By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Philip_Christie] Philip Christie (Part 2) Is there an alternative? Because behaviour is only a learned pattern, then, of course it can be changed. Behavioural patterns only survive because they seem to offer some value to those who use them. People dont smoke because they wish to harm their health. They smoke because they feel that it helps them cope with difficulties or problems in life. Some older people I know use the cigarette as a source of comfort in what they see as a difficult and lonely world. Smoking actually helps them to cope. Certainly, it might be more to their advantage to use a different method of coping but many have never learned any other methods nor are these types of life-skills coping methods particularly valued in general society. Many have not been exposed to different methods simply because society has not valued coping methods and therefore has not offered them to those in need. Cigarettes were offered as way of finding satisfaction and indeed offering the coolness of a mountain stream and not surprisingly people went to them to find comfort and satisfaction in them. Once they had made this association of comfort and satisfaction, they would naturally be reluctant (and are very reluctant) to give up what they see as a source of comfort and satisfaction. This is a very real part of the addiction. How easy do people think it would be to give up what they see as a comfort. How must it feel to people addicted to cigarettes as a coping strategy to be suddenly told that they have a filthy habit and that if they were any good or had any sense they would stop the habit immediately. Some people have found themselves outside the law by virtue of an addiction which was developed and nurtured over many years of lawful advertising on behalf of large corporations making large profits. No blame, no scapegoating Please understand that I am in no way trying to blame cigarette companies for seeing and supplying a market to generate profit. Yet when the person who has been addicted by the promise of comfort is pushed outside the law by a society which has suddenly changed its attitudes, I feel a great sense of injustice against the person. We revel in making the addict and profit from it and then we condemn the addict who no longer fits with our new notions. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Considering our own role in creating the addicts, dont we think that we might be more understanding of their condition and have a desire to help them rather than condemning them by making the practice illegal? This same reasoning can be applied to all behaviors which do not serve and when society takes responsibility for its creations rather than distancing itself from the bad to be seen as good, it may begin to call itself mature and intelligent. Until then society itself behaves in ways that are immature and severely lacking in intelligence. Seeing this and the strange concoctions of conflict that we create continuously and maintain, at once challenges us to see honestly and clearly our role in its creation, but at the same time offers us a window of opportunity for positive constructive change. A model for constructive change All the previous discussion is actually a basis for the introduction of the concept of levels of disease. This is intended as an example of the practical benefits of leaving the adversarial approach behind in our attempt to understand disease. I hope that the obvious benefits of integrated understanding will encourage us to spend more time listening with open minds to other notions and theories and spend much less time in defensive argument which serves division and conflict. I hope to offer a model of disease which will facilitate the integration of its scientific study in various disciplines and areas of study. In such a model there is never any need to close down by ridicule and condemnation but rather to expand into new fresh and exciting vistas will the promise of real results. Real results would mean fewer people requiring less treatment in fewer beds in fewer hospitals, with greater individual participation and greater individual time and care taken. This would actually constitute a complete reversal of the current trends of more and more people requiring more and more treatments in bigger and bigger hospitals with longer and longer waiting lists with less individual attention and less time available to give to each person. My name is Philip Christie. I qualified as a Dental Surgeon at Trinity College, Dublin (Ireland) in 1980 and completed a Masters Programme in Dental Science, again at Trinity College Dublin, by research in 1995. I have been working full time in dental care either in general practice or specialist practice since qualification. My main interest is and always has been prevention. My real qualification is 23 years experience in dealing with real people and their problems face to face, as a clinical practitioner. I am the author of Something To Chew On: A Mouth Map To Health. It is a Health Manual with a difference. Different because it is designed for the future and for success. It is different because it gives the power back where it belongs, to the persons own self. Different because it prevents problems at source and saves on treatment and cost!
Philip.christie3@ntlworld.ie
[http://www.peopleaspartnersinmedicine.com] http://www.peopleaspartnersinmedicine.com Article Source: [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Philip_Christie ] http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Philip_Christie [http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Five-Levels-of-Disease---(Part-2)-Is-There-an-Alternative?&id=290012 ] http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Five-Levels-of-Disease---(Part-2)-Is-There-an-Alternative?&id=290012 phentermine diet pills online
phentermine online fedex
phentermine online no prescription
phentermine 37.5 mg diet pills
