Bullying, Mobbing and Hazing in the workplace

This one needs its own thread. How do deal with workplace bullies? The corporate psychopaths. The culture of corruption and cover-up.

Mobbing, vulturing, harassing, hazing, victimisation and targeting. So many definitions. Some say there are no laws against this kind of barbarism but there must surely be some form of tortious assault - given the target almost always gets PTSD? The DSMIV is out of date already.

My lawyers have agreed to represent me for free at least.

Were you the person having

Were you the person having problems with the air conditioning?

Daenerys wrote: Were you

Daenerys wrote:

Were you the person having problems with the air conditioning?

lol... I guess... I think I'll go on and write a PHD on the topic now that I am appropriately 'motivated'.

Overt harassment is pretty straight forward. It's the covert and subtle form I find interesting. But yeah basically what I'm on about is the following kinda crap which may be familiar to some people?:

-constant nit-picking, fault-finding and criticism of a trivial nature - the triviality, regularity and frequency betray bullying; often there is a grain of truth (but only a grain) in the criticism to fool you into believing the criticism has validity, which it does not; often, the criticism is based on distortion, misrepresentation or fabrication
-simultaneous with the criticism, a constant refusal to acknowledge you and your contributions and achievements or to recognise your existence and value
-constant attempts to undermine you and your position, status, worth, value and potential
-where you are in a group (eg at work), being singled out and treated differently; for instance, everyone else can get away with murder but the moment you put a foot wrong - however trivial - action is taken against you
being isolated and separated from colleagues, excluded from what's going on, marginalized, overruled, ignored, sidelined, frozen out, sent to Coventry
-being belittled, demeaned and patronised, especially in front of others
-being humiliated, shouted at and threatened, often in front of others
-being overloaded with work, or having all your work taken away and replaced with either menial tasks (filing, photocopying, minute taking) or with no work at all
-finding that your work - and the credit for it - is stolen and plagiarised
-having your responsibility increased but your authority taken away
-having annual leave, sickness leave, and - especially - compassionate leave refused
-being denied training necessary for you to fulfil your duties
-having unrealistic goals set, which change as you approach them
-ditto deadlines which are changed at short notice - or no notice - and without you being informed until it's too late
-finding that everything you say and do is twisted, distorted and misrepresented
-being subjected to disciplinary procedures with verbal or written warnings imposed for trivial or fabricated reasons and without proper investigation
-being coerced into leaving through no fault of your own, constructive dismissal, early or ill-health retirement, etc

From http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/amibeing.htm

WINDUP000 wrote: Daenerys

WINDUP000 wrote:
Daenerys wrote:

Were you the person having problems with the air conditioning?

lol... I guess... I think I'll go on and write a PHD on the topic now that I am appropriately 'motivated'.

Overt harassment is pretty straight forward. It's the covert and subtle form I find interesting. But yeah basically what I'm on about is the following kinda crap which may be familiar to some people?:

I don't get what you mean about being motivated. ? I know I've experienced a few of those situations and I had to actually leave my job, but like my situation with my old doctor, leaving was actually for the best. Are you going through bullying at work right now?

It's the ones' that cannot

It's the ones' that cannot leave that end up with C-PTSD. Compare it to 'battered wife sydrome' and cumulative stress models. The office worker who just 'snaps' and goes postal. Most people do leave if they can. Some people can't and they're the ones on the news.

Try and get hold of Westhue's (2005) research of university professors. Davenport's work is also instructive.

I've dealt with some of

I've dealt with some of these things, Windup, and it can be very disheartening to say the least. I'm glad that you finally have lawyers working with you. I hope you are following their advice. Good luck and try to stay strong in the midst of adversity. I know it's not easy.

Are you the one being abused

Are you the one being abused in the workplace or the one doing the abusing?

Why do I question your veracity?

Because this...

WINDUP000 wrote:

Hey Don,

Sounds to me like the Doc was trying to help you overcome some barriers?

Guy shows up for an employment medical and wants to land/retain the job? Yes? The doc is saying that the employer will know that you need an auto-transmission without him having to restrict you in writing. If they wanted to give you an auto-transmission then he would have allowed if they were dumb enough to impose that upon you - which is most unlikely. Most people in your situation would probably give up or not work at all?

To curry confidence with the employer why not just sign you off for an unrestricted licence. The doc probably knew that every other doctor you will see would disagree so wrote you the equivalent of what stataticians call an "outlier" to further your cause and balance the bell curve of opinion.

Just an interpretation...

was your response to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QGgoHIYpA4

posted on another thread which is fairly representative of the thought processes and the type of response that abusers routinely come up with.

Are you saying that abusers

Are you saying that abusers try to make it look like they are innocent, and that the victim is actually being abusive?
If so, I got some really interesting stuff to share. Smiling

wishandaprayer wrote: Are

wishandaprayer wrote:

Are you saying that abusers try to make it look like they are innocent, and that the victim is actually being abusive?
If so, I got some really interesting stuff to share. Smiling

Yes that's true.

Tim Field proposes that the abusers when called to account take a variety of responses:
1) Denial or 2) Feign Victimhood or 3) Claim the Target Provoked it or 4) Assume Victim Mentality or 5) Proceed to Collude. His wesbite states that when this occurs; make note that the abusers allegations changes in RESPONSE to being held to account. The abuser typically starts pointing the finger at the target in some way. When the abuser does this, in a calm tone of voice (preferably with a witness present), remind them to address the original allegations. Namely, evidence to corroborate, substantiate and quantify their original abusive comments in the workplace. The other method is to ask them if their changed comment is supposed to make you feel 'guilt, shame or embarassed'. The abuser might burst into tears at this point and take extended sick leave.

I note a similar pattern of ego structure in the field of criminal behaviour. Extolled by Bartol and Bartol in their original works and based on Matza's and Skyes "techniques of neutralisation". The five factor model is almost identical in some respects. Field puts it down to ego deficits in the bully's character so I note some converging theorum here.

If you're saying that one needs to become more assertive in response to bullying then yes - I would agree.

Just an interpretation...

Just an interpretation...

was your response to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QGgoHIYpA4

posted on another thread which is fairly representative of the thought processes and the type of response that abusers routinely come up with.

Is that supposed to make me feel guilt, shame or embarassment? People who are thwarted often get angry and defensive. They even lash out at those who are trying to help them be it a doctor or a blogger. As a total outsider and based on the facts as I knew them to be - it does appear to me quite likely that is what this doctor was trying to do. Unless of course that is not what the patient was trying to do... look up 'ficticious disorder' for example or 'sick role'.

When people are that angry they tend not to hear the trees from the wood.

WINDUP000

WINDUP000 wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:

Are you saying that abusers try to make it look like they are innocent, and that the victim is actually being abusive?
If so, I got some really interesting stuff to share. Smiling

Yes that's true.

Tim Field proposes that the abusers when called to account take a variety of responses:
1) Denial or 2) Feign Victimhood or 3) Claim the Target Provoked it or 4) Assume Victim Mentality or 5) Proceed to Collude. His wesbite states that when this occurs; make note that the abusers allegations changes in RESPONSE to being held to account. The abuser typically starts pointing the finger at the target in some way. When the abuser does this, in a calm tone of voice (preferably with a witness present), remind them to address the original allegations. Namely, evidence to corroborate, substantiate and quantify their original abusive comments in the workplace. The other method is to ask them if their changed comment is supposed to make you feel 'guilt, shame or embarassed'. The abuser might burst into tears at this point and take extended sick leave.

I note a similar pattern of ego structure in the field of criminal behaviour. Extolled by Bartol and Bartol in their original works and based on Matza's and Skyes "techniques of neutralisation". The five factor model is almost identical in some respects. Field puts it down to ego deficits in the bully's character so I note some converging theorum here.

If you're saying that one needs to become more assertive in response to bullying then yes - I would agree.

That was very interesting stuff, and led to just a little bit of journalling. Eye-wink Laughing out loud Thanks. Smiling
Sometimes handwashing is good for nurses, and sometimes it really isn't. Sad

WINDUP000 wrote: Just an

WINDUP000 wrote:

Just an interpretation...

was your response to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QGgoHIYpA4

posted on another thread which is fairly representative of the thought processes and the type of response that abusers routinely come up with.

Is that supposed to make me feel guilt, shame or embarassment? People who are thwarted often get angry and defensive. They even lash out at those who are trying to help them be it a doctor or a blogger. As a total outsider and based on the facts as I knew them to be - it does appear to me quite likely that is what this doctor was trying to do. Unless of course that is not what the patient was trying to do... look up 'ficticious disorder' for example or 'sick role'.

When people are that angry they tend not to hear the trees from the wood.

WINDUP000

WINDUP000 wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:

Are you saying that abusers try to make it look like they are innocent, and that the victim is actually being abusive?
If so, I got some really interesting stuff to share. Smiling

Yes that's true.

Tim Field proposes that the abusers when called to account take a variety of responses:
1) Denial or 2) Feign Victimhood or 3) Claim the Target Provoked it or 4) Assume Victim Mentality or 5) Proceed to Collude. His wesbite states that when this occurs; make note that the abusers allegations changes in RESPONSE to being held to account. The abuser typically starts pointing the finger at the target in some way. When the abuser does this, in a calm tone of voice (preferably with a witness present), remind them to address the original allegations. Namely, evidence to corroborate, substantiate and quantify their original abusive comments in the workplace. The other method is to ask them if their changed comment is supposed to make you feel 'guilt, shame or embarassed'. The abuser might burst into tears at this point and take extended sick leave.

I note a similar pattern of ego structure in the field of criminal behaviour. Extolled by Bartol and Bartol in their original works and based on Matza's and Skyes "techniques of neutralisation". The five factor model is almost identical in some respects. Field puts it down to ego deficits in the bully's character so I note some converging theorum here.

If you're saying that one needs to become more assertive in response to bullying then yes - I would agree.

Well you've pulled all the stuff you've written about. While when asked directly you didn't answer my orignal question which was:

JaneQPatient wrote:

Are you the one being abused in the workplace or the one doing the abusing?

Why do I question your veracity?

Because this...

WINDUP000 wrote:

Hey Don,

Sounds to me like the Doc was trying to help you overcome some barriers?

Guy shows up for an employment medical and wants to land/retain the job? Yes? The doc is saying that the employer will know that you need an auto-transmission without him having to restrict you in writing. If they wanted to give you an auto-transmission then he would have allowed if they were dumb enough to impose that upon you - which is most unlikely. Most people in your situation would probably give up or not work at all?

To curry confidence with the employer why not just sign you off for an unrestricted licence. The doc probably knew that every other doctor you will see would disagree so wrote you the equivalent of what stataticians call an "outlier" to further your cause and balance the bell curve of opinion.

Just an interpretation...

was your response to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QGgoHIYpA4

posted on another thread which is fairly representative of the thought processes and the type of response that abusers routinely come up with.

but went into this little ditty...

WINDUP000 wrote:

Just an interpretation...

was your response to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QGgoHIYpA4

posted on another thread which is fairly representative of the thought processes and the type of response that abusers routinely come up with.

Is that supposed to make me feel guilt, shame or embarassment? People who are thwarted often get angry and defensive. They even lash out at those who are trying to help them be it a doctor or a blogger. As a total outsider and based on the facts as I knew them to be - it does appear to me quite likely that is what this doctor was trying to do. Unless of course that is not what the patient was trying to do... look up 'ficticious disorder' for example or 'sick role'.

When people are that angry they tend not to hear the trees from the wood.

Barf! Barf! Barf!
which by the way, is also contained in your numerical list above.

Got your number!

You should have quit when you were first caught.

You should go chat Jane.

You should go chat Jane.

JaneQPatient wrote: Why

JaneQPatient wrote:

Why do I question your veracity?

Because this...

WINDUP000 wrote:

Just an interpretation...

Got your number!

You should have quit when you were first caught.

JaneQ what. The hell? Are. You talking about?!

I profer a plausible, non-histrionic and reasonable explanation for the patient's predicament? An interpretation. Quick burn me at the stake!

I just wish you would all

I just wish you would all write with a little more clarity. Shocked All of you are making me feel stupid or crazy because I can't follow your conversation, which is most likely not my fault!!!
p.s. getting the quotes right really helps in this regard.

Daenerys wrote: I just

Daenerys wrote:

I just wish you would all write with a little more clarity. Shocked All of you are making me feel stupid or crazy because I can't follow your conversation, which is most likely not my fault!!!
p.s. getting the quotes right really helps in this regard.

LOL . . . don't feel bad, Daenerys . . . I'm out in left field, too! Eye-wink Laughing out loud

abusedemotionally

abusedemotionally wrote:
Daenerys wrote:

I just wish you would all write with a little more clarity. Shocked All of you are making me feel stupid or crazy because I can't follow your conversation, which is most likely not my fault!!!
p.s. getting the quotes right really helps in this regard.

LOL . . . don't feel bad, Daenerys . . . I'm out in left field, too! Eye-wink Laughing out loud

I think I see it with 20/20. Laughing out loud O.K. - I'm not that brilliant, but here's my understanding:
I think that JaneQ thinks that POOO is defending this doctor for his own personal reasons, because Jane has empathy for the patient and doesn't think that POOO does.

I understand what POOO is saying though, but it doesn't negate the fact that the doctor's report appears to be irresponsible and fraudulent.

I think that POOO is saying that by giving an opinion that the patient is "healed", he would have better opportunities at work. The doctor would know that others would disagree with this, but his opinion would be an outliar and could help with job opportunities.

I could be all mixed up though. My vision is a little bit distorted.

wishandaprayer

wishandaprayer wrote:
abusedemotionally wrote:
Daenerys wrote:

I just wish you would all write with a little more clarity. Shocked All of you are making me feel stupid or crazy because I can't follow your conversation, which is most likely not my fault!!!
p.s. getting the quotes right really helps in this regard.

LOL . . . don't feel bad, Daenerys . . . I'm out in left field, too! Eye-wink Laughing out loud

I think I see it with 20/20. Laughing out loud O.K. - I'm not that brilliant, but here's my understanding:
I think that JaneQ thinks that POOO is defending this doctor for his own personal reasons, because Jane has empathy for the patient and doesn't think that POOO does.

I understand what POOO is saying though, but it doesn't negate the fact that the doctor's report appears to be irresponsible and fraudulent.

I think that POOO is saying that by giving an opinion that the patient is "healed", he would have better opportunities at work. The doctor would know that others would disagree with this, but his opinion would be an outliar and could help with job opportunities.

I could be all mixed up though. My vision is a little bit distorted.

You're a bit mixed up but it isn't your vission that's distorted, its WINDUPOOO that's been perpetrating the distortions, intentionally so. WINDUPOOO is what WINDUPOOO claims to be railing against.

JaneQPatient

JaneQPatient wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:
abusedemotionally wrote:
Daenerys wrote:

I just wish you would all write with a little more clarity. Shocked All of you are making me feel stupid or crazy because I can't follow your conversation, which is most likely not my fault!!!
p.s. getting the quotes right really helps in this regard.

LOL . . . don't feel bad, Daenerys . . . I'm out in left field, too! Eye-wink Laughing out loud

I think I see it with 20/20. Laughing out loud O.K. - I'm not that brilliant, but here's my understanding:
I think that JaneQ thinks that POOO is defending this doctor for his own personal reasons, because Jane has empathy for the patient and doesn't think that POOO does.

I understand what POOO is saying though, but it doesn't negate the fact that the doctor's report appears to be irresponsible and fraudulent.

I think that POOO is saying that by giving an opinion that the patient is "healed", he would have better opportunities at work. The doctor would know that others would disagree with this, but his opinion would be an outliar and could help with job opportunities.

I could be all mixed up though. My vision is a little bit distorted.

You're a bit mixed up but it isn't your vission that's distorted, its WINDUPOOO that's been perpetrating the distortions, intentionally so. WINDUPOOO is what WINDUPOOO claims to be railing against.

Like I said JaneyQ - I'm really not that brilliant. Laughing out loud

wishandaprayer

wishandaprayer wrote:
JaneQPatient wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:
abusedemotionally wrote:
Daenerys wrote:

I just wish you would all write with a little more clarity. Shocked All of you are making me feel stupid or crazy because I can't follow your conversation, which is most likely not my fault!!!
p.s. getting the quotes right really helps in this regard.

LOL . . . don't feel bad, Daenerys . . . I'm out in left field, too! Eye-wink Laughing out loud

I think I see it with 20/20. Laughing out loud O.K. - I'm not that brilliant, but here's my understanding:
I think that JaneQ thinks that POOO is defending this doctor for his own personal reasons, because Jane has empathy for the patient and doesn't think that POOO does.

I understand what POOO is saying though, but it doesn't negate the fact that the doctor's report appears to be irresponsible and fraudulent.

I think that POOO is saying that by giving an opinion that the patient is "healed", he would have better opportunities at work. The doctor would know that others would disagree with this, but his opinion would be an outliar and could help with job opportunities.

I could be all mixed up though. My vision is a little bit distorted.

You're a bit mixed up but it isn't your vission that's distorted, its WINDUPOOO that's been perpetrating the distortions, intentionally so. WINDUPOOO is what WINDUPOOO claims to be railing against.

Like I said JaneyQ - I'm really not that brilliant. Laughing out loud

Well, even if you're pretty sharp, and Daenerys is, WINDUPOOO's intent was to divert via confusion and she succeeded. Its just that I've got quite a bit of experience with persons of her ilk so as to be able to catch on to what they're up to quicker than most people. People like WINDUPOOO rely on most people not being able to catch on let alone quickly in order to be able to get away with doing what they do to others.

JaneQPatient

JaneQPatient wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:
JaneQPatient wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:
abusedemotionally wrote:
Daenerys wrote:

I just wish you would all write with a little more clarity. Shocked All of you are making me feel stupid or crazy because I can't follow your conversation, which is most likely not my fault!!!
p.s. getting the quotes right really helps in this regard.

LOL . . . don't feel bad, Daenerys . . . I'm out in left field, too! Eye-wink Laughing out loud

I think I see it with 20/20. Laughing out loud O.K. - I'm not that brilliant, but here's my understanding:
I think that JaneQ thinks that POOO is defending this doctor for his own personal reasons, because Jane has empathy for the patient and doesn't think that POOO does.

I understand what POOO is saying though, but it doesn't negate the fact that the doctor's report appears to be irresponsible and fraudulent.

I think that POOO is saying that by giving an opinion that the patient is "healed", he would have better opportunities at work. The doctor would know that others would disagree with this, but his opinion would be an outliar and could help with job opportunities.

I could be all mixed up though. My vision is a little bit distorted.

You're a bit mixed up but it isn't your vission that's distorted, its WINDUPOOO that's been perpetrating the distortions, intentionally so. WINDUPOOO is what WINDUPOOO claims to be railing against.

Like I said JaneyQ - I'm really not that brilliant. Laughing out loud

Well, even if you're pretty sharp, and Daenerys is, WINDUPOOO's intent was to divert via confusion and she succeeded. Its just that I've got quite a bit of experience with persons of her ilk so as to be able to catch on to what they're up to quicker than most people. People like WINDUPOOO rely on most people not being able to catch on let alone quickly in order to be able to get away with doing what they do to others.

So - then - I see - WINUPOOO is a very clever abuser?
An authority figure, with a very large carrot securely embedded?
Who feels that "fraud" can be justified, if it serves a purpose?
If that purpose is to his/her personal benefit?
Am I getting hot?

wishandaprayer

wishandaprayer wrote:
JaneQPatient wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:
JaneQPatient wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:
abusedemotionally wrote:
Daenerys wrote:

I just wish you would all write with a little more clarity. Shocked All of you are making me feel stupid or crazy because I can't follow your conversation, which is most likely not my fault!!!
p.s. getting the quotes right really helps in this regard.

LOL . . . don't feel bad, Daenerys . . . I'm out in left field, too! Eye-wink Laughing out loud

I think I see it with 20/20. Laughing out loud O.K. - I'm not that brilliant, but here's my understanding:
I think that JaneQ thinks that POOO is defending this doctor for his own personal reasons, because Jane has empathy for the patient and doesn't think that POOO does.

I understand what POOO is saying though, but it doesn't negate the fact that the doctor's report appears to be irresponsible and fraudulent.

I think that POOO is saying that by giving an opinion that the patient is "healed", he would have better opportunities at work. The doctor would know that others would disagree with this, but his opinion would be an outliar and could help with job opportunities.

I could be all mixed up though. My vision is a little bit distorted.

You're a bit mixed up but it isn't your vission that's distorted, its WINDUPOOO that's been perpetrating the distortions, intentionally so. WINDUPOOO is what WINDUPOOO claims to be railing against.

Like I said JaneyQ - I'm really not that brilliant. Laughing out loud

Well, even if you're pretty sharp, and Daenerys is, WINDUPOOO's intent was to divert via confusion and she succeeded. Its just that I've got quite a bit of experience with persons of her ilk so as to be able to catch on to what they're up to quicker than most people. People like WINDUPOOO rely on most people not being able to catch on let alone quickly in order to be able to get away with doing what they do to others.

So - then - I see - WINUPOOO is a very clever abuser?
An authority figure, with a very large carrot securely embedded?
Who feels that "fraud" can be justified, if it serves a purpose?
If that purpose is to his/her personal benefit?
Am I getting hot?

Bonfire hot!

JaneQPatient

JaneQPatient wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:
JaneQPatient wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:
JaneQPatient wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:
abusedemotionally wrote:
Daenerys wrote:

I just wish you would all write with a little more clarity. Shocked All of you are making me feel stupid or crazy because I can't follow your conversation, which is most likely not my fault!!!
p.s. getting the quotes right really helps in this regard.

LOL . . . don't feel bad, Daenerys . . . I'm out in left field, too! Eye-wink Laughing out loud

I think I see it with 20/20. Laughing out loud O.K. - I'm not that brilliant, but here's my understanding:
I think that JaneQ thinks that POOO is defending this doctor for his own personal reasons, because Jane has empathy for the patient and doesn't think that POOO does.

I understand what POOO is saying though, but it doesn't negate the fact that the doctor's report appears to be irresponsible and fraudulent.

I think that POOO is saying that by giving an opinion that the patient is "healed", he would have better opportunities at work. The doctor would know that others would disagree with this, but his opinion would be an outliar and could help with job opportunities.

I could be all mixed up though. My vision is a little bit distorted.

You're a bit mixed up but it isn't your vission that's distorted, its WINDUPOOO that's been perpetrating the distortions, intentionally so. WINDUPOOO is what WINDUPOOO claims to be railing against.

Like I said JaneyQ - I'm really not that brilliant. Laughing out loud

Well, even if you're pretty sharp, and Daenerys is, WINDUPOOO's intent was to divert via confusion and she succeeded. Its just that I've got quite a bit of experience with persons of her ilk so as to be able to catch on to what they're up to quicker than most people. People like WINDUPOOO rely on most people not being able to catch on let alone quickly in order to be able to get away with doing what they do to others.

So - then - I see - WINUPOOO is a very clever abuser?
An authority figure, with a very large carrot securely embedded?
Who feels that "fraud" can be justified, if it serves a purpose?
If that purpose is to his/her personal benefit?
Am I getting hot?

Bonfire hot!

====

http://www.youtube.com/watc

I can't believe how off the

Sticking out tongue I can't believe how off the mark you are Wisher. Yes maybe you have my methods down pat but that's only half the story. Nothing wrong with gestaltism or a bit of psychoanalysis? I do like ruffling feathers yes, but, I would not see it as a form of abuse. Particularly where a person is fixated on their trauma and may just need a corrective emotional experience or insight (normally gained through counselling).

JaneQ - I always take a multidisciplinary approach to problems as is my education - any problem and therefore my thinking (and 'vision') is outside the circle. That means my views will not usually follow mainstream. Sometimes the approach might explain things that are not mainstream. This is particularly true when someone appears to be making an emotionally clouded posting or there is unusual behaviour reported.

EVERYONE thinks they are benevolent and good - from Dr Ayad to which you refer or Dr Lecter. Yes? Unless you take a semi-'distorted' view point as you call it; you're not gonna understand the mind of a 'good', 'abuser', or why they do what they do. You must understand that this Dr Ayad character; is doing the right thing according *TO HIS PERCEPTION/EGO*. FBI profilers do this kind of outside the box thinking all the time but I wouldn't say they themselves are 'abusers' (unless they go 'native' as in the book).

The purpose of this thread is to discuss a particular kind of insidious abuse that occurs inside the workplace. One that should make the DSMV. Until it does make the DSMV or is recognised then threads like this serve to educate people and help them to cope.

Docs can be abusive but usually it is too OTHER docs or nurses. Rarely to a patient. If a patient is mistreated I think this is incompetance or negligence rather than 'abuse' per se.

Close. This, Danza Ritual

Close.

This, Danza Ritual del Fuego (the Ritual Fire Dance) is a little more like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ftd8tIdiYq4

WINDUP000 wrote: ....If a

WINDUP000 wrote:

....If a patient is mistreated I think this is incompetance or negligence rather than 'abuse' per se.

I'm not very bright so when it comes to a doctor/patient relationship, how would you define mistreatment as opposed to abuse? Could you give me an example of each? Smiling

WINDUP000 wrote: ... The

WINDUP000 wrote:

...
The purpose of this thread is to discuss a particular kind of insidious abuse that occurs inside the workplace. One that should make the DSMV. Until it does make the DSMV or is recognised then threads like this serve to educate people and help them to cope.

Docs can be abusive but usually it is too OTHER docs or nurses. Rarely to a patient. If a patient is mistreated I think this is incompetance or negligence rather than 'abuse' per se.

But WindUp...It's hard to discuss this particular kind of abuse when you have thrown out a subject or scenario which nobody can 'connect' to without some sort of specific examples or personal anecdotes. I'm trying to understand *why* you brought the subject up...is it just because you find it interesting, or is it because of personal experience? Smiling
You've regurgitated some information from websites and quoted required reading, but I still don't understand the essence of what you are trying to say.
Just trying to understand...

WINDUP000 wrote: I can't

WINDUP000 wrote:

Sticking out tongue I can't believe how off the mark you are Wisher. Yes maybe you have my methods down pat but that's only half the story. Nothing wrong with gestaltism or a bit of psychoanalysis? I do like ruffling feathers yes, but, I would not see it as a form of abuse. Particularly where a person is fixated on their trauma and may just need a corrective emotional experience or insight (normally gained through counselling).

Tell me what you think of the treatment method for AE's son, and then I'll know you a bit better.

AE wrote:
What bothers me, and always will, is his speciality. He's a "Adolescent Forensic Psychiatrist." He works with troubled youths who have gotten in trouble with the law.
I have researched and have reason to be disturbed by one case where he was the "expert witness" in a court case. It involved a 15 year old boy who accidently shot his friend in the eye with a pellet gun, which caused his friend to lose his eyesight. From all indications, this boy was remorseful for his actions and had even taken a toxic mix of antidepressants and alcohol after this incident, because of what he had done. For 1.5 years from the time of the incident to the time of trial, the boy suffered with suicidal ideation. Dr. Keriem assessed this youth and told the court that the boy was using suicide as a tool for manipulating the court. Because of his testimony, the Crown was seeking that the boy be incarcerated. Here is the court case: http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/pc/criminal/2005/2005abpc0180.pdf In my mind, and having three boys, this was a case of a youth who didn't see the pellet gun as a weapon nor the damage it could inflict. Although the youth's actions were careless and unmindful of any dangers, I certainly don't see that he had intent to harm. I know my boys could never understand that there was danger in their bb guns, even though we were always careful to stress the fact and were restrictive in their use. But if you were to ask them, a bb just inflicted a bit of a sting and couldn't hurt anyone.

This case bothers me because he treated my son, for which I apologized to my son since then for having taken him to Dr. Keriem. I don't want to go into detail, other than to say that he took away my parental rights and incarcerated my son in the psychiatric ward for two weeks. In his own words, this was an unorthodox way of dealing with my son and he hoped his daughter never found out because she would be greatly upset with him. He advised that he "pushed" all of my son's "buttons" to get an assessment of him. At the time, he had convinced me and my husband that this was the best way to deal with my son. Today, I realize the psychological damage this caused my son and I KNOW that if he ever has any emotional problems in the future, he will NEVER seek help because of this experience.

Having said this, and knowing what Dr. Keriem's speciality is, his treatment plans for both me and my son, it really makes me nervous that he is working with troubled youths.

So - would you like to comment on this POOO?

Bullying by Doctors &

Bullying by Doctors & Dentists

After the dentist looked in my mouth and at X-rays, I calmly and politely asked him normal dental questions but he refused to answer questions about dental causes, prevention, treatment options, risks and consequences. In fact he inexplicably turned his back on me, stormed out, then started yelling "I'm not your dentist!" Then he walked back in and tried to physically intimidate me by leaning into me, boring his eyes into me, and flaring his nostrils while yelling "OK.OK.OK.OK" with extreme hostility, until I finally left. I was then charged hundreds of dollars.

I can't go over his head since dental assistants and billing managers, etc. report to the dentist. How to deal with this? Is there any dental patient bill of rights? Does the ADA have any statements on dentist obligations to a patient (I searched but could not find)?

In reply to Crystal_Artiste.

In reply to Crystal_Artiste. In law the definitions are somewhat different.

Outside law - the differences are usually in the state of mind of the doctor and the consequences for the patient. If the doctor "intends" harm then it is abuse. If the doctor has a personality disorder and does not intend harm then it is still abuse.

If the doctor makes a mistake (everyone makes em) that a normal doc would not make ~ causing harm ~ it may be negligence or incompetance (same diff). If the doctor takes a stupid risk - then it's recklessness and he's still a nob-jockey.

If the doctor wants to do something risky or stupid he must tell the patient first and let the patient decide what to do.

Basic definitions.

Hi Haha,welcome, I'm sorry

Hi Haha,welcome, I'm sorry to hear what you went though.I hope you found a good dentist now. Best wishes. Smiling

haha73 wrote: Bullying by

haha73 wrote:

Bullying by Doctors & Dentists

After the dentist looked in my mouth and at X-rays, I calmly and politely asked him normal dental questions but he refused to answer questions about dental causes, prevention, treatment options, risks and consequences. In fact he inexplicably turned his back on me, stormed out, then started yelling "I'm not your dentist!" Then he walked back in and tried to physically intimidate me by leaning into me, boring his eyes into me, and flaring his nostrils while yelling "OK.OK.OK.OK" with extreme hostility, until I finally left. I was then charged hundreds of dollars.

I can't go over his head since dental assistants and billing managers, etc. report to the dentist. How to deal with this? Is there any dental patient bill of rights? Does the ADA have any statements on dentist obligations to a patient (I searched but could not find)?

Sounds like unprofessional conduct. Unfortunately unless you have strong evidence I wouldn't do anything - except to find a new dentist. The American Dental Association or equivalent should have a code of practice somewhere. Get hold of it and write a complaint if you need too. Either way - like complaining to a chef about your meal - would you really want to go back to this dentist.

Maybe he was right afterall or just voicing a self-fullfiling prophecy? When he said "I'm NOT YOUR DENTIST"!

>>Tell me what you think of

>>Tell me what you think of the treatment method for AE's son, and then I'll know you a bit better.

I read the judgement. Note para 18 in the judgement of what the child actually said. Note again the repetition of this belief in the child behaviour (cries for help). The diagnosis seems sound. Although ODD is an axis II disorder last time I checked. Psychotic depression. The Court didn't pay much notice to the docs assessment anyways and the child was not incarcerated.

In relation to AE - there's really not much to say because there's not a heap of info. Putting her son in a forensic ward? Yes that's kinda strange? For two weeks only? Two week - might suggest it was a drug induced reaction or adverse drug event. Was the son violent or in the middle of some kind of episode? This seems unlikely. Seems like her son will have PTSD for a while yet.

Devils advocate - her son may see doctors again and, probably unconsciously try to get himself FA#$(*()ed up as a means of re-living the trauma B3/internalising the guilt (i.e. stockholm syndrome), incorporation of the trauma into self (internalising an identity) or dissociate the self as a defence mechanism (perhaps with drugs/alcohol as a means of 'numbing the pain'). Bad defence mechanisms the lot of em...

I would not take a child to a forensic psychiatrist unless he has already been arrested. I think that AE should find him a competant and expert traumatologist before other illnesses take over and obscure the real issue. Drugs and tablets do nothing for traumata in the long term.

So much for a thread on mobbing and abuse. Is this story abuse? Maybe? You would need to know more about the personal history of this doctor and whether he's done this kind of thing before.

WINDUP000 wrote: I do

WINDUP000 wrote:

I do like ruffling feathers yes, but, I would not see it as a form of abuse.

I agree that you wouldn't see it as a form of abuse. However, it is a very useful tool for you.

"Tool?" I prefer the term

"Tool?" I prefer the term "methodology" - has fewer negative connotations to it. Less "instrumental" as the criminologists would say.

Would you pose the same critique of Dr House? A brashness for reality. An almost autistic ability to push buttons and press the right ones? To the point and almost always correct?

Is he an "abuser"?

I know which doc I'd rather have... and do have...

I got no problem with being misunderstood. Now then if you don't mind I have to finish this fine Chardonnay...

WINDUP000

WINDUP000 wrote:
JaneQPatient wrote:

Why do I question your veracity?

Because this...

WINDUP000 wrote:

Just an interpretation...

Got your number!

You should have quit when you were first caught.

JaneQ what. The hell? Are. You talking about?!

I profer a plausible, non-histrionic and reasonable explanation for the patient's predicament? An interpretation. Quick burn me at the stake!

Plausable? Not even close. Reasonable explantion? Ridiculous conclusions on your part. Your scenario doesn't even rate interpretation, not in light of the facts. Now, unless you yourself are delusional you knew all of that before you even lashed out with your "JaneQ what. The hell? Are. You talking about?!"

Like I said before, you were already busted for being totally full of crap and you should have quit then. Since you didn't, it begs and answers (vis-a-vis this and all your other comments on this thread) the question I originally asked regarding weather you were the "abuser".

Feign victimhood all you want but know this: people can and do see through your facade.

WINDUP000 wrote: I got no

WINDUP000 wrote:

I got no problem with being misunderstood.

Windup, "Misunderstood"? Don't flatter yourself, though I know how difficult that will be for you. I understand you only too well. I'm not going to play with you because (and I mean this sincerely) I believe that you have some very serious challenges. Good luck.

Mairen wrote: WINDUP000

Mairen wrote:
WINDUP000 wrote:

I got no problem with being misunderstood.

Windup, "Misunderstood"? Don't flatter yourself, though I know how difficult that will be for you. I understand you only too well. I'm not going to play with you because (and I mean this sincerely) I believe that you have some very serious challenges. Good luck.

My sympathies don't go out to WINDU but go out to any who's forced to deal with WINDU's sadistic/mindf^ck game playing.

JaneQPatient

JaneQPatient wrote:
Mairen wrote:
WINDUP000 wrote:

I got no problem with being misunderstood.

Windup, "Misunderstood"? Don't flatter yourself, though I know how difficult that will be for you. I understand you only too well. I'm not going to play with you because (and I mean this sincerely) I believe that you have some very serious challenges. Good luck.

My sympathies don't go out to WINDU but go out to any who's forced to deal with WINDU's sadistic/mindf^ck game playing.

Ok...well honestly ladies, I don't see how you're giving him any opportunity to explain himself about *whatever* (I'm still not very clear with that) because the only logical reaction that your words are going to bring forth is one of defense. I would just like to see more culpability before I jump on the skewering bandwagon.

Daenerys

Daenerys][quote=JaneQPatient wrote:

[quote=Mairen

Windup, "Misunderstood"? Don't flatter yourself, though I know how difficult that will be for you. I understand you only too well. I'm not going to play with you because (and I mean this sincerely) I believe that you have some very serious challenges. Good luck.

Goodness. Where to begin with this ... "mobbing" behaviour? Ironic that these posts demonstrate the subject of this thread.

JaneQ - I've answered your question. You should know the answer. If you need help google "symbolic interactionism" or click on this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_interactionism . You say I've been 'caught out'. I'm sorry I don't follow your rationale? Caught out how exactly? Did I manage to 'shrink' something? Oh - you mean Donb? No I just don't agree that the more rational explanation is that there's an evil, horned and calous monster in the form of Dr Ayad. Now to believe that - is crazy! I would hope for your sake it's just a bit of transferance on your part (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference).

JaneQ - Successful 'therapies' ALL incorporate giving the patient back some CONTROL. *ALL* of them. People who are ILL will often feel out of control and helpless. Sometimes they will start to blame other people or situations for thier life and their problems. They tend to get stuck in this thought cycle... and it becomes automatic... (a 'complex' AKA 'personality disorder'). If one gets counselling it might take YEARS to trust anyone again - YEARS!!! At the point of rapport ~ a therapist will likely confront the patient directly or indirectly on their maladaptive copying styles or cognitions. Some experts do it differently noticing that a slowly-slowly approach doesn't work for some people. For those people - these experts do the opposite and just blindly confront and argue with their patients. If selected carefully this approach WORKS. For that reason alone I'm not going to alter my style. It is my personal hypothesis that when dealing with people in that catagory countertransferance becomes, over time, absent.

Mairen - don't worry I can handle it but thank you for your concerns.

Daenerys - I'm not trying to explain anything per se? Other academics have already done work on this phenomenon. I find their research explanation sufficient. I was (past tense) trying to raise awareness on this post of workplace abuse and how people can respond, cope or conquer it. Not other kinds of abuse?! Although I conceed that for some the literature does state they seem to provoke the abuse so it might be an individual-level explanation for coping, responding or conquering the abusive work dynamics.

WINDUP000

WINDUP000 wrote:

...
Daenerys - I'm not trying to explain anything? I was (past tense)...

Is there any instance when 'was' is NOT past tense? Shocked
I realize you're not trying to explain anything (???) which might be the reason why you sound so confused.

Fine. You got me on a

Fine. You got me on a tautology. Happy now?

Sigh.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.