Traumatic neuroses; War neuroses; World War, 1914-1918 -- Health aspects; World War, 1914-1918 -- Veterans -- Mental health
Quite apart, however, from the military aspects of the case, the
physician, without really investigating the history of a patient,
may label his trouble “hysteria” and forthwith adopt a course of
“firmness.” He may assume the attitude of doubting the genuineness
of symptoms which are very real to the sufferer. Under the plea of
helping to cure the patient the officer may assure him that there is
nothing much the matter with him and that if he tries he will soon be
all right. Such advice may be justifiable if based on a real insight
into the state of the individual sufferer, but this knowledge can be
gained only by a patient investigation of the cause of his trouble.
If the advice is given without this insight, it is a mere shot in the
dark. The fact that the device succeeds in a certain number of cases
is no excuse for its general adoption. And when it “misfires” no one
realises the fact more quickly than the patient himself. He realises
that the officer does not appreciate his condition and his confidence
is thereby destroyed.
It is useful, too, to consider for a moment the nature of treatment by
“sympathy.” When we used the phrase “sympathetic firmness” we intended
to indicate the insistence upon a strict observance of such methods of
treatment as a real insight into the patient’s condition may suggest.
The word “sympathy” was used in its literal sense of “feeling with”
the sufferer. But there is no class of patients upon whom sympathy
of the injudicious kind is more prone to work serious harm than the
psychoneurotic. The knowledge of this fact is often the excuse for the
adoption of the opposite attitude and the prescription of “firmness”
which, as we have seen, may be equally unintelligent and injudicious.
But sympathy of the injudicious kind is not _real_ sympathy. For unless
the sympathiser has a true appreciation of the patient’s condition,
and can look at things from his point of view, he cannot really feel
_with_ the sufferer. The latter may arouse in the would-be sympathiser
tender emotions and sympathetic “pain,” but unless the sympathiser
have insight, the pain, to put it crudely, is not likely to be “in
the same place” as that of the patient. Such misplaced emotion and
false sympathy, whether on the part of the doctor, the nurse, or the
patient’s relations, may do much harm.
In mild cases of mental trouble, however, where the patient still
retains a goodly portion of self-confidence and self-respect, this
“petting” variety of sympathy may sometimes be effective. Such a
patient may be cheered up by the presence of people sufficiently
interested in him to be sorry for his condition; and it may help him
to look on the brighter side of things and to forget his worries and
anxieties. But often it is apt, by suggestion, to aggravate his
troubles or even to discourage him from trying to recover.[26] Perhaps
it would be more accurate to say that such treatment gives him no
inducement to get better.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account