A Feminist Approach to the Opioid Epidemic

Nonmedical prescription opioid abuse is an ongoing problem in America, with data showing an increase in this phenomenon in every state. This phenomenon found its genesis and growth within the masculine context of care. As this epidemic continues its threat on public health, it is time to consider alternative approaches to its treatment. One such approach is to implement a feminist ethic of care to improve the patient-provider relationship, foster autonomy, and to nurture national milieu Nurses General Nursing Article

Nonmedical prescription opioid abuse (NPOA) is an ongoing problem in America, with data showing an increase in this phenomenon in every state (Paulozzi & Xi, 2008). This phenomenon found its genesis and growth within the masculine context of care. As this epidemic continues its threat on public health, it is time to consider alternative approaches to its treatment. One such approach is to implement a feminist ethic of care to improve the patient-provider relationship, foster autonomy, and nurture the national milieu through interdependence. The means to this end may vary, but the nature of this perspective demands effective communication. Motivational interviewing represents a consistent, evidence-based means for exercising this approach to care.

The current perspective in treating the rising threat of NPOA relies on the masculine ethic of care. This view derives its treatment approach from the obligation of justice. That is to say, the masculine ethic of care is strongly concerned a more "hands off" approach to treatment. This duty of justice considers the patient as the sole, responsible party and, therefore, the fundamental agent of change and wellness. The way in which this is carried out is via a power dynamic in which the provider maintains an omniscient, fatherly role that emphasizes provider knowledge and patient obedience. Put another way, the masculine view stresses the notion that strong willpower and knowledge give rise to success. This method routinely omits empathy and patience from treatment and discounts the addiction research demonstrating impaired freedom of will (Vohs & Baumesiter, 2009). The result is a sense of failure and hopelessness felt by the patient.

The feminist approach highlights the importance of the patient-provider relationship through the exercise of empathy. Central to this perspective is interdependence and the balance of power between the provider and the patient. By maintaining this symmetry, then the provider may foster open-communication, elicit change-talk, and identify barriers and strengths to recovery. Furthermore, the nurse and patient can work together to use those factors to tailor the treatment plan and evoke patient autonomy in a way that increases the chance of positive health outcomes. This framework arises from a fundamental philosophy demonstrated throughout feminist history in which the marginalized provide the best insight into the provision of care within a society (Green, 2012).

In this model, the provider lessens the burden of responsibility by sharing that weight with the patient through a feminist ethic of care. That is not to imply that the provider strips the patient of power, but, instead, nurtures that power within the patient. This "motherly" role stands in strong contrast to the masculinity of the "fatherly" role. In this way, the provider-patient relationship takes a similar shape as a mother-child relationship, in which the provider guides the patient through treatment, fostering more and more autonomy along the way, until the patient ultimately becomes the sole decision-maker. This enables coping mechanisms and caregiving that equip the patient with the necessary skills to maintain wellness, rather than metaphorically kicking the patient from the nest. This feminist lens sets up the philosophy of care, but practice must align with this framework.

Ultimately, there are many ways to implement this approach. No matter the means in which one seeks to do so, the most important factor will be communication. Communication remains a tool in which the provider can cultivate relationships, derive patient-centered data, and tailor the plan of care. One method for communication is motivational interviewing. This form of counseling has demonstrated success in addiction treatment and in agreement with the feminist perspective. Motivational interviewing is a goal-oriented method that facilitates change by provoking intrinsic motivation from the patient, preserving patient-centered care (Miller, 1996). The practitioner remains nonjudgmental and maintains an open, equal relationship with the patient. As the provider paces with the patient, then the provider consistent demonstrates empathy, and allows the patient to argue for behavioral change. This provides the same level of autonomy and interdependence relative to feminist care models and, therefore, a practical match in implementing such models.

In conclusion, the feminist perspective of care in the treatment of NPOA offers an approach predictive of success. This ethic focuses on the patient-provider relationship to foster patient autonomy. By exercising empathy, then the caregiving, interdependent nature of feminism is preserved in a way that is congruent with the most recent research into addiction. Although there are many ways in which one can implement the feminist model, communication must remain a central component. Because of the caring, empathetic nature of this perspective, a nonjudgmental approach is paramount. Motivational interviewing is consistent with feminist approaches to care and, therefore, can be a valuable tool in effective communication.

References

Green B (2012) Applying Feminist Ethics of Care to Nursing Practice. J Nurs Care 1:111. doi:10.4172/2167-1168.1000111

Miller, W. R. (1996). Motivational interviewing: Research, practice, and puzzles. Addictive Behaviors, 21, 835-842. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(96)00044-5.

Paulozzi LJ, Xi Y. Recent changes in drug poisoning mortality in the United States by urban-rural status and by drug type. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17(10):997-1005.

Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Addiction and free will. Addiction Research & Theory, 17(3), 231-235.

Good thing we all have some of both masculine and feminine in varying unique and beautiful ways! Empathy has no 'assigned' sex. Does it??? :confused:

Every individual is so unique... :wacky:

Empathy does not have an assigned sex, although many studies have concluded that women tend to experience empathy with more intensity.

Of course we all have attributes regarded as feminine and masculine, but I wasn't describing people. I was describing a system of care. Mostly, the medical model that is still pervasive in which the patient is largely a passive receiver of care.

This wasn't a personal attack on a sex, individual provider, etc. It was an observation/description of what I see as a systemic problem and a reason to advocate for a certain theory of care.

Medicine is still defined paternalism. It's the 80s/90s. Keep drinking that koolaid. How about you provide modern validated evidence based on modern medical education? Things have been changing!

1. You cited Green who published in a no-name OA journal, in their third-ever-issue. That is not a strong source. You drew on it to focus on this feminine-masculine care split, which the author based on Gilligan's work, citing her popular, but non-peer-reviewed (and often criticized) book from early 1980s... weak again. Your definitions are ill-defined.

2. You quoted a 1996 paper by Miller who pioneered some pretty cool client-centered care methodologies in psychotherapy in the early 1980s... which is where nursing academia likes to pretend other health fields are stuck IME YOMV. You basically just declare this to be feminist without backing up your claim.

3. You missed the relevance of the origin of the opioid epidemic. You don't demonstrate that paternalistic or "masculine care" is a progenitor of the epidemic vis-a-vis merely being a potential point of failure in the treatment of addiction (where Miller's work is applicable). Others have postulated that excesses in client-focused care (which you categorize as feminist) in pain treatment are contributory to the opioid crisis. To gloss over such an obvious point when you are making a claim about the positivity of feminism as defined by client centered care is hypocritical.

I was saying you wrote a bunch of supposition based on a weak source and nebulous philosophy. Those are the defining characteristic of a typical graduate (and undergraduate) paper in a nursing theory class. When otherwise well written, such "scholarship" usually receives an A grade, a sad commentary on nursing academia.

Once again, although the origins of the opioid epidemic may have taken place in the paternal system that I elaborate on, I do not posit that it is the causative agent BEHIND the opioid epidemic. That's simply a strawman.

The entire point of the article was to advocate for an approach to the treatment of this epidemic, not to cast stones about how it occurred. If I gave an impression to the contrary, then, admittedly, that was my mistake and the consequence of a poor choice of words; but it was not my intent.

As far as the "pain as the fifth vital sign, catering to patient satisfaction, etc" that has been mentioned and seems to be implied by some of your language- I agree. These are things that are absolutely problems and contributory to the genesis of the epidemic. I don't disagree. If one wants to label them as "feminist" then that's fine. I would say that no matter what theory or lens one chooses to base their practice off of or look through, every patient is an individual and their care may and should fall anywhere on this spectrum as appropriate for the best outcomes.

That said, however, the patient's active participation in their care within a context that is not perceived as punitive, rigid, nor judgmental is absolutely going to be more effective. This is the basis of therapy and can be exercised with validation, while simultaneously advocating for certain values such as abstinence and wellness.

This piece was something I see as a companion piece to the last article I wrote about choice, pathology, and the disease model of addiction. Which, I really wish I would've elaborated on because I think it may have illustrated my meaning a bit better. Specifically, the ways in which we value and view choice as a metric for the patient's willingness for recovery. We assign blame and moral claims, label things as "bad choices," and see addiction and relapse as the patient freely exercising the decision to use (IE: "They must NOT WANT to be clean, so what's the point" mentality). This is paternalistic, the sort of thing you see with "tough love." While those same people often demonize the disease model as "enabling" simply because the implication is that their freedom of will is not quite as "free" as people would like to believe.

With regard to Miller, Yes...I see his approach as compatible with the feminist approach in a lot of ways. You ask that I backup this assertion. I'm not sure what it would even mean to do so. I reference an ethic of care, which the author terms "feminist," and elaborate on what that means. Specifically, I say that it is "in agreement with the feminist perspective." Whether you agree with philosophy in the Feminist paper or not, the paper outlines certain theoretical values. Those values ARE "in agreement" with Miller's work. This isn't an invalid or unsound argument, the premises linearly lead to the conclusion. If you wish to debate the value of those premises, then that is fine; but to claim that I did not backup my assertion is untrue. It's a categorical claim, falling out from the values of one theory and the approach of another. Does that mean Miller's work is "feminist"? Well, not necessarily; but that's mostly a semantic claim. What it does mean, however, is that the values it's based on are compatible in such a way that, given one agrees with what is labeled as a "feminist approach" (clearly, this doesn't mean everyone agrees nor must) is useful for putting the theory into practice.

As far as your perception of Gilligan's work, that's fine and that is your opinion. It's a philosophical view that I believe would have positive outcomes when put into practice. Not only that, but I believe that the values this philosophy advocates have already been shown to be beneficial as various treatment modalities shown as effective frequently draws on the same premise/values.

You're taking issue with an adjective, but it doesn't seem readily obvious that you're making a coherent objection to the content. As some have pointed out in criticism of my article, this isn't new. It's "patient-centered care." Which, I agree that it isn't new; but I also hold that there are still many areas that need improved. This is especially true in the case of substance abuse treatment. If you don't like the particular theory I chose to evaluate this problem through, then that is fine.

Call it whatever you want, but the medical model is slow to adapt. We still stigmatize this population, many people (usually those who do not specialize in this area) refuse to accept the disease model or even acknowledge the neurobiological changes that take place in the context of addiction. So long as this stigma is present, then people will not seek care, those that do will perceive the provider-patient relationship as not therapeutic as a consequence and, thusly, outcomes will not be as positive as they otherwise could be.

As far as your opinion on the scholarship of my writing, that's fine. You're free to your opinion, I will take your critiques and try to improve off of them. Of course, I generally see an opinion piece like this as a fundamentally different writing style than one may otherwise take in a scholarly journal. I was making an argument for something I believe in. You may see it as a weak one, it may need strengthened to be convincing, but it was never meant to be something that I intended to be on the caliber of being published in a scientific journal.

Specializes in Med nurse in med-surg., float, HH, and PDN.

:wideyed: Got several paragraphs into the article and thought one word:

BUH?

:bored:

I didn't read the articles as they're not linked (and I have about 6.022x10^23 better things to do than hunt for them)... but from the titles I can't tell if there's any causative link between paternalism and opioid abuse/addiction? I see a title about feminist ethics, one about statistics, one about addiction...and the 20+ yr old one about motivational interviewing?

What has been your experience with paternalism? I'm curious because paternalism has been considered outdated for quite a long time. I attended nursing school in the early 2000s, and we were HEAVILY taught about advocacy and autonomy. The ONE physician who I have heard of chiding a family for questioning the surgeons (for merely pointing out a discrepancy among the POC as told by different team members) was FIRED.

By contrast, the idea that pain is whatever the pt says it is seems like it would put pressure on the provider to do what the pt wants, even if that goes against his/her professional judgment. (Speaking of **unreasonable** demands.) Don't even get me started on HCAHPS nonsense!

Hello HIS, thanks for your reply. I think you ask some fair questions and raise some good critiques, that I hope I can answer adequately for you. Well, at least I hope I can defend my position adequately. That doesn't mean I will convince you, but I honestly do appreciate criticisms. If I'm wrong, then I certainly don't want to be wrong a moment longer than I need to. Forgive me for not using the "quote" function as usefully as the others, but it isn't easy to do via iPhone.

"from the titles I can't tell if there's any causative link between paternalism and opioid abuse/addiction? I see a title about feminist ethics, one about statistics, one about addiction...and the 20+ yr old one about motivational interviewing?"

I elaborated on the first question a bit in a previous reply to another commenter. Evidently, I didn't choose my words wisely and gave the impression that I was blaming what I call the "paternal/masculine" approach for the cause of the epidemic. I definitely was not meaning that. My point was to say that this approach is likely maladaptive for treating substance abuse.

Your second question: the reason I chose Miller's work is because I see it as foundational in MI (tricky abbreviation in healthcare, lol) and where the values of it were first really laid out. I should've also cited newer research on its efficacy, but I sort of saw it as a given (there is a lot of research out there showing MI as effective in addiction) and really wanted to draw on the parallels between Miller's practical approach and the feminist theoretical approach. Hopefully, that makes a little more sense. I think that is a very fair criticism and an error in my writing style/thought process. I've built my life around psych. and sometimes presume that my audience has to; but this is obviously not a virtue when you're making an argument.

"What has been your experience with paternalism? I'm curious because paternalism has been considered outdated for quite a long time. I attended nursing school in the early 2000s, and we were HEAVILY taught about advocacy and autonomy. The ONE physician who I have heard of chiding a family for questioning the surgeons (for merely pointing out a discrepancy among the POC as told by different team members) was FIRED."

When I mention "paternalism" or describe it as something that is can be perceived as "punitive," I am not necessarily meaning that as "rude." What I see as paternal in the medical model are some of the values, their effects on treatment approach, and the resulting provider-patient relationship. For example- we tend to see "choice" as one of the most important values, assign moral claims where they may not be applicable and/or beneficial, and allow this to shape interactions with patients. Keep in mind, my thoughts are specific to substance abuse populations. To be more specific, many see relapse as the patient actively deciding NOT to adhere to treatment, often perceive that patient as weak or not demonstrating a serious attempt for recovery. This impacts the relationship a provider has with this patient, where they may come across as punitive and assigning blame.

The other side of this is the foundation the relationship is based on, generally, in which the provider is seen as unquestionable, all-knowing, and the domineering voice in treatment. Obviously, the provider does know more about medicine but the relationship often begins in a way that reduces the patient to a passive receiver of that care. There are even many providers that refuse to even accept or acknowledge the neurobiology of addiction, because they see it as "making excuses for and enabling" addicts rather than using these findings to gain insight into the patient's circumstances. Ultimately, the paternal model tends to view the patient as fundamentally an independent agent who is on his/her own after prescribing a treatment.

Where as the "feminist approach" (admittedly, I hate this term too; but I wanted to remain consistent with the terms used by theorist) is less reductionist, seeing the patient as a cohesive unit of biopsychosocial factors. While it values health and wellbeing, it does so from a place that isn't judgmental and offputting. It values empathy, acknowledges the patient's hardship, and implores the patient's active participation not only in the prescribed care but in forging the treatment plan. The provider-patient relationship is more open, cultivating trust and allowing the patient to exercise their own honesty without fear of being judged or otherwise seen as not wanting treatment or not taking it seriously.

As I said somewhere else, put another way: this is very similar to the medical vs nursing model. We don't just care FOR the patient, we care WITH the patient. Nursing isn't immune to bias or stigma, but it is holistic and can be very maternal.

Here's what I am not saying: I am not saying that EVERY INDIVIDUAL operates this way or that we should blame men. These are just adjectives that are used because the exercise of care correlates with associated social norms. I am also not saying that there is no place for implementing some paternal characteristics; rather, we may and even should in certain patients who may be more responsive to this approach.

"By contrast, the idea that pain is whatever the pt says it is seems like it would put pressure on the provider to do what the pt wants, even if that goes against his/her professional judgment. (Speaking of **unreasonable** demands.) Don't even get me started on HCAHPS nonsense"

HAHA. Don't worry, I COMPLETELY understand what you are saying and agree. No experience in healthcare can be so easily quantified in a likert scale and just because one has subjective experiences doesn't mean this cannot be evaluated by another person in an objective way (Pain ISN'T always what the patient says or believes it is). We can listen and validate patient concerns. I think this is a good thing, because it fosters communication that may result in gaining additional data valuable for treatment. That said, we can validate but that doesn't mean we agree nor that we can be bullied into providing ANY care the patient wants.

There's certainly a middle ground or more appropriate positions across this spectrum.

Specializes in ICU + Infection Prevention.
The entire point of the article was to advocate for an approach to the treatment of this epidemic, not to cast stones about how it occurred.

It is asinine to argue a given philosophical approach (feminism) is the cure by (comically) co-opting patient centered care as that philosophy applied when it may have also been the cause.

If one wants to label them as "feminist" then that's fine. I would say that no matter what theory or lens one chooses to base their practice off of or look through, every patient is an individual and their care may and should fall anywhere on this spectrum as appropriate for the best outcomes.

I agree. However, you have just argued that your article is irrelevant. (I agree.)

We assign blame and moral claims, label things as "bad choices," and see addiction and relapse as the patient freely exercising the decision to use (IE: "They must NOT WANT to be clean, so what's the point" mentality). This is paternalistic, the sort of thing you see with "tough love." While those same people often demonize the disease model as "enabling" simply because the implication is that their freedom of will is not quite as "free" as people would like to believe.

This will be the third time I level the accusation of poor definitions on your part. For someone who purports to be writing about philosophy, you should realize semantics are absolutely essential when casting dichotomous aspersions. You have now conflated determinism vs free-will with feminism vs paternalism which is neither accurate nor have you made any attempt to support such a silly notion.

But do go on about those terrible paternalistic doctors who demonize the disease model... what decade is it again?

Does that mean Miller's work is "feminist"? Well, not necessarily; but that's mostly a semantic claim. What it does mean, however, is that the values it's based on are compatible in such a way that, given one agrees with what is labeled as a "feminist approach" (clearly, this doesn't mean everyone agrees nor must) is useful for putting the theory into practice.

Putting what I said before more explicitely...

Your claim:

1. NPOA may be helped by Patient Centered Care (PCC)

2. PCC represents applied Feminism.

3. Therefore Feminism is useful and its antithesis is harmful.

Your conclusion is a minimally supported logical leap even if you ignored what I and others say:

1. NPOA may be helped by PCC.

2. NPOA may be caused by PCC.

3. Therefore use care with PCC; we are unable to draw conclusions about Feminism.

Call it whatever you want, but the medical model is slow to adapt. We still stigmatize this population, many people (usually those who do not specialize in this area) refuse to accept the disease model or even acknowledge the neurobiological changes that take place in the context of addiction.

You keep harping on the medical model as currently paternalistic, slow, and harmful. You haven't presented any evidence even when challenged repeatedly. There is pretty broad info that your accusation is dated.

Specializes in ER.

By the way, the Merriam Webster definition of feminism doesn't fit the nurturing, motherly philosophy that the author of this article describes. As a matter of fact, feminism has always steered away from stereotyping gender roles, and purports to seek equality.

Definition of feminism

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

It is asinine to argue a given philosophical approach (feminism) is the cure by (comically) co-opting patient centered care as that philosophy applied when it may have also been the cause.

I agree. However, you have just argued that your article is irrelevant. (I agree.)

This will be the third time I level the accusation of poor definitions on your part. For someone who purports to be writing about philosophy, you should realize semantics are absolutely essential when casting dichotomous aspersions. You have now conflated determinism vs free-will with feminism vs paternalism which is neither accurate nor have you made any attempt to support such a silly notion.

But do go on about those terrible paternalistic doctors who demonize the disease model... what decade is it again?

Putting what I said before more explicitely...

Your claim:

1. NPOA may be helped by Patient Centered Care (PCC)

2. PCC represents applied Feminism.

3. Therefore Feminism is useful and its antithesis is harmful.

Your conclusion is a minimally supported logical leap even if you ignored what I and others say:

1. NPOA may be helped by PCC.

2. NPOA may be caused by PCC.

3. Therefore use care with PCC; we are unable to draw conclusions about Feminism.

You keep harping on the medical model as currently paternalistic, slow, and harmful. You haven't presented any evidence even when challenged repeatedly. There is pretty broad info that your accusation is dated.

"It is asinine to argue a given philosophical approach (feminism) is the cure by (comically) co-opting patient centered care as that philosophy applied when it may have also been the cause. "

Eh, that's a strawman. First of all, just because an intervention may be seen as arising from a philosophy doesn't mean its perceived failure is evidence that ALL interventions must therefore fail if they derive from that philosophy. Furthermore, the failure of a singular intervention doesn't negate the entire philosophy. For instance, one's criticism of Carl Rogers' approach doesn't necessarily apply to the entirety of humanistic psychology.

"I agree. However, you have just argued that your article is irrelevant"

Sure, if my thesis was that the only effective approach to treating any patient must utilize a single model; however, that was not at all what I argued. Obviously, some patients prefer to be more passive in their care. In which case, they may slide slightly away from the way in which the feminist model describes in some sense. Even then however, you're preserving other values that are still in line with this view and could still take a more empathetic approach that isn't so reductionist or rigid. Nursing theories/philosophies may incorporate a lens and various values that their theorists consider beneficial, but I'm quite sure that they don't presume there can be no other approaches or individualized care. For example, I see the medical system to be very disparaging with a negative perception of addicts; but I still think that most (maybe even all) providers want what is best for their clients, ultimately greater self-concept, behaviors, and decision-making. Paternally, I think this manifests in a way that sees the person as a sum of their actions and that may lead to unfair conclusions that can ultimately erode the relationship with the patient. The feminist philosophy doesn't differ in wanting the same outcome, but takes on a more maternal role in how the provider-patient relationship is viewed and how it intends on arriving at that end. It can do this in various ways, because the values it holds as paramount can be preserved in multiple ways. Indeed, such values and approaches overlap with many different philosophies. The ability to see the patient's personhood as separable from their behaviors, building the relationship on optimism and openness without judgment can overlap greatly with humanistic psychology which overlaps with many others.

"This will be the third time I level the accusation of poor definitions on your part. For someone who purports to be writing about philosophy, you should realize semantics are absolutely essential when casting dichotomous aspersions. You have now conflated determinism vs free-will with feminism vs paternalism which is neither accurate nor have you made any attempt to support such a silly notion.

But do go on about those terrible paternalistic doctors who demonize the disease model... what decade is it again?"

Eh...you're intentionally trying to pigeonhole anything I say. I'm not conflating free will/determinism and paternal/maternal views. I am saying that one model allows for approaching the patient with understanding and hope in a way that is consistent with the disease model. If one model emphasizes "willpower" and "strength" as the most valuable traits in recovery, then the perception is that relapses are indicative of poor willpower and weakness. What I am arguing is that the current model doesn't emphasize empathy in a way that fosters a therapeutic relationship. It's built less on the concept of understanding and adaptation and more on the provider telling the patient what to do. We also know that, in general, health professionals view addicts in a negative way (Stigma among health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its consequences for healthcare delivery: Systematic review - ScienceDirect) and we know that this impacts their approach to care, because it impacts the provider-patient relationship. Why do I think so? Because patients say so and there are negative outcomes associated with it (Perceptions of discriminatory treatment by staff as predictors of drug treatment completion: utility of a mixed methods approach. - PubMed - NCBI, an example of a small study. There are others, but they all seem to have a small sample size currently).

Additionally, a study indicated that the more health workers valued personal responsibility the less they regarded the patient as an individual (Healthcare professionals' regard towards working with patients with substance use disorders: comparison of primary care, general psychiatry and spe... - PubMed - NCBI)

"Your claim:

1. NPOA may be helped by Patient Centered Care (PCC)

2. PCC represents applied Feminism.

3. Therefore Feminism is useful and its antithesis is harmful."

That's not my claim.

My claim is (all within the context of NPOA) for why feminist approaches may be successful:

1. The feminist ethic of care outlined in the work I cited advocates for certain values

2. These values are common to and underlie certain practices in a variety of ways, such as: motivational interviewing

3. Studies show that MI is effective and that patient perception correlates with positive outcomes

4. Therefore it is worth exploring new interventions or employing more widespread use within this value system

The argument as to why I feel the paternal side as ineffective is elaborated on in the previous section.

"Medical researchers led the research on the neurobiological changes of addiction, not feminism theorists."

Again- strawman. I never made the claim that feminist nursing theorists led the research. I am advocating that the feminist approach is more compatible with the disease model.

"The American Psychiatric Association endorses the disease model.

Last week I heard the Surgeon General on NPR say, "addiction is a chronic disease and if we don't treat it as such, we will be doomed to continue in this vicious cycle." (Adams MD MPH)"

That's great, but not something I'm unaware of. I've cited similar claims from various medical organizations to reiterate the legitimacy of the disease model. Unfortunately, even though we've improved, this has not caught up the healthcare workers on the frontlines. They still have negative attitudes that are incongruent to this research. In one of the links above, one of the most cited critiques of addicts among healthcare workers is that they are "poorly motivated."

Specializes in ICU + Infection Prevention.

Just... wow... I tried to work my way through that dismissive word vomit. You even managed to concoct a straw man, and claim it was my doing. You managed to write all that while still failing to manage your definitions or defend your claims of medical paternalism. You are one slippery guy with one slippery mind. It's clear you are not interested in debate, but are merely relishing the attention. As another poster said, you embody the written version of talking to hear yourself talk... much like the laughable article by Green who had to go to a no-name OA journal to get "published" (for which she paid $1350). I'd tell you to consider law school, but you'll probably end up a nursing theory prof. I'm sure you are capable of construing that as a compliment. Peace out!

I agree 100 %

OP, I read your post yesterday but I didn't have time to respond. I knew as soon as I started reading it that it would generate a lot of friction. But I think you made several good points, eventhough I personally would have avoided assigning gender stereotype labels to the different approaches to the healthcare provider-patient relationship. The reason for that is twofold. Many people as has been clearly evidenced in this thread, tend to get quite defensive so it's probably not a very effective strategy to convey your message. The other reason is that I'm not convinced that labeling the different approaches as feminine and masculine is accurate.

Just a minor point, but isn't it supposed to be either masculine vs feminine or masculinist vs feminist? To me the -ne describes someone's attributes but the -ist decsribes a person who subscribes to the related -ism. If you call a medical or nursing model feminist and state that feminism rocks, you'll likely lose half your audience and perhaps even send them into anaphylactic shock :lol2:

I understand the meaning of the word paternal and its male connotation but I never thought of the paternalistic physician-patient relationship in the olden days to be especially "masculine". Instead I've always interpreted paternalism as referring to a parent-child dynamic, rather than father-child. I take it to mean a medical model where the physician, the parent, has all the knowledge and knows what's best for the patient-child and will tell the child what's best for them and how to behave/act, and the patient is expected to obey.

OP, I think your post was interesting and a lot of what you say has merit, but trying to gender-label the different models was a mistake.

Wow, Emergent. I have about a zillion questions after reading this. You're not the first person that I've heard espouse similar views but I have never understood what it means. I've asked many times but I have never received an answer that I understand. I'm being dead serious here. I'm hoping that you can supply some enlightenment.

emasculate | Definition of emasculate in English by Oxford Dictionaries

What specifically does an emasculated society have or not have compared to society 50 years ago? (I'm not sure what to call that society... Omnipotent family jewels still firmly attached-society? Seriously, what's the appropriate name for a non-emasculated society? :)) Patriarchal?

What's your definition of a strong male role model? I guess that I know and see so many men that I like or love and admire, that I'm having a problem understanding why you believe they are becoming increasingly rare. Perhaps our definitions of a strong male differ, which is why I'm asking if you can describe the attributes, personality traits and values that you equate with a strong man.

What does this mean? What's a broken family? Is it every combination that isn't mother, father and child? As I said, I don't understand what the things you write mean and I don't know how you think/feel. So, I'm asking. Were the old days when a women had no source of income of her own and was forced to stay in an abusive marriage because of the stigma of divorce and the inability to fend for herself financially, better than what we have today in our part of the world? Are two loveless or abusive and/or dysfunctional parents better for a child than two loving and emotionally stable moms or dads as long as the dysfunctional pair is 1 male + 1 female? What is your definition of the breakdown of families?

What specifically characterizes a "feminized" school system? What does it have or not have that a "masculinized" school system has or doesn't have?

The older generations have been complaining about the terrible youths since the dawn of mankind :) I'm sure that the generations older than yours had plenty to say about your generation, when you were younger. So what is it that young people should or shouldn't be doing that they did or didn't do, 50 years ago?

Are societies with a strong religious presence in your opinion inherently better and more moral than a more secular society? Is it religious values that makes a person good? Is religion necessary in order to be good and moral? Or can you also be a good person by drawing your moral code from a humanist persuasion? And I have to ask, are religious values masculine? I'm trying to figure out if this purported emasculation of society is somehow connected to the perceived loss of religious values?

What are religious values? The ten commandments? The golden rule? I'm a heathen ;) but I'm completely onboard with treating people with respect and kindness and I don't think that murder and theft is acceptable behavior (along with a few other things).

This is of course purely anecdotal... I've lived in a dozen countries, give or take. Some of them with basically no religious influence, like my own country and others whre religion seemed to be omni-present and most people would attend some kind of house of worship (depending on the dominant religion), on a very regular basis. And let me tell you, the U.S. and one country in the Middle East was were I was hit on more often than a stuck drawer by every married man within a 10-mile radius. Repeatedly. Persistent *****s. So, does religious values equal morality? Personally, I don't think it's religion that makes a person moral or ethical. Some people are religious and "good", some are religious and "bad". Some people are non-believers/atheists and "good", some are "bad".

I fear that you might think I'm nitpicking with this barrage of questions, but I'm being genuine here. The things you wrote are just catchphrases to me and their true meanings are cloaked in a murky fog.

What I'm basically asking is; what was so darn good about the 1950's? :)

This is why I love you.

This is why I love you.

Aw, thank you! And right back at you :inlove: :inlove: :inlove:

I argue that, perhaps my response may very well have a ring of truth. Society, in the last 50 years, has become emasculated. Strong male role models are increasingly rare, with the breakdown of families, feminization of the educational system, lack of discipline of our youth, loss of religious values and delineated moral codes.

And what is the result? What I observe is rampant drug abuse, mental illness and violence. I see a decrease in civility. There are regular mass shootings of innocent people. The societal decay is self-evident.

I'm kind of sensing that you aren't inclined to discuss this with me ;) I was really hoping that you would bring some clarity to the claims you made. You've made some big statements about society, male role models, the educational system, the state of families and our youth and religious values. Yet you can't, or won't, define a single one of these parameters? Why is that? If you believe that your claims are factual, it should be easy to present some supporting data.

I'm still trying to figure out what the heck an emasculated society even is? Never mind the rest of the things in your post. We both know that society doesn't have genitals. Right? So, I assume that an "emasculated" society doesn't actually mean that someone physically chopped valuable body parts off of poor, unfortunate society? So it's code for something? A bit more in the metaphorical realm I assume...? (gee, I'm smart :rolleyes:) Do you think that men don't get to decide enough in our society? Is that it? If that happens to be it, have you taken inventory of world leaders, the rest of the politicians, business CEOs , billionaires, the judiciary and the heavy-hitters in the banking and finance sectors and powerful lobbyists and found them to be majority female?

I didn't comment on your last paragraph yesterday, but I have a few questions regarding that one as well.. (I know, shocker... :))

It is true that you are faced with several serious societal problems. But do you really blame the regular mass shootings you have and mental illness on an "emasculated" society, the "feminized" school system and loss of religious values? Really? It would be so easy for me to point to a number of western countries with a much less noticable religious presence than the U.S., but likely equally afflicted with this blighted "feminized" school system, which don't have even a tiny portion of your mass shootings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have a wistful yearning for the time approximately fifty years ago? If I share one good thing that in my opinion has happened in the last fifty years, will you share something that in your opinion should change back to the way it was? (re-masculating society if you will...) Fifty years ago men could rape their wives at will. Today marital rape is criminalized. That's a good thing in my book. In yours too, I hope?

So emergent, how do you propose to sildenafilize society?

Just... wow... I tried to work my way through that dismissive word vomit. You even managed to concoct a straw man, and claim it was my doing. You managed to write all that while still failing to manage your definitions or defend your claims of medical paternalism. You are one slippery guy with one slippery mind. It's clear you are not interested in debate, but are merely relishing the attention. As another poster said, you embody the written version of talking to hear yourself talk... much like the laughable article by Green who had to go to a no-name OA journal to get "published" (for which she paid $1350). I'd tell you to consider law school, but you'll probably end up a nursing theory prof. I'm sure you are capable of construing that as a compliment. Peace out!

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I'm not open to your criticism. I wrote an article in which I argue that the current system is paternalistic, emphasizing things like willpower and personally responsibility in a way that may color provider's their approach to care. I argue that this approach may erode the provider-patient relationship with negative outcomes.

I then say that we may be able to avoid the above by ensuring we employ a different value system and then go on to say that those interventions that use a similar value system have positive results.

I gave you data to show that providers generally have attitudes that value responsibility and those values negatively impact patient care.

But, I agree, we can end this "debate" (mostly you seeking to insult me, whilst launching criticism and then wondering why I may not be receptive of such criticism...which is a contextual irony here).

No, I don't intend on being a nursing professor. I intend on and am pursuing PMHNP; but maybe in the future I'll teach.

I will "construe it as a compliment," because, unlike you, I can see the importance of nursing theory/philosophy in practice. I also don't need to disparage people for thinking differently or taking on an area of nursing different than my own.

In any case, I appreciate everyone's criticisms and will go back to the drawing board to evaluate some of these views.

While I still hold these values as the most effective, with regards to empathy, communication, and openness, it seems the "feminist" model is poorly received. Surely, there are many others that emphasize the same approach/values but through a lens that doesn't seem as insulting on a social level.

Obviously, substance abuse is an area that touches each of us. As someone that has lost many people I was close with to the opioid epidemic (a WV resident, I live in the epicenter), I simply wish to advocate for its treatment and bring attention to other approaches to treating it.

Although I truly didn't intend on laying blame, if my article is perceived this way then people will not be as receptive and that defeats the purpose. If a theory is also guilty of this, then the results will be the same. Perhaps there are better ways in which one can critique the current system or advocate for its improvement that are less likely to push others away.

That said, I always maintain openness and a lot of "may/maybe/possibly/can" attitudes toward these things. So if it doesn't work, then let's go back and try again to come up with better philosophies and practice.

I probably won't reply much more, because there's now multiple pages of my replies and defense-as well as this one in which I can admit there may be better ways. I was simply intending to elaborate on one, I didn't assume it would be perfect and figured there would be critiques both that I identified, predicted, and agreed with-as well as those I did not. As long as this dialogue results in a dialectic of beneficial change, then it's worth being disagreed with, wishing I'd use different adjectives or models, or even being wrong.

thanks for reading, engaging, and hopefully furthering the discussion in some way.