Do you think it's wrong or necessary for humanitarians to view suffering in contextualized and symbolic terms?

[jennifer_bloom]

I mean if you view suffering through raw empathic terms, you might experience at an emotional level what the patient experiences at a physical level and that would mean you have to suffer with your patient when they suffer.

If you view the suffering as symbolic, you are protecting the idea of compassion rather than the person your compassion is directed towards, this allows you to feel positive and satisfied while treating a patient that might not recover, but I wonder if it is wrong to view suffering in abstract terms, because it could be viewed as not taking the patient seriously.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Whatever motivates a person to treat their patient well seems right to me.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

One thing I could see as a possibility with the empathic way is that it might evoke such emotional suffering on the one treating their patient that it might actually interfere with optimal treatment. For example, if the patient benefits from a firmer tone but our internal suffering makes us favor an overly gentle tone in a misfired Golden Rule way, that might lead to sub-optimal treatment and communication with the patient. Also just the suffering might interfere with performing optimally, like the person treating the patient might get far too stressed out especially for patients that pass away to effectively do their job.

With the symbolic way, the emotional detachment might also interfere with optimal treatment like I suspect inevitably those who are motivated empathetically will always tend to go the extra mile (for better or worse) to treat the patient.

I figure it varies based on the person and the resiliency of the coping mechanisms as well. Some people might need to detach themselves emotionally to avoid breaking down while others might be able to do it and still bounce back from the suffering they endure.

[haklısınvolkan]

Holaa