During the session the psychiatrist explained to me an issue relating to paranoia. He said that paranoia can involve problems in reasoning or cognition. He used as an example the case of someone who smells perfume on his or her spouse and assumes that the spouse is involved romantically with a third party. In such a case, the paranoid party's conclusion is based on a faulty inference.
At the conclusion of the session the psychiatrist said he had to cancel an upcoming session and that he would need to arrange a "make-up session".
I noted the fact that the term "make up" has a double meaning: (1) to arrange an alternative appointment time and (2) a cosmetic.
I associated the phrase "make up" in the sense of a cosmetic (used by women) with the psychiatrist's earlier use of the word "perfume" (a fragrance worn by women) and assumed that the psychiatrist had on his mind gender identity concerns. My thinking appears to be self-referential and appears to attach a negative meaning to trivial events, hallmarks of "ideas of reference."
I remain unemployable according to the decision in Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998), under which an employer may lawfully terminate an employee who has been determined by the employer, in consultation with a practicing psychiatrist, to appear to exhibit the "disorder" ideas of reference since that disorder may be associated with a risk of violence rendering the employee a direct threat in the workplace. So held the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
No comments:
Post a Comment