board of nursing,
board of nursing, with http://www.medical-mailings.com

board of nursing,

medical mailings

News for 08-Sep-22

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Health Tip: Prepare for Travel With Diabetes

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Health Tip: Creating an Insulin Routine

Source: MedicineNet Asthma General
Mice May Be Key to Kids' Asthma Attacks at School

Source: MedicineNet Asthma General
Churg-Strauss Syndrome

Source: MedicineNet Asthma General
Asthma Medications

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Chemo More Damaging to Hearts of Diabetics: Study

Source: MedicineNet Asthma General
Advair Diskus, Advair HFA (fluticasone and salmeterol oral inhaler)

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Can Protein, Probiotics Help With Blood Sugar Control?

Source: MedicineNet Asthma General
Cured Meats Could Aggravate Asthma, Study Suggests

Source: MedicineNet Asthma General
Study Sees Link Between Insomnia, Asthma

Search the Web
gallbladder
board of nursing,
news
laparoscopic hernia repair
ri
plastic surgery
ocean city md hotels
laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy
md forte
chiropractic

The Best board of nursing, website

All the board of nursing, information you need to know about is right here. Presented and researched by http://www.medical-mailings.com. We've searched the information super highway far and wide to provide you with the best board of nursing, site on the internet today. The links below will assist you in your efforts to find the information that you are looking for about
board of nursing,.

board of nursing,

medical mailings, email campaigns
Need information on Medical Mailings? Our links will provide you with information on all type of type of Medical Mailings for Physicians over the internet including email and snail mail. For conferencing services to go with your email campagin go to Meetings on the Net - http://www.meetingsonthenet.com
medical mailings, email campaigns

board of nursing, - high quality sites


When you’re looking for information on buying board of nursing, it can all seem very overwhelming. But don’t worry, because we’ve sorted through all the board of nursing, sites on the internet and have found the very best ones that will get you what you want, how you want it.
We know how important it is to be informed when you’re looking for board of nursing,. Some websites are better than others and will meet your board of nursing, needs in a better fashion.

When you’re looking for a high quality board of nursing, site you know you can rely on, we recommend the above web site. We have taken the hard work out of your board of nursing, shopping and narrowed our list of board of nursing, websites down to only those of the very best.

Knowing you’re getting value for money is very important in buying board of nursing,, so by coming to this web site you can rest with the sound knowledge that you are getting the board of nursing, you paid for.

By buying through our recommend links you can also rest assured your board of nursing, will be of the highest quality. How do we know? Because when we’re shopping for board of nursing, ourselves it’s where we go.

You might wonder why we’re suggesting you click on some outside links rather than stay on our board of nursing, site. Well it’s because we’ve only just put this site up and haven’t yet got it fully operational. Our aim is to be the best site for board of nursing, info on the net, and I’m sure that one day soon we’ll achieve it. So please bookmark us and come back soon. Meanwhile please follow one of the links.

board of nursing,
news
laparoscopic hernia repair
ri
plastic surgery
ocean city md hotels
laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy
md forte
chiropractic
yoga based wellness programs
sporting news
virtual laparoscopic
Asbestos
hernia
dr
onco-vits
fwi
practice
gallbladder

is-ease

 by: Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.

We are all terminally ill. It is a matter of time before we all die. Aging and death remain almost as mysterious as ever. We feel awed and uncomfortable when we contemplate these twin afflictions. Indeed, the very word denoting illness contains its own best definition: dis-ease. A mental component of lack of well being must exist SUBJECTIVELY. The person must FEEL bad, must experience discomfiture for his condition to qualify as a disease. To this extent, we are justified in classifying all diseases as "spiritual" or "mental".

Is there any other way of distinguishing health from sickness - a way that does NOT depend on the report that the patient provides regarding his subjective experience?

Some diseases are manifest and others are latent or immanent. Genetic diseases can exist - unmanifested - for generations. This raises the philosophical problem or whether a potential disease IS a disease? Are AIDS and Haemophilia carriers - sick? Should they be treated, ethically speaking? They experience no dis-ease, they report no symptoms, no signs are evident. On what moral grounds can we commit them to treatment? On the grounds of the "greater benefit" is the common response. Carriers threaten others and must be isolated or otherwise neutered. The threat inherent in them must be eradicated. This is a dangerous moral precedent. All kinds of people threaten our well-being: unsettling ideologists, the mentally handicapped, many politicians. Why should we single out our physical well-being as worthy of a privileged moral status? Why is our mental well being, for instance, of less import?

Moreover, the distinction between the psychic and the physical is hotly disputed, philosophically. The psychophysical problem is as intractable today as it ever was (if not more so). It is beyond doubt that the physical affects the mental and the other way around. This is what disciplines like psychiatry are all about. The ability to control "autonomous" bodily functions (such as heartbeat) and mental reactions to pathogens of the brain are proof of the artificialness of this distinction.

It is a result of the reductionist view of nature as divisible and summable. The sum of the parts, alas, is not always the whole and there is no such thing as an infinite set of the rules of nature, only an asymptotic approximation of it. The distinction between the patient and the outside world is superfluous and wrong. The patient AND his environment are ONE and the same. Disease is a perturbation in the operation and management of the complex ecosystem known as patient-world. Humans absorb their environment and feed it in equal measures. This on-going interaction IS the patient. We cannot exist without the intake of water, air, visual stimuli and food. Our environment is defined by our actions and output, physical and mental.

Thus, one must question the classical differentiation between "internal" and "external". Some illnesses are considered "endogenic" (=generated from the inside). Natural, "internal", causes - a heart defect, a biochemical imbalance, a genetic mutation, a metabolic process gone awry - cause disease. Aging and deformities also belong in this category.

In contrast, problems of nurturance and environment - early childhood abuse, for instance, or malnutrition - are "external" and so are the "classical" pathogens (germs and viruses) and accidents.

But this, again, is a counter-productive approach. Exogenic and Endogenic pathogenesis is inseparable. Mental states increase or decrease the susceptibility to externally induced disease. Talk therapy or abuse (external events) alter the biochemical balance of the brain. The inside constantly interacts with the outside and is so intertwined with it that all distinctions between them are artificial and misleading. The best example is, of course, medication: it is an external agent, it influences internal processes and it has a very strong mental correlate (=its efficacy is influenced by mental factors as in the placebo effect).

The very nature of dysfunction and sickness is highly culture-dependent. Societal parameters dictate right and wrong in health (especially mental health). It is all a matter of statistics. Certain diseases are accepted in certain parts of the world as a fact of life or even a sign of distinction (e.g., the paranoid schizophrenic as chosen by the gods). If there is no dis-ease there is no disease. That the physical or mental state of a person CAN be different - does not imply that it MUST be different or even that it is desirable that it should be different. In an over-populated world, sterility might be the desirable thing - or even the occasional epidemic. There is no such thing as ABSOLUTE dysfunction. The body and the mind ALWAYS function. They adapt themselves to their environment and if the latter changes - they change. Personality disorders are the best possible responses to abuse. Cancer may be the best possible response to carcinogens. Aging and death are definitely the best possible response to over-population. Perhaps the point of view of the single patient is incommensurate with the point of view of his species - but this should not serve to obscure the issues and derail rational debate.

As a result, it is logical to introduce the notion of "positive aberration". Certain hyper- or hypo- functioning can yield positive results and prove to be adaptive. The difference between positive and negative aberrations can never be "objective". Nature is morally-neutral and embodies no "values" or "preferences". It simply exists. WE, humans, introduce our value systems, prejudices and priorities into our activities, science included. It is better to be healthy, we say, because we feel better when we are healthy. Circularity aside - this is the only criterion that we can reasonably employ. If the patient feels good - it is not a disease, even if we all think it is. If the patient feels bad, ego-dystonic, unable to function - it is a disease, even when we all think it isn't. Needless to say that I am referring to that mythical creature, the fully informed patient. If someone is sick and knows no better (has never been healthy) - then his decision should be respected only after he is given the chance to experience health.

All the attempts to introduce "objective" yardsticks of health are plagued and philosophically contaminated by the insertion of values, preferences and priorities into the formula - or by subjecting the formula to them altogether. One such attempt is to define health as "an increase in order or efficiency of processes" as contrasted with illness which is "a decrease in order (=increase of entropy) and in the efficiency of processes". While being factually disputable, this dyad also suffers from a series of implicit value-judgements. For instance, why should we prefer life over death? Order to entropy? Efficiency to inefficiency?

Health and sickness are different states of affairs. Whether one is preferable to the other is a matter of the specific culture and society in which the question is posed. Health (and its lack) is determined by employing three "filters" as it were:

1) Is the body affected?

2) Is the person affected? (dis-ease, the bridge between "physical" and "mental illnesses)

3) Is society affected?

In the case of mental health the third question is often formulated as "is it normal" (=is it statistically the norm of this particular society in this particular time)?

We must re-humanize disease. By imposing upon issues of health the pretensions of the accurate sciences, we objectified the patient and the healer alike and utterly neglected that which cannot be quantified or measured - the human mind, the human spirit.

About

Google

http://www.gomailings.com/
Talk On The Net | Take It Correctly | Kids Meet | Take It Right | Drugestore On-the-Net

MD Newscast   Medical Newscast   Medical Newscast