To the editor:
As a psychoanalyst, I wanted to respond to the article "The great divide" (Journal-World, July 30), which discussed a schism between mental health care and religious faith. This division attempts to simplify the human condition instead of struggling with the complexity of being alive. Freud actually taught that conflicting attributes within the psyche exist simultaneously. Emotional difficulties, consequently, result from many sources. Cultural factors such as poverty, economic envy, social assimilation and prejudices also factor into mental distress yet were not mentioned in the article. Emotional duress typically represents conflicts between aspects of an individual and their relationship to the larger world.
An unwanted pregnancy, for example, is a biological event that leads to a conflict between a woman's faith and her fear about being a single mother in an expensive society. Her situation may come to the attention of a physician, leading to a categorical diagnosis, a managed care decision and medical intervention to reduce her suffering. Divides are as arbitrary as the concepts of disease, normality, medical necessity, body, Soul, conscious and unconscious mind.
In contemporary mental health care, clinicians are open to any solution that promotes sustainable well being. I appreciate that one solution alone will not eliminate anyone's entire mental anguish. Faith in another person, a group, a cause or a higher power helps to transcend the personal. Reducing our experiences to "either-or" explanations is limiting to the human spirit. By appreciating the diversity of humanity, we grow as a civilization.
Dr. John R. Whipple,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
craigers (anonymous) says…
In short we should not have moral absolutes, because it condemns some for making certain decisions and makes others feel better because of their choices.
ryanjasondesch (anonymous) says…
So what if he is? You ever had an unwanted pregnancy? Better brush up on your empathy there fella.
Craigers: Touch up on your psychology, "no moral absolutes" is not what was said there, but simply that perhaps, "moral absolutes" differ between idividuals and have to be considered by professionals dealing with those individuals. If you disagree, go out an find one single person in the world who believes in EVERY single moral that you do and in the exact same way you do. But hey, you're one of those "never wrong" types, right?
craigers (anonymous) says…
That's all I got from it. Ryan are you one of the I am smarter than you people? I hope that makes you feel good. You dissed two people in one post. That's two pats on the back for you. If you would have left off that last sentence, maybe I would have listened to what you said and learned something, but since your respect for others is pretty low, why should I even listen?
You ever had an unwanted pregnancy? The only unwanted pregnancy that could ever happen is rape/incest. Other than that, I am pretty sure the two were pretty happy when they were getting it on. Keep your pants on and you won't have unwanted pregnancies. It seems pretty simple to me.