers a problem based on its ideals of normality may not really even be a problem in the first place. Our thought process led us through conventional ideas of normality and how those concepts are formed; eventually our group came up with the question: To what extent are emotions the key catalysts to problems? To answer this question, we located two secondary sources: “What is a Problem?” by Thomas Osborne and “Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences” by Michael Eid and Ed Diener.

In “What is a Problem?” Osborne recounts the ideas of various French philosophers on the notion of the problem and the study and controversy of problematology. He writes of the importance of problems in daily life, as well as the emphasis that French philosophers placed on this importance. Osborne first recounts the work of Gilles Deleuze, more particularly his work Difference and Repetition. Difference and Repetition is about the essence of problems. Deleuze even goes so far as to define stupidity as the capacity for fabricating false problems. Thus, according to Deleuze, there is a smart way of thinking about problems and a detrimental way of thinking about problems. This sort of thinking relates directly back to the podcast, as it forced us to consider whether mental illness could be a fabricated problem. Next, Osborne discusses the ideas of Canguilhem, who believed that life should be defined in terms of human interaction with the environment. Canguilhem wrote that because life is the confrontation of problems, there is no single definition for normality itself, but it can be defined based on the problems posed by a certain environment. This means that normality could essentially be defined based on the experiences one has throughout life; with experiences come different and new emotions which could serve as the source of new problems. Osborne then discusses the ideas of Bergson, who similarly to Canguilhem, wrote that life can be synonymous with the overcoming of obstacles— life is just a series of responses to surrounding stimuli that we perceive as problems. Bergson too considers certain problems to be useless and proposes that those problems be discarded in favor of “new, more productive ones” (Osborne 7). This style of thinking is important in answering our question because life is lived through the experiencing of emotion daily; thus what we perceive as problems may only look that way because our emotions tell us so. This reading can also help us define what we think of as a problem— it is important to define what “problem” means before we can determine if emotions are catalysts for problems.

“Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences” discusses the immense influence that culture has on the emotional process. Culture largely establishes the social consequences of expressing or suppressing a certain emotion, the normality of feeling a certain emotion, and the social value of expressing a certain emotion. Eid and Diener conducted a cross-cultural study in which they analyzed the differences in norms for experiencing emotions between two individualistic nations— the United States and Australia— and two collectivist nations— China and Taiwan. They found that individualistic nations were the most strict in keeping a standard norm for emotional behavior. This reading can be important for answering our question because it can aid us in deciding whether emotions fuel problems based on the emotional norms in our own society. Based on the results of the individualistic United States, we can detect whether (to what extent) social consequences of emotional expression and suppression, and the social norms behind emotions fuel what we consider to be problems in our society.

 

Works Cited

Eid, Michael. “Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and

intranational differences.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 81, Issue 5, 2001.

Osborne, Thomas. “What is a Problem?” History of the Human Sciences, Volume 16, Issue 4, 2003.

Rosin, Hannah. “The Problem with the Solution.” Invisibilia, NPR, 2016.

Blog Post 5

Posted on by
1

In reading Jamison’s essay concerning Morgellons disease, a question of the limits of empathy arose. In the context of mental or physical illness, is it possible for an outsider free of the illness to fully empathize with the victim, or just sympathize with them? If not, what factors limit an outsider’s ability to empathize with them? Researching this question led the research group to two scholarly sources:  Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge by Nancy Nyquist Potter and The Challenge of Morgellons Disease by Caroline S. Koblenzer MD. The first source accounts for foundations of empathy and what is needed for one to open themselves to experiencing it, and the second source provides the perspective of a medical professional in their dealings with Morgellons patients.

In Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge Potter argues that empathy “allows us to anticipate the behavior of others, [and is also] morally significant” (Potter, 4). Potter claims that empathy is cultivated through an amalgamation of influences including psychological responses, our imaginations, projection of ourselves into fictional scenarios from books or other stories, a care for the wellbeing of others, and the capacity to recognize certain emotions in others (Potter, 5). However, Potter also explains that the most basic foundations of empathy are present even in infants with undeveloped psychological faculties; with the empathetic responses manifesting themselves in facial mimicry (an innate response). Potter also uses testimony from Greek philosophers to demonstrate that empathy is a virtue that must be developed over time; worked out like a muscle in order to become stronger. Finally, Potter suggests that in order to strengthen one’s empathy, they must travel the world in an effort to knock down any perceived barriers between an ingroup of people from their culture, and an outgroup of those from other cultures (Potter, 14).

In The Challenge of Morgellons Disease discusses the behaviors of Morgellons patients from the first hand account of a medical professional. Koblenzer explains that patients who become obsessed with finding an explanation for their affliction will “‘create’ a ‘cause’ for their symptoms, which makes logical sense to them, and with which they can be  comfortable” (Koblenzer). Koblenzer also states that medical professionals are “familiar” with the delusions that Morgellons patients sometimes have. Koblenzer equates the delusions of Morgellons patients to being similar to “bipolar, paranoia, schizophrenia, depression, and abuse of drugs”. Nevertheless, Koblenzer explains that in order to help the patients, dermatologists must validate the potentially ludicrous claims of the patients in an attempt to get them to take medication which has proven effective in treating the disease.


Works Cited:

Potter, Nancy Nyquist. “Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge.” Oxford Handbooks Online, May 2013, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199579563.013.0021.

Koblenzer, Caroline S. “The Challenge of Morgellons Disease.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 55, no. 5, 1 Nov 2006, pp. 920-922. Science Direct, PlumX.

Blog Post 5

Posted on by
1

Morgellons disease is a highly controversial, self-diagnosed condition that involves the emergence of substances or objects from the skin. The unfortunate victims of this condition suffer from the feeling of threads, flecks, fuzz, and/or other creatures moving just beneath the skin or seeping through it. To add a new depth of understanding to the intricacies of this condition, Leslie Jamison’s “Devil’s Bait” tells the story of her trip to Austin, Texas to visit the Charles E. Holman Foundation’s annual conference for health care providers, researchers, and patients of Morgellons (Jamison 43). By being at the conference Jamison was able to truly see into the lives of the many patients suffering from Morgellons. She observed how their search for relief consumed their lives, yet she struggled to fully empathize, by definition, with the feelings of the patients because she could not understand the medical basis of their illness. No doctor seemed to believe any of these people. When victims of Morgellons seek help, clinicians typically refer them to a psychologist to treat the illness as if it were all caused by the mind. Yet, the author still found herself relating to some of the patients, and even understanding their feelings on a surface level. Jamison then asked, “Is it wrong to call it empathy when you trust the fact of suffering but not the source?” This raises a broader, yet valid, question. In the context of mental or physical illness, is it possible for an outsider free of the illness to fully empathize with the victim, or just sympathize with them? If not, what factors limit an outsider’s ability to empathize?

To answer this question, two unique articles, with different perspectives were analyzed. The first, “The Challenge of Morgellons Disease” by Caroline S. Koblenzer, MD., takes a predominantly factual and medical approach to understanding the positions of patients suffering from emotions and symptoms that are foreign to the listener. Despite the specificity of this article in its focus on Morgellons, it still gives insight into how to doctors attempt to understand and treat those who suffer from an illness that is not understood by anyone but its victims. Clinicians must be capable of empathizing in order to establish effective relationships and a sense of trust with their patients.

The article discusses how dermatologists go about treating patients who present themselves as having Morgellons. Due the power and accessibility of the internet, the news about Morgellons is easily found by patients who decide to search the right words. Anyone can suspect themselves of having Morgellons after reading the information found on the “Morgellons Research Foundation” website (Koblenzer 921). However, there are still no positive confirmatory tests to suggest that the phenomena that define Morgellons actually exists. Thus leading dermatologists to come to the conclusion that the condition must be one propagated solely by the brain or other contributing mental factors. So, clinicians have now become aware of the phenomena and have each developed their own effective way of working with the patients of Morgellons so that they accept one form of medication that is known to be effective (Koblenzer 921). What is crucial about this approach is the use of empathy on behalf of the doctor. “It is important that one acknowledges to the patient that what the patient describes is exactly what the patient experiencing” (Koblenzer 921). In sum, acknowledging the patient’s pain allows one to better empathize with their other life circumstances and thus develop a “therapeutic relationship” and implement effective treatment(Koblenzer 921).

The second article, “Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge” by Nancy Nyquist Potter, takes on patients from a psychiatric perspective (Potter 1). Rather than using empathy as a tool to implement treatment, this article views empathy as crucial for developing an understanding of any patient in order to establish a healthy patient doctor-relationship and in turn find a treatment that best fits that individual patient.

First one must look past the general information about a patient and “recognize the subjectivity of that patient while feeling and expressing empathy towards him or her” (Potter 3). Next, one must force themselves to recognize that the patient’s life and situation has a significance, all the while using practical reasoning to guide your empathic actions. How does one empathize with the patient? The answer is given two-fold. The article suggests that empathy is a virtue that anyone can choose. “Place-taking” alone is not empathic (Potter 5). Empathy involves the conscious act of emotion that an individual makes as a result of their attitudinal orientation that can be learned and is voluntary (Potter 9). In addition to empathizing with the average patient, the article states that one can empathize with the mentally ill by practicing a unique process called “world-traveling”, whereby an individual is able to understand not only a particular mental illness but also “ how that specific person experiences his or her world” (Potter 11). By traveling to the patient’s world, one can understand “what it is to be them and what it is to be ourselves in their eyes”, thus allowing the most effective form of treatment or care to be provided (Potter 13).

Both of theses articles will pave the way for an in depth analysis of the question at issue.

 

Works Cited

Jamison, Leslie. The Empathy Exams: Essays. Graywolf Press, 2014.

Potter, Nancy Nyquist. “Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge”. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry. Edited by K.W.M. Fulford, Martin Davies, Richard G.T. Gipps, George Graham, John Z. Sadler, Giovanni Stanghellini, and Tim Thornton. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Koblenzer MD, Caroline S.. “The challenge of Morgellons disease”. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Vol. 55, issue 5. American Academy of Dermatology, Inc., 2006.

Blog Post 5

Posted on by
1

After Reading Jonson’s chapter, “God That Was Awesome,” my group and I decided to revolve our research around whether or not public shaming should be regulated on Social Media. Throughout the chapter, we were given insight on how rapidly social media can escalate situations from an ignorant post, to the destruction of an individual’s reputation. To illustrate, Justine Sacco, a Journalist, make a twitter post commenting on AIDS. Her intentions were to be humorous; however, the response she received did not reflect her motive. As a result, she was lost her career and she was forced to live with the burden of being another victim of public shaming. Based on the examples of public shaming found in the chapter, we began to contemplate on if it is possible to prevent instances like this from occurring by implementing regulations. Because of this, we found two scholarly sources that provide solutions for this question with an argument and concrete evidence.

The first source is a journal entry by  Kristine Gallardo called “Taming the Internet Pitchfork Mob.” Within this reading, the author elaborates how social media has evolved to become this “explosive” (Gallardo) platform that has changed the nature of shaming. Since social media is so accessible, posts and comments pile up quickly, especially if there are several people who feel strongly about the same issue. Most of this time, the owner of the post is targeted instead on meaning of what he or she said. Due to this, that person is ruined by complete strangers.  This source emphasizes the fact that because Instances like this have occurred so frequently, the issue becomes a dichotomy between taking legal steps to control everyone or teaching people to be more cautious about what they put online.

Going along this idea,  second source, “Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy,” by Emily Laidlaw includes a variety of information regarding online platforms and whether people are guaranteed to have freedom while using them. Although this source has several aspects that relate to our research, one thing that stands out is how the author distinguishes between “rightfully knocking someone” (Laidlaw) and humiliation. Rightfully knocking someone basically justifies public shaming on the grounds of punishing someone due to their negative actions. Conversely, humiliation deals with wrongfully attacking someone online when he or she did not deserve it. In relation to our argument, it is important we determine what defines public shaming before focusing on regulations.

 

 

Works Cited

Kristine Gallardo. “Taming the Internet Pitchfork Mob: Online Public Shaming, the Viral Media Age, and the Communications Decency Act.” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Tech. L, vol. 19, 2017, 721-746.

Laidlaw, Emily. “Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy.” Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, 2017.

Ronson, Jon. “So, You’ve Been Publicly Shamed.” Riverhead Books, 2015.

Blog post 5

Posted on by
1

Noah Mullane

Summary

 

For my research paper I need to have two sources summarized so I shall start by summarizing “Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy” by Emily B. Laidlaw first and “Taming the Internet Pitchfork Mob: Online Public Shaming, the Viral Media Age, and the Communications Decency Act” by Kristine Gallardo second.

“Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy” starts by telling the read what to expect and lets us know that this paper is focusing more on the broad subject of public shaming in the present day and how it is dealt with legally around the world. Specifically the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, and the United States of America. Shame is considered not to belong to any one category and more of a tool employed by all. It talks about the difference between shaming and privacy invasion vs. shaming and offense taken. It does this by splitting shaming into vigilantism, bullying, bigotry, and gossiping. Vigilantism is people going out of there way to find people doing wrong. Bullying, “any behavior performed through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort on others” ([30], Robert Tokunaga quoted, p. 3) was quoted in the text as a definition. This part was mostly what you expect when it comes to online bullying, ruined lives and lost lives. Bigotry “concerns an identifiable group attacked on the basis of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, colour or ethnic origin” (quoted from text). Seems that mostly women are in trouble when it comes to this and it’s not be they started it. Finally gossiping, not inherently bad but can lead to large problems. After going over these forms the paper moves on to the structure of online shaming. That some of the worst comments, the ones the law can do something about normally appear in larger groups of public shaming. In this portion it is acknowledged that the law has very limited response ability for large group shaming. It is also in this part that talk of change of a behavior is acknowledged as a hard if impossible window to stay in. After that the paper enters its main topic, privacy.  Privacy is broken into three parts dignity, privacy in public places and social privacy. Dignity is involved in many instruments for human rights and yet go undefined. Here shame is seen as something that can get to one’s core and and shatter it. Dignity is fragile and dependent on many different things while equally affected by many things. Privacy in public is a difficult thing to deal with legal due to the fact that it is happening in the public domain. As far as the laws in America are concerned privacy in public in none existent. Though the same can be said about the internet in general. Over all public privacy is more the ability to leave the public and not protection from what is done in public. Social privacy is the want to be apart of society without the fear of being publicly shamed. The thought of being social and safe. Though the question of is anything private in public comes up again. Which goes to privacy being up to the person and yet it is flawed in so many ways in that the person is their own defence. Finishing up the paper talks about if regulation public shaming is possible with so many ways for shame to be achieved.

Now on to “Taming the Internet Pitchfork Mob: Online Public Shaming, the Viral Media Age, and the Communications Decency Act”. First we are ment with the introduction of public shaming quickly followed by Justine Sacco’s story of shame. Which is followed by the best advice to avoid public shaming in my opinion, think before you speak, tweet, post, or comment. This leads into not stories but examples of people who had their lives ruined with public shaming. Then it starts to hit the main topic, it is hard to take any real legal action due to many difficulties. Farther in we see a breth history on public shaming and move onto the start of online shaming. The focus from there was the point that if a social norm was violated then the chance of public shaming grew. It was also seen that public shaming could be used in any sense as long as enough people joined in. This lead into anonymity while online, simply put if no one knows it’s you  it is much easier to say hurtful things. It also goes back to the difficulties of finding who ever posted the comment, in the actual off line world. After that the paper enters the field of torts and explains Defamation which is a state-law claim, so the applicable elements vary slightly from state to state, as  existing to curb undue harm to individuals’ reputations. The problem is how hard it is to meet all the requirements or to use it against someone as it relies on falsehood. Next it gets into the Communications Decency Act and ways of regulating with their individual downfalls. It also talks about whether holding the site responsible for post was possible or not. Site with no filtering actual didn’t have to worry about this due to not taking responsibility from the start of what was on their site. While the 21st century policy, any site that had filters to stop obscene content couldn’t be held liable for a user’s post if it insulted someone so they could continue to censor obscene things. This meant that just about all sites couldn’t be held liable about their users. Issues did arise but judges have been weary in how they handle cases due to the difficulty of getting around Section 230 (section in Communications Decency Act) immunity for web sites. Section 230 has been the center of many legal debates on whether there should be change or not, due to the change  having a chance to go wrong. Though this is not to say that Section 230 can’t be used against public shaming, for example it allows the site to check post for shaming or even give warning that they may start to shame someone. The idea of the warning is to make a would be shamer think about the effects of there would be shaming post. At this point the paper talks about the conser of freedom of speech. Though the warning idea answers that question because it doesn’t take down or stop the post it just makes the poster aware. After that the paper enters the conclusion wrapping up with the simple think before you post.

Works Cited

Gallardo, Kristine. “Taming the Internet Pitchfork Mob: Online Public Shaming, the Viral Media Age, and the Communications Decency Act.” Heinonline, drive.google.com/file/d/0B0ljeoGlfu6MSDZtSEpUWUYyYk0/view?ts=59e8b27e.

Laidlaw, Emily B. Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy. www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/6/1/3/htm.

Blog Assignment #5

Posted on by
1

Based on the paper “Devil’s Bait” by Leslie Jamison the question at issue that was raised is, in the context of mental or physical illness, is it possible for an outsider free of the illness to fully empathize with the victim, or just sympathize with them? If not, what factors limit an outsider’s ability to empathize? The first source found that helps answer this question is “The Challenge of Morgellons Disease” by Caroline S. Koblenzer. This is from the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, and addresses the issue with a more medical point of view. This source provides an overview of what Morgellons patients deal with; feelings of bugs or parasites under the skin crawling and biting, fibers coming out of their skin, and visible sores on many of their bodies from where they try to dig out the “bugs”, fibers, or anything else they believe is coming from their skin. The source makes it clear that many of these patients are very anxious and are just on a search for answers. Many doctors do not believe them, so they go from doctor to doctor hoping just one will understand and believe what they’re saying. According to Koblenzer the patients “‘create’ a ‘cause’ for their symptoms, which makes logical sense to them” (Koblenzer). This often results in them not believing that there is something psychologically wrong with them. They often will not accept any explanation that does not directly correlate to what they believe – that they have “things” and “fibers” inside of their bodies that are causing them to suffer. This source addresses the importance of medical doctors understanding and empathizing with the patient. It stresses that the most important thing is to understand that the patient is in fact feeling those sensations whether the doctor can find an explanation for them or not. This allows them to understand the struggle of the patient even without an outright physical diagnosis. It also allows them to better find ways to refer them to a psychiatrist or some other form of treatment. If the doctor understands that what the person is saying is true, they can find a way to convince the patient that some other form of treatment will be most effective (Koblenzer). This source helps answer the question at issue because not only does it address the overall disease of Morgellons, it emphasizes the importance of understanding the patient and empathizing with them even if it is very difficult to believe what they are saying.

The second source is “Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge” by Nancy Nyquist Potter. This comes from The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry and addresses the question with a more psychological perspective. Potter relates empathy to morality in this piece of writing. She states that “the inner world – and the material, lived experiences – of others can be puzzling, elusive, or very difficult to grasp” (Potter 2). A main point of this paper is that doctors often view their patients as just their diagnosis, not as a full individual person. They can sometimes have a tendency to lump together patients with similar diagnoses and do not take into account how the mental disorder affects each individual personally. Empathy from the clinician plays an important role in understanding why others may be feeling certain symptoms. According to Potter it is important for clinicians to use empathy to sort of take the place of their patient and view their experience through the patient’s point of view. Another important thing is that the doctor must have accurate knowledge of the patient’s illness so they can help them most effectively. Being educated about the illness helps the doctor see how various treatments and therapies may help that specific patient. Having knowledge of what they are going through and being able to empathize with the patient will also allow the doctor to form a better relationship with them which may help the patient feel understood and stop fighting what the doctor says if it does not match exactly what they would like to hear. In addition, the clinician must be able to understand what the patient does to cope with their symptoms and suffering and how that may factor into treatment plans. This source effectively aids in answering the question at issue since it deeply addresses the importance of a doctor having empathy.

 

Works Cited

“The Challenge of Morgellons Disease.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Mosby, 2006, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962206012187?via=ihub.

Jamison, Leslie. “Devil’s Bait.” The Empathy Exams, pp. 27–56.

Potter, Nancy Nyquist. “Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge.” Oxfordhandbooks.com, Oxford Handbooks Online, Sept. 2013, www.oxfordhandbooks.com.ezp.lib.rochester.edu/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199579563.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199579563-e-021?print=pdf.

Blog Post # 5

Posted on by
1

As the group who decided to use the article on Morgellons disease as their inspiration for the research paper arose the question: In the context of mental or physical illness, is it possible for an outsider free of the illness to fully empathize with the victim, or just sympathize with them? If not, what factors limit an outsider’s ability to empathize with them? To address this question two sources have been identified for reference, Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge by Nancy Nyquist Potter and The Challenge of Morgellons Disease by Caroline S. Koblenzer MD. The first, takes the perspective of someone with a philisopical background, the second, a physician who deals with mentally ill patients.

Within Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge Potter goes into depth about how empathy is a combination of many different concepts. Specifically, focusing on clinicians needing empathy to be able to effectively treat their patients. Potter goes through the processes of how one is able to attain empathy and describes the difficulties of having empathy for a person who one cannot fully understand due their condition, specifically their mental condition, that they are in. She elaborates on a concept called “world traveling”, an idea of Iris Murdoch, in which the subject trying to empathize towards another person must place themselves within the other person’s world; the subject needs to be open to experiencing the other person’s world and everything that comes with it. Potter also touches on the fact that in order for the clinician to be effective in their treatment they have to disassociate the patient from the disease; the patient has to be, in their mind, separate from the disease. The idea that the clinician needs to be open to world traveling and needs to be able to separate the patient from the disease within their mind allows the clinician to have empathy for the patient they are treating. Potter does not specifically state if the extent of the empathy formed is effective enough to give the necessary treatment provided. However, he does touch on the fact that the empathy that would be the best is actually unattainable because although one can know all of the facts of a person, if they are not that person, they will never actually know what that person is going through. Overall, Potter comments on the way empathy should be attained for patient’s clinicians have a hard time understanding, specifically referring to mentally ill patients. In the end Potter is uncertain if even the empathy described is effective enough to provide the necessary treatment for the patient, but she is certain that treatment without this empathy is ineffective.

The Challenge of Morgellons Disease written by Dr. Caroline S. Koblenzer presents a short, but detailed description of Morgellons disease and an effective approach to treatment of the disease for patients who suffer from it. Dr. Koblenzer describes Morgellons disease and the sensations the patients feel. She goes further to state that there are a more affected patient population who feel the need to know what is going on and they themselves dive deeper into the mystery of what is protruding out of their skin. Dr. Koblenzer proposes the idea that in order to treat Morgellons patients effectively one should treat the patients with treatments for the skin, but also treat the underlying psychological cause of the disease. Dr. Koblenzer argues that one of the crucial treatments for these patients is to treat them in a way that such that they feel that what they tell the doctor is being received; the patient should not feel “brushed off” by the doctor. Overall, Dr. Koblenzer comes to the conclusion that in order to effectively treat patients with Morgellons disease one needs to be able to treat them in a way that they feel recognized as well as understand that the condition for them is their reality. In essence, the physician needs to be able to empathize with them, or at least make the patient believe that they are, whether or not it is possible to empathize with a mentally ill patient, like a Morgellons patient, is what will be discussed in the formal paper addressing the question proposed earlier.

 

Works Cited:

Koblenzer, Caroline S. “The Challenge of Morgellons Disease.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 55, no. 5, 1 Nov 2006, pp. 920-922. Science Direct, PlumX.

Potter, Nancy Nyquist. “Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge.” Oxford Handbooks Online, May 2013, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199579563.013.0021.

 

Blog Post 5

Posted on by
1

After reading John Ronson’s “God that was Awesome”, we found a lot of controversy regarding Justine Sacco’s situation and public shaming in general. It seemed obvious that this shaming was less controlled online than in person after Ronson’s talk with Judge Poe (88). So from there, we looked into Justine’s situation and came up with the question of whether or not shaming should be regulated on social media and if so, how?

We were able to find a piece by Kristine Gallardo that established the legal precedence of shaming cases. In “Taming the Internet Pitchfork Mob”, Gallardo establishes a basis of shaming in the United States and then explains how ease of access and anonymity of users seems to encourage public shaming on social media. She then takes us through a series of legal incidents and how the Communications Decency Act protects posters and websites from taking the blame of shaming incidents, helping provide a legal background for our question of regulation (Gallardo).

Emily Laidlaw writes the second piece we chose to use, “Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy”. Laidlaw lays out the analysis of the victim’s, the mob, and the failure of our current law to provide any protection from these attacks. She furthers Gallardo’s work by focusing more on the reasons the law is failing than a just reproduction of the cases and trends that show that the law is failing, as Gallardo does. Laidlaw also makes a key distinction between humbling and humility that helps fuel an analysis of the social nature of social media and where a line distinguishing user privacy comes into play. This work will help us to give reason the support regulation or no regulation (Laidlaw).

These two pieces provide valuable insight into the question at hand. First, we can look at what little regulation there is, essentially none, in Gallardo’s work. From here we gain the background knowledge we need in order to understand the position we are currently at. We are also given numerous examples of cases that we can choose to embrace, or disagree with, to argue for, or against, regulation. Following this, we are going to be able to use Laidlaw’s work to help pave the theoretical basis of our arguments through her analysis shaming situations. Laidlaw’s key terms can be crucial to the success of our arguments. These two sources provide all the groundwork that we need to build our argument and do so in such a neutral way that we can choose either side to argue. I think that what we have allows us to simply argue our points and create a well grounded paper without reaching too far on biased ideas or getting caught up in something outside the issue we’re focusing on. That is, we should be able to form and defend a stance on whether or not there should be any regulation of public shaming on social media.

 

Works Cited

Gallardo, Kristine. “Taming the Internet Pitchfork Mob: Online Public Shaming, the Viral Media Age, and the Communications Decency Act.” Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 19 (2016): 721.

Laidlaw, Emily B. “Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy.” Laws6.1 (2017): 3.

Ronson, Jon. “God that was Awesome.” So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, Riverhead Books, pp. 67–90.