Welcome to Academia Gallifreya! Please log in to proceed.

Go down
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Wed 30 Aug 2017, 21:32
Skype Seminar 30 August 2017

Temporal Nocturne's purpose of this course: to provide a common core knowledge base for those who are interested in Healing, and/or those who wish to become Healers, or improve their skills.

Overview: Healing in general, what it is, when it is done, ethics of Healing, and the different ways to Heal, including but not limited to MindHealing, herbal/other natural Healing, pure magic/magick,  with a focus on Gallifreyan Healings (as can be reconstructed through recovered memory. As to how recovered memory influences protocol and method, that is what this course will expand on as well as discover. We're making up this bit as we go along, in other words.)

Q: What is Healing?

A: Healing is a way of bettering someone's emotional/physical/mental state. Healing is taking the broken and trying to make it whole again in the best case scenario, worst case to to have the strength to end the suffering when nothing further can be done. Healing is the restoration of a state of being to the best that they or it has known (or closest to that, and perhaps that relies on a "baseline best" adjustment as contradictory as that sounds...)

Q: On Gallifrey, there were both Healers and Medics.  What is the difference between the two?

A: Medics treated the minor stuff or assisted the Healers, Healers did the actual surgery or worked with the damaged minds. Healers might have broader or more general expertise, medics more specific.

Q: Influence or translation of Gallifreyan Healing traditions to many physical and spiritual methods on earth today. Does ethics parallelling earthly ancient Hippocratic Oath to "Do No Harm" relate to the doctrine of Non-Intervention?

A: Healers, by definition, are those who intervene. The question, as it relates to Non-Intervention, is to when and how the Healer intervenes. In other words, it's less a question of "non-intervention" and more a question of "least intervention necessary." Or, in modern Human medical terms, "least invasive procedure."

Assignment: TWO essays, 500 word minimum each. These need not be turned in at the same time. To be posted in the Course Assignments Under Healer's lessons thread, ideally by the next class.

First essay is on the nature of Healing as a whole. What is Healing? What are ways in which it is done? What is the difference between "healing" and "curing" and "fixing"?

Second on the Ethics of Healing.  When should it be done, how should it be done, and who should be Healed?  Who takes preference?  Someone of higher rank or someone who is more badly injured?  Someone who needs MindHealing over someone who needs only physical healing?

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Wed 06 Sep 2017, 00:53
Assignment 1A: The Nature of Healing as a Whole

I defined healing as the restoration of a state of being to the best that the patient has known (or closest to that). In some cases, this can be introducing an improved “baseline of ‘best'”, or in other cases—as another course participant added—a healer may end a patient’s suffering and their life along with it.

The healing method I would outline is to first understand the the essential nature of suffering within a body: imbalance, disharmony, injury, disease, influence, or intractable pain/symptoms.

Such a body may not necessarily be physical, it can be a social dynamic or personal history of unresolved emotional injury that causes the observed patient’s mental health to suffer (for example). 

Understanding the “anatomy” of such different bodies may be preliminary, as too some knowledge or intuition of the event cycles and growth of such bodies.

The methods for healing can vary as much as the specific ailments. However, the first question I would wonder is: Is this ailment degenerative?

Because the first treatment I would consider would be to remove the body from stressors and find out if time alone is restorative (it might not be), if the body tends towards recovery without further intervention.

Such treatment would be healing through negativity—More invasively, removing a stressor from the body, rather than removing the body from the stressors. (Another healer’s question then: What influences must be halted or removed?)

Treatment of healing through positivity would resemble more supplementing/nourishing the body so that it may better proceed with its own recovery process. (What influences must remain or be introduced, for restoration?)

Negative and Positive interventions combined generate what I think of as a Temperance (process).

In cases where the body cannot be predicted to restore itself, where symptoms are managed or counteracted, irreparable injuries accommodated, adjustments fortified…may be a different process. So too would be intervening in growth/rebirth, introducing new cycles or processes.

I think of “healing”, “curing”, and “fixing” as interchangeable, but if a distinction must be made then I define healing as the skill in general, curing as more goal-orientated with a longer process implied and little to no follow-up required, and fixing as more method-orientated (organization and regularity) at the same time more stop-gap.

This essay so far has all been dreadfully abstract, so I wanted to mention my favorite ways to anchor spiritual healing methods: music! Selected and embedded at my WordPress blog.

Last edited by Faemon on Tue 19 Sep 2017, 19:39; edited 1 time in total

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Wed 06 Sep 2017, 00:56
Assignment 1B: The Ethics of Healing

The following entry may contain triggering material, mention of parasites, animal and human killing, mention of suicide, graphic depiction of body horror, individual and medical models of pathologization…

 Healers, by definition, are those who intervene. This came as an earth-shaking revelation to me, as the Healer recounted this recovered memory in our first lesson.

Superseding the virtues of the Gallifreyan tradition is the doctrine of Non-Intervention. The ideal is to put the universe in balance, in the sense that each individual holds the inherent right to exist without being bothered or harmed; and I think of Non-Intervention as the responsibility that comes with this right: to not bother, and to not harm.

My known universe is very much out of balance, and I personally find basic physical survival to be dreadfully irresponsible: I kill thousands of small animals daily so that I can get up after I wake, it’s called having a functioning immune system. I wouldn’t delight in the decimation of something like Plasmodium falciparum but neither can I muster up a lot of remorse, it’s more resignation to the idea that it’s impossible to live without harming or bothering another. (Not that I would then proceed to go about killing off Japanese dwarf flying squirrels, or hominids, just because I violated the bother/harm none principle by recovering from—say—malaria and can never be redeemed ever so I might as well. I would hope that holding to ethical principles doesn’t necessitate losing any sense of escalation or measured response: pragmatism ought to be a virtue, too.)

When should healing be done?

When universal balance is under threat, Non-Intervention may be violated for the purposes of restoring balance.

As previously mentioned, I find the universe to be in perpetual imbalance, therefore there are ever opportunities for healing…especially if the agent of such change knows how.

How should healing be done?

Healing should be done with the full informed consent of the body to be healed.

However, many ailments compromise consent by their nature: some physical trauma can render a person comatose, and a common resort of action in such cases is to transfer the decision-making and veto power to the next of kin who is capable, unless otherwise specified in the patient’s will. This relies on a form of “advanced ‘consent'”. 

The capabilities of such a decision maker, whether the patient themself or one entrusted by protocol (if not the patient’s own in-advance decision) is also limited by a difference between a usually non-healer’s understanding and the technical/specialized knowledge, skills, and experiences of the healer.

Even healers can fail to foresee complications in a procedure.

So, healing should be done to the best of everyone’s understanding.

This would be true as well with an understanding that the symptom isn’t always the problem, even/especially not of an individual body. Somebody who could once see can go blind, or somebody who could once hear could go deaf, or somebody once ambulatory could find themselves crippled; and when healing interventions restore vision or hearing or ability to stand and walk then this is healing. For those for whom that avenue of individual healing is not accessible, most able societies today take the remaining handicaps as a devastatingly doom-filled disastrous tragedy, a fate worse than death…which it wouldn’t be, with an infrastructure of broader accessibility measures and less stigmatization: for a body of society to accommodate such diversity of embodiment, is also a kind of healing.

All that said, I certainly understand the call to focus on the complexities of individual-body-to-individual-body healing.

Who should be healed?

I understood the framing of this question to be that of priority. A healer as an individual body person can be limited in terms of time, energy, or familiarity with specific afflictions.

  • When it comes to preferring to heal somebody physically as opposed to healing someone’s mind, or vice versa…

To me this can depend partly on the extent of, well, really incomparable ailments: Pay more attention to someone’s canker sore, or another’s suicidal ideation? Patch up someone bleeding to death, or calm someone reliving a traumatic memory triggered by watching somebody right in front of them bleeding possibly to death?

All other variables being equal, I would leave the canker sore alone first, because those are not commonly fatal whereas suicidal ideations commonly are fatal.

In my example of bleeding versus panicking, it could very well be that prioritizing the physical healing intervention will allow the mind healing (even of another) to follow: no blood, no trigger, no death…everybody lives, everybody recovers.

Another part, however, is expertise. Somebody with a vast and incisively vivid knowledge of oral hygiene may yet habitually say the very worst things to possibly say to someone who suffers suicidal ideation. Let such a healer focus on the canker sores that they know best.

In my bleeding-out example, if someone has a letter-opener stuck in an artery, the impulse to physically heal would go, “remove the bad hurtful sharp thing from the body it is not supposed to be in” and the would-be healer would cause more harm with good intent and bad preparation.

Unless such a healer is also prepared with the knowledge and the tools to stem the bleeding to be released upon careful (not desperate) removal of the letter-opener…we can only hope that somebody in that position knows that they do not know enough to interfere in a healing manner—and would leave it in, albeit counterintuitively, until more knowledgeable healers arrive better-prepared.

And if the would-be healer in that situation is better at talking someone through a flashback, then all the better to keep to that instead.

And if the healer is the one having the flashback, then mind healing (or quick-fix thereof, of dimming the flashback) is no mis-prioritization either.

At this point I would be remiss not to mention the culture generated by earthly contemporary medical sciences. Within that perspective, spiritual and traditional healing methods have grown to be considered haphazardly effective, at best ineffective, time-consuming, wasteful, and extraneous superstitious practice…especially, I have found, on the border of psychology.
Spiritual healing methods within this tradition (whether physical or mind) may thus stand to face dismissal or opposition from more dominant secular healing practices, as it might also adopt methods and attitudes from it: In my previous essay, for instance, I described “anatomy” and differential “diagnoses” and defined fixing essentially as “first-aid” in a subcategory of healing. These are all influenced by my layperson/general knowledge of medical science from having undergone very basic standard education. Comparative ethics to the Hippocratic Oath came up in the chatroom lesson for this course: an ancient (to earth, ancient) code of ethics that remain traditionally part of many contemporary medical practices today.

This is not to pass any value judgment on either practice, only to acknowledge that from my perspective, when I write about healing as a craft or skill in this specific context of the Gallifreyan Tradition, I am still figuratively riding on the coattails of modern medical science traditions—and from my experience with it as a patient, not as a practitioner initiate of that—and will still have massive influence on how I form ideas related to healing.

  • When it comes to the question of whether to prioritize somebody badly injured as opposed to somebody of higher rank…

I would prefer to consider rank or lack thereof rather a non-issue in the face of death or grievous injury…A rank is functionally immortal, and thus would not confer a need for healing as the person currently laying claim to a rank would—and, as a person ought be no more or less a person than one who does not lay claim to as high a rank or higher.

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Thu 07 Sep 2017, 00:12
Part 1/2
Skype Seminar 06 September 2017

Overview: Continuation of Ethics of Healing.

Ethics of Healing rely on compassion, equality, and dignity.

This would be conducted by prioritizing those most in need of help, most urgently—and not arbitrarily such as by parentage; appropriate behavior towards patients; ensuring confidentiality.

Q: Where is the ethical line?

Is it completely possible to have compassion for anyone who needs or asks for healing?

  • Case in point, you're in the heat of battle, and a Dalek, badly injured, begs you for Healing the mutant inside the shell.

A: It is possible to have compassion, but if you risk those who did not agree to the risk you are violating the Doctrine. By healing a Dalek, we free it up to kill others. Instinct would pull me to help anyone and everyone, but the moral implications of that can be conflicting. In the case of a Dalek specifically I would likely leave it for the reasons mentioned; though the guilt may settle on me despite believing it is the right thing.

Q: Where does the patient's preference come in to play? If a patient is badly injured and prefers to be Healed by someone of their own Caste, Chapter, or House—but none are available—is a Healer to let the person die? Or go against their wishes to Heal them?

A: Go against their wishes, indeed.

Q: What if a patient is unconscious or otherwise unable to voice their preference?

A: Defer to a close family member or otherwise designated person. If none are available, as in the case of a battle scenario, then use the best judgement in order to Heal them enough that they can become conscious. The answer is to be judged based on the urgency of the situation. If their life is at stake, we must do what is necessary to save them. If not, then defer to someone else or keep them stable and healthy until they awaken.

When faced with a choice between as to whether to Heal or not, there must be some basis for making a decision. And that decision must be: compassion, dignity, and equality.

******Assignment: Ethics Test Scenarios

Scenario One: Battle.  A Patrician is badly injured to the point of death; injuries are at present too severe to permit Regeneration.  The only Healer present is of lower-Caste, and the Patrician has made it very clear that they do not wish to be administered to by one of lower rank and Caste.  As the lower-Caste Healer, what do you do and why?

Scenario Two: A House Cousin is in need of Healing. and prefers to (and by that I mean demands to) be Healed by a member of the House.  The member of the House does not possess the necessary skills to Heal the Cousin as they need to be Healed, for example, the Cousin is in need of MindHealing when the House Healer is not capable of that.

Scenario Three: A more injured but less "valuable" member of society, for example, a Patrician being less injured than a simple solider.  Who is considered the priority?  The "more important" Patrician, or the more injured soldier?

Scenario Four: (Reference point Doctor Who episode "Into the Dalek".) The Doctor has the opportunity to fix a Dalek that is seemingly "good."  His motive is that "if he can turn one Dalek, he can turn them all, and save billions of lives."  Is this the correct reason to Heal someone, especially someone who would normally be considered our enemy, for our own personal benefit, especially when that benefit is framed as "the greater good"?

Part 2/2
Skype Seminar 06 September 2017

Overview: The ways in which Healing is done. Comparisons of solitary-intuitive and documented communal traditions of Healing.

Ways of Healing

Q: At the time of this writing, how do students and course participants practice healing, or have healed?

A: physical, mindhealing, hands-on, energy based, first aid, herbs, mental/psychological assistance, offering support (to friends, pets, or siblings in emergencies), otherworldly trances, transmutation (inner Alchemy), sonic healing, psychological aid to animals

Q: "Healing" on the whole, is very similar across traditions.  Especially energy work.  Whether it's called "Regeneration energy," "reiki," or the Christian "laying upon of hands," the idea is the same: to channel and energy outside of ourselves  to Heal and bring balance to those in need. That being the case, what does it tell us that so many traditions have similar, if not the same methods?

A: There could be some kind of universal tie to healing. An innate ability granted by something; whether that be Fate, some celestial being, or evolutionary needs is down to personal belief as well as experience, frame of reference, and cultural resonance. This could be caused by a mixture of all the aforementioned: evolution should find a need for healers with innate ability, but at the same time there may be far more to it than that. Particularly as Healers seem to be so throughout many lifetimes (and common to many cultures and traditions.)

******Assignment: What is the difference between Healing and Curing?  In other words, why do we have "doctors" and "psychiatrists" and "surgeons" now, when a Healer (energy worker or otherwise) is unheard of, and indeed, would be considered fantasy at best, and quackery at worst?

A child, the child of my heart though never of my name
Who shares my gift, whose eyes though young are mine the very same
Who shares my every thought whose skillful hands I taught so well
Now hear the hardest lesson I shall ever have to tell

Young healer I have taught you all I know of wounds and pain
Of in the sit and of the herbs of blessing and of bane
Of all the usage of all you gift all that I could impart
And how you learned young healer put rejoicing to my heart

But there is yet one lessoning I cannot give to you
For you must find your own way there judge what is sound and true
This lesson is the cruelest ever healer had to teach
It is which you must do and there are those you cannot reach

However creature gift there will be times when you will fail
There will be those you cannot help, your skill cannot prevail
When you fight Death and loose to him of what might yet be worse
You went to find the wreak he left regards you with a curse

The worst of all and harder still the times when its a friend
Who looks to you to bring him peace and make his torment end
What will you do young healer when there's nothing you can do
I can give only council for the rest is up to you

This only will I council you that if you build a shell
Of armor close about you then you close yourself in Hell
And of your heart should harden then you gift will fade and die
And all that you have lived and learned will then become a lie

As you must I have faces the fear the pain in dying eyes
Sometimes I have told the truth and sometimes gentle lies
As you will I have faces the times my skill brings no redress
And wonder if my gift was truly meant to curse or bless

A child your healing hands are guided by your healing heart
And that is all the wisdom all my learning can impart
You take this pain upon you as you challenge life unknown
And there can be no answer here but one, and that's your own.

*** "Healer's Dilemma" by Mercedes Lackey from the album Heralds, Harpers, and Havoc. Read the words, listen to the music, and reflect on the meaning and relevance to our discussions and calling.  

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Tue 19 Sep 2017, 19:27
Skype Seminar 13 September 2017

This session was postponed. Resumes 20 September 2017, 8PM Eastern Daylight Time. Course participants are encouraged to use this time to complete assignments not yet completed.

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Tue 19 Sep 2017, 19:38
Assignment 2A: Scenarios in Ethical Dilemmas

When faced with a choice between as to whether to Heal or not, there must be some basis for making a decision.

During the course progression, I began to rethink my preconceptions of what a Healer answers to.

I thought, simply and perhaps naively:

A healer answers the call of imbalance.
A healer answers the call of suffering.
A healer heeds the sovereignty and consent of a patient, when negotiating (how to treat) the imbalance (illness or injury).
A healer heeds their own limitations—waning energy, area of expertise, not being able to attend more that one place at a time.

Healing ethics in this course have shown more complications than that, and I believe a call for structures for clearer recommended action.

In battle, for instance: No balance or reconciliation can be found by healing so indiscriminately that the enemy is further enabled to harm.

The Healers in such a scenario as battle thus defer to the warriors’ values, goals, and plans.

Such a Healer would appear answerable to a strategic discrimination, however outside (to my current thinking) the healing craft and very much outside compassionate/egalitarian healer values this would be to enact.

To turn this deferential dynamic around reveals a similar dilemma. In the example scenario above, I describe a healer that defers to the protocol of the circumstances—and declines to heal an enemy. In some example scenarios below, I find greater inclination to not defer, and to claim executive decision-making powers to heal a patient against a patient’s particularism.

Written below these strike me as (for lack of better term) unfortunate situations wherein the particulars of consent are manipulated in such ways as to reinforce inequality. 

Is a Healer then answerable more to the sovereignty of an individual patient—or to principles of dignity and equality?

How long can that even hold up, if we be Healers allowed to ever say or imply: “You’ll hate me now, but you’ll thank me later” or, “You are not in the right mind to make that decision about your own health” to any patient?

These aren’t questions in want of answers, so much as expressions of discomfort with my own developing ideas about Healer responsibility and role-related rights (as opposed to inherent rights.)

I hope those would find answers in the way Healers and Gallifreyans in general agree to (re)construct such roles, rights, and responsibilities of Healers.

Scenario One: Battle. A Patrician is badly injured to the point of death; injuries are at present too severe to permit Regeneration. The only Healer present is of lower-Caste, and the Patrician has made it very clear that they do not wish to be administered to by one of lower rank and Caste.
As the lower-Caste Healer, what do you do and why?
In this scenario, I am a lower-Caste yet higher-skilled Healer to be able to comprehend the grievous extent of this Patrician’s injury.

I would first attempt to inform the Patrician of their imminent death, as perhaps they do not have a Healer’s perspective.
If they continue to consciously refuse, I would defer to that decision: I would not administer treatment. If they fall unconscious and dead after being informed, I would not administer treatment. The patient’s right to die on their own terms is part of honoring their dignity.

If they fall unconscious before being informed of this, however, I would restore stability and life enough that this patient can tell me off—or not; I would heal them to even find out what their reaction would be.

This has the potential to become complicated, with the presence of someone whom the patient (or custom) assigned decision-making powers, if they demand I heal someone who fell unconscious after refusing to be healed, if I could still in good conscience stand by the actual patient’s original decision knowing the disharmony that would generate in my relationship—however estranged—with the one who demands their healing and had technically been given the right to demand it of me.

I also would consider that this is a battle scenario. The Patrician may indeed have been abundantly clear about their desires, yet my own thoughts and inclinations, habits, prioritizing protocols, could very well not be at all as calculated as all this. Not even by practice to second nature.

For that reason, I would hope that any healer in this situation would later have the support of Healers in attributing meaning or getting past whatever decision they had made…because for now I do not truly see a right decision.

Scenario Two: A House Cousin is in need of Healing and prefers to (and by that I mean demands to) be Healed by a member of the House. The member of the House does not possess the necessary skills to Heal the Cousin as they need to be Healed, for example, the Cousin is in need of MindHealing when the House Healer is not capable of that.

I hope that the House Healer may enlist the assistance of another Healer—that nominal assistance, as the situation calls for, being most of the work if not the work itself. (The requested Healer may still be very much present, with hopes that this would not restrict the other Healer’s MindHealing process further—Because, I imagine, if Nominal Assistance would be a formalized procedure, the Assistant Healer would be restricted from insisting the Healer who enlisted their assist to leave; though I believe the Assistant Healer may request such, and the requesting Healer may assent.

I wouldn’t personally want such protocol to calcify into such detailed formalities. Possibly extensive records of precedences to argue such cases would follow, and too much information gets in the case.)

Or that the House Healer may have the clarity, humility, and assertiveness that outright referring their patient to another for treatment would be well within the Healer’s prerogative. As unhappy as this patient may be, referral ought to be an act of their selected Healer to heal them, technically fulfilling this request.

Another injury is imminent either way, to the Cousin’s relationship with a Healer to whom they issued particular requests that the Healer could not meet.

Scenario Three: A more injured but less “valuable” member of society, for example, a Patrician being less injured than a simple solider.
Who is considered the priority? The “more important” Patrician, or the more injured soldier?

Until this course or ensuing reconstruction suggests otherwise, I default to this case to my naivety described above: A Healer answers to the call to alleviate what suffering that the Healer can alleviate—not to rank.

Unless this soldier invokes the patient’s consent that I too generally believe a Healer ought to heed, and makes it clear that they (the soldier) would rather die so that their Patrician would not suffer the inconvenience of a non-fatal injury for another forty minutes or what…In which case I would do my best to persuade the soldier that they don’t command Healers like that, and I hope to be right. (If this soldier had a particularism with Caste or House, or even made up such a particularism, then I would take that as withdrawing consent to be treated, at which I may not follow through regardless…but, in the case of telling a Healer who to heal instead, that I feel would be issuing orders outside a soldier’s purview.)

Scenario Four: (Reference point Doctor Who episode “Into the Dalek”.) The Doctor has the opportunity to fix a Dalek that is seemingly “good.” His motive is that “if he can turn one Dalek, he can turn them all, and save billions of lives.”

Is this the correct reason to Heal someone, especially someone who would normally be considered our enemy, for our own personal benefit, especially when that benefit is framed as “the greater good”?

I would like to note that formalities stopped being a refuge to me about four scenarios ago.

However, I default to my naivety again in this: A Healer answers to universal imbalance, so if this can be framed as for a greater good—then it shall be done.
If, however, the motive is personal gain, I believe this cause extraordinarily likely to meet failure if not outright betrayal.
In all these scenarios, I as a Healer negotiate afflictions, negotiate relationships…However, the agency and autonomy of the patient, I hope to have shown, cannot be negotiated. Neither, I believe, should be in principle—but, I do also believe, cannot be.

(Unless there’s mind-controlling energywork/spiritwork or psychological “hacks” that are actually effective in a precise and accurate way as intended by whoever does it, regardless of the target’s consent, that I simply do not know about. In which case...should not still stands.)

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Tue 19 Sep 2017, 22:27
Assignment 2B: Healer Classification and Conduct

What is the difference between Healing and Curing? In other words, why do we have "doctors" and "psychiatrists" and "surgeons" now, when a Healer (energy worker or otherwise) is unheard of, and indeed, would be considered fantasy at best, and quackery at worst?

I conjecture that the word “Healer” has fallen out of common use due to its meaning being too holistic and too broad for even common use.

Doctoring, psychiatry, and surgery imply to me far more specialized practices. Bedside manner would be a bonus but not a requirement for a healer of physical ailments who would not counsel a patient’s relationships or take emotions into account. A psychiatrist should understand biochemical pharmaceutics, not what requirements and methods are involved by cardiac bypass surgery. An individual may experience bad feelings that they sit with until the cause or call-for-action becomes clear, or the feeling passes.

All of these are ways of Healing, but to call any one of these individuals a Healer would be too vague to be useful.

However, in this tradition I understand Healer to remain in common use because the context confers specifics: spiritual Healing, MindHealing, energy Healing, Healer as opposed to medic, Healer as a role distinguished from an Advisor or Organizer.

I previously differentiated “Curing” as a subcategory of “Healing” in that it implied goal-orientated focus and little to no follow-up once accomplished.

I would also add to this distinction my first diagnostic question about an illness being degenerative as opposed to whether a body asserts its optimal state (not, as with many ailments—examples: sickle cell anemia, depression—an assertion towards health that is imbalanced and maladaptive, these with the current theories I have understood these being, respectively, immunity to malaria and a way to conserve energy during fallow seasons such as with hibernation or aestivation.) As well as societal accessibility structures that I had mentioned for example for sensory or mobility disabilities.

A cure might also be the healer’s imposition of what a body should become, rather than what is genuinely the body’s best condition.

I feel as though this song is about euthanasia and grief. What stands out to me is the caution that, life can be difficult and full of suffering, especially as Healers are tasked to go where there are such problems and so much pain. Our treatments won't always follow through to the balance we set out to restore, to treat. The caution I hear most keenly in this song was against becoming embittered with the unfairness of the world, or paralyzed with grief.

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Thu 21 Sep 2017, 01:00
Skype Seminar 20 September 2017

!!! * ! * ! * ! * THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS MAY CONTAIN TRIGGERING MATERIAL related to mental illness, psychopharmaceutical treatments, and suicidal ideation  * ! * ! * ! * !!!

An example of the difference between a Healer and a Medic, as witnessed by the Course Organizer and offered for a case study: A patient in mental and emotional distress, sobbing uncontrollably due to her "diagnosis" and "symptoms."  A Nurse Practitioner (medic) offers her medication which, to be fair, would assist in reducing the symptoms and distress. A purely mechanical and physical answer. But no less effective.

The patient, however, says "if you give me those damned medications I will throw them on the floor, I don't want to be a zombie."

The therapist present thanks the nurse practitioner for their assistance and kicks them out of the office.  Then sits with the patient, and lets the patient vent, gently verbally bringing the patient back into the present when the patient starts to get stuck in the wrongs that have been done to her in the past. Within twenty minutes, the patient has calmed down, and the therapist has been able to explain fully what is going on and what is going to happen moving forward. The therapist is also able to explain that the medication the nurse was offering isn't going to make her a zombie, just help stabilize her mood and reduce anxiety. In the end, the patient is calm and agrees to take the medication now that she understands what it is for. Therapist takes the patient to the nurse, and the nurse administers the medication. Ten minutes later, the patient is in the common room laughing and joking with other patients.

Where both the medication and the talking with the patient were valid and necessary, it took both, especially the therapist, taking the time to sit with the patient and get into her head and see things from perspective rather than immediately going for the quick mechanical fix.

Now if the patient had a broken leg instead of a broken heart, the therapist would have been useless.

It takes both medic and Healer to bring patients back to their best selves.  Sometimes the Healer or the Medic may need to take the lead over the other, but each will need to back the other up and respect each others' skills.

Discussion after case study: Physical and mental wellness can feedback-loop, yet do at other times require focused specialized knowledge and prioritization. As long as both work towards the good of the patient, neither is higher than the other, however in cases of prioritization, it depends on the severity.

Recommended certification in CPR and First Aid, acknowledging however that certification can be expensive.

Recovered memories of Chapter-based traditions and specializations training: Prydonian Healers were known for their skill in actually going inside the patient's mind and walking through trauma with them; whereas Healers from both Patrex and Prydon also used energy work and could ease the physical, mental, and psychological pain of a difficult regeneration (by soothing the energy flares, easing the Regeneration sickness). Healers hailing from Cerule, of course, worked with teas, herbals, scents, and salves made with their understanding of plants...

(Continued discussion about comparing and contrasting Healing methods from other canons, as well as what specialization and methods course participants gravitated towards.)

Extracurricular: What can we in the Gallifreyan Tradition do to sustain the lives, to bring comfort and assist in the wellness of members who suffer suicidal ideations and make related attempts, and/or self injure? Training and resources currently being offered to Healers who are comfortable intervening in matters of life and death, and understanding extended to those who would be unable or uncomfortable with being an agent involved in literal life-or-death matters. This is not a mandatory effort, this is on a volunteer basis only. Volunteers are invited to message Temporal Nocturne privately and training, protocol, resources and so on will be structured/adjusted according to who the core participation is composed of.

****** Homework assignment: 500-750 words discussing your memories and techniques you used in your other lives and how you would like to bring that into play here. ******

****** Second homework assignment is to look into yourselves and determine how much you are willing to risk to try to assist others in need.  It may require late nights, staying up at all hours to talk someone down, convincing someone to seek help if you can't help them as much as they need, and being able to take care of yourselves. ******
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Tue 17 Oct 2017, 01:03
Assignment 3A: Past Life Memories of Healing Methods

I do not currently have a solid enough hold on any of my past lives, let alone for healing specifically. What I do have, are hints and wisps from dreams, meditations, or someone else's intuitions: I was in a glass tower atop a mountain, singing my first recital where elders could hear and evaluate (it did not go well, but that's the full extent of what I know of that); I was in an empty ballroom and met a parent not-from-earthly-waking life there, rearranging flowers and talking about having had me fostered among humans and not liking how I was growing up; I was a corporeal human earthling other than myself, almost adult by the sense of it, but leaning injured in a room full of hot mist and mirrors, mind flashing with pain and fear; and/or I was a manual laborer in a workhouse, in England during Victorian times, and in that life I died of exhaustion and sepsis at maybe about nine years of age.

I don't have a very long thread to follow for any of these, and neither (in the case of earthly lives) can I trace names or details for historical accuracy.

What I feel I can bring into play based on these memories is the need for healing. In every life and world it seems, there is disappointment and failure, loss and estrangement and misunderstanding, injury to the body and the mind and the body.

It stands to reason that there would be at least as many opportunities and methods or avenues for healing as there are ways to suffer. 


What I hope to find constructed is a model by which Gallifreyans recognize Wellness (or, to keep to non-intervention Wellness might be better defined by what is not to be noted or focused on for purposes of healing intervention); As well as diagnosis—divination? Spiritual diagnosis—methods within this model. 

In traditions where curses from non-specialists (the evil eye, for example) and inimical spirits are as commonly considered components of the ailment as: dehydration (diagnosed/informed by tutelary spirits), somatized emotional distress, an "incomplete" sort of spirit body, or imbalance in the spiritual landscape...I set off the two first examples in this paragraph due to the scope of the Healer's responsibility. A curse, protection or counter-curse, would to me be more the responsibility of spiritual warriors. Meanwhile, the interference of an inimical spirit would be the Healer working techniques/method not on a body, but on a dynamic relationship—negotiation and mediation, rather than Healing.

I am inclined to make those distinctions in my own mind. However, as long as it results in someone who suffers then feeling better, Healers from the tradition described make no such distinction.

Continuing comparisons to one of these indigenous healing traditions, I have read of divination along the lines of that, "the one who afflicted this ailment will themselves fall ill that we (the healers) may detect the culprit", which would be considered retributive, combatative, even downright unethical to modern metropolitan ideas of spiritual healing—but in this context came off as a mere matter of divination/diagnosis.

The method itself may be common. When I sat in for a class in linguistic anthropology, the professor mentioned a superstition they grew up with that if you are ending your walk in the woods, you should call yourself back. It was considered inevitable that some parts of a person's self would dawdle behind, in the fores. Apart from telling the invisible fairies to step aside because you're walking, then, (the superstition that I grew up with), it was also advisable at the end of a walk to tell oneself to "get on back here!"

Illnesses could come upon a person with such "incomplete" selves. This was especially true during times of trauma, especially a shared traumatic event that one survived and a dearly beloved friend or family member did not: the ghost would be said to call the living person's self into the world of the dead with them, or the event itself would have any hold on a spiritual part of someone. The remedy for a careless walk in the woods that could lead to a cold, and what metropolitan Healers would consider post-traumatic stress, could be more involved with the latter but operated on the same principle: "Get on back here!" 

That latter is what I have been investigating recently. 


More for a point of amusement, I have also developed a model of a more consistent spirit body based on Hogwarts houses: Gryffindor, is the "fire in the belly" or domain of true will, instinct, survival, passion; Hufflepuff, is the "warmth of the heart" or the domain of empathy and caring (including self-care) and interpersonal savvy; Ravenclaw is the "presence of mind" or domain of mental clarity. Finally, Slytherin as the house of ambition or the Big Picture serves as the bridge to the Cosmos. Combination houses (Ravenpuff, Slythergryff, etc) might be streams between the "organs" or some can be aura shells. 

(I thought it up as a joke but so help me Menti Celesti it's working.)

Assignment 3B: Introspection for Readiness/Willingness

At first, I believed that my having suffered mental illness, abusive family dynamic, rough times—and being somewhat okay now, that all that gave me both the know-how and the duty to assist others in need.

I may be personally okay, and not have forgotten similar life experiences, yet still not be the presence that...someone who isn't okay...needs, to become okay. Especially not online, if that's where a reliable presence or intervention is required.

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Tue 17 Oct 2017, 07:38
Skype Seminar 27 September 2017

!!! The following discussion contains: euthanasia, intersect of disability, and the Time War

Let us being with and example from the human world.  A man is hiking in the woods and gets bitten by a poisonous snake.  He is a runner, and athlete, and is terrified of losing his leg, because that is his livelihood. He is rushed to the hospital and tells the surgeon "save my leg."  The surgeon puts him under, and immediately sees that the leg is necrotizing. Does the surgeon save the patient at the cost of his leg, or does he honor the patient's wishes and let the patient die?

Unanimous agreement from students: Save the life and lose the leg. There are prosthetics for limbs, but no such substitutes for life itself.

And when the patient wakes up and sees that he has a mere plastic shell of what he used to be?  That the surgeon has literally cut off his livelihood?  How is the surgeon to deal with the berating, the anger, the grief of the patient?  And knowing that he has taken what the patient holds most dear?

As a Medic, the matter is clear.  You save the patient's life.  As a Healer, your calling is to alleviate suffering, physical, mental, and emotional.  So while you have saved the patient's life, you have gone against his wishes and caused even more suffering than death would have.

Equally unanimous agreement to the patient's lousy attitude, natural grief at such a sudden irreversible change notwithstanding. If the patient is unwilling to listen, then more harm than good has been done, but family members and the community would suffer more from the loss of a life than for a life to sustain with the loss of a limb. A Healer can't supersede the decision of the patient with regards to whether their life is "worth" continuing, or whether the patient can vocally blame the Healer for such a doom of unbearable lifelong emotional suffering. 

During the Time War: Every Healer, regardless of Chapter, was given a "potion," created by the Cerules. This drink was essentially poison to any Gallifreyan, Patrician or not. There were times when soldiers or civilians or even Patricians were injured too badly to be either cured or Healed.  

Do we let that person suffer until they die naturally, or do we gently end their suffering?

Physical disability is not such an impediment to a good life compared to being injured too badly to be either cured or Healed and doomed to suffer. In the Time War case described, euthanasia would be appropriate especially upon the patient's request. Or, in cases that the patient would be comatose without hope of waking, or hope of waking with only overwhelming pain and suffering to live with.

In the case of the athlete's request in the first case, for the same "release", it remains generally not. 

Personal note: Considering the parallel with the athlete, I mentioned the Healer having a broader perspective <on the worth of a life not dependent on keeping to typical body or accomplishing things> that can't be forced on a grieving patient but...If that death potion were there, then I believe I would eventually authorize administration of it to such a patient. Not because they're complaining and blaming me and I can't bear to hear it anymore, but because that individual remains the best authority over whether their life is still worth living. ("Eventually" means after all MindHealing efforts and <disability> accommodations are exhausted as well. If he still can't be happy, I as a Healer must believe it. And act accordingly, in service of the patient's quality of life. Even if I disagree.)

 On the other side, what if they can be Healed, but they are such a physical wreck (disfigured, disabled, etc...) Are you willing to have them angry, bitter, and feeling useless and ugly for the rest of their lives?

Discussion of how the patient must be kept alive in this case, as this same logic could apply to selective abortion of disabled children... in both cases, there are assumptions about how horrible the person's life will be.

The trick is that there is no clear answer.  It must depend upon the individual situation and preferences of the patient, in the cases that the patient is conscious. Which is why this discussion is being held.  Because as Healers, we may very well come across these situations. We may also come across situations in which we have to choose between quality and quantity of life.

Question then: A patient may never get over what has been done, they may accept what has happened or not, but as a Healer, if the patient after everything has been exhausted still wanted to end it all, wouldn't that be our responsibility <as Healers>?

Memory recovery of Healer training on Gallifrey. Every Healer was trained and committed to the service of either Death or Pain. <Temporal Nocturne> in this life have been Called to be the Champion of Pain, as the Doctor is Time's Champion, and the Master is Death's.

***Homework assignment one: 500 words minimum--Choose either Death or Pain and discuss why a Healer would be dedicated to Their Service.***

***Assignment two, 250 words minimum.  A Healer's responsibility to themselves.  A Healer sees horrible things done to others, and is responsible for the well being of others.  Where does the well being of the Healer fit in to this?  We can not Heal others if we are in need of Healing or comfort ourselves.  How does a Healer take care of themselves, and what is the recourse when the calling of being a Healer becomes too much?  (In human terms, "self-care" and "secondary" or "caregiver trauma.")***

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Tue 17 Oct 2017, 07:44
Assignment 4A: Pain or Death?

Pain, as it's most commonly interpreted, interferes with the quality of a patient's life. Whatever the cause, if there is pain, I imagine that easily becomes the main call to Healer intervention: heal the ailment, to stop the pain.

However, I have also read of conditions such as CIPA and leprosy that worsen as the pain lessens, and the body no longer signals cues for necessary functions. Without pain to signal injury, the workings of the body can seem to simply come to a stop after the patient exerts injurious effort on their body beyond what should have, which the patient may not have known without the pain signal to stop and rest. 

Add to that, pain signals that are not maladaptive can even stimulate faster healing. This is not to say that further injury prompts faster healing, because that would certainly be counterproductive. 

Rather, I do take that as an indication that pain is not always "the Enemy" of a Healer. Pain is part of the body's processes, and by virtue of that would be immediately valuable for a Healer to understand the nature of, to dedicate, and to champion. 

When the source of pain was something that could be cured with rest, or when pain could lend more of a clue as to the severity or nature of the illness, then the ailment could be healed. 

When a lack of pain comes with paralysis or necrosis, for instance, it may be that painlessness that can leave a healer at a loss as to how to proceed—if not signal that the ailment may even have progressed into "too far gone" territory. In some cases, then, it's when when the ailment recedes, that the pain returns; it's through a study of pain that Healing methods can be guided.

When the pain signals have provided enough information for diagnosis and treatment, then the quality of a patient's life can be improved by putting an end to unnecessary and purposeless pain.

However, without pain signals, there would be far less to go on when distinguishing between...such obviously different things are restful Healing, and further injury! 

For another example, my boss is elderly, and sometimes needs to use a cane. Walking the way they know how, without limping, puts strain on their leg in a way that causes a lot of pain. When there's lifting or rearranging of chairs to be done, to my dismay and that of our co-workers, my boss will help us do it. We know it's painkillers making our boss think that such tasks can still be done by them, but without pain signals, they aren't to know that their efforts are overtaxing the tendons. 

Painkillers, in the scenario I described above, were supplied to help my boss rest—not to help my boss overexert and injure their body.

I would take painkillers myself for headaches, if I knew that it came from something like air pressure before a storm, so I know that a storm is coming and don't need to suffer until that storm breaks. However, I hope not to take painkillers every time I have a headache to the point that I would miss out on a cancerous brain tumor diagnosis—because I was too busy treating the symptoms.

Pain is something I believe would usually benefit a Healer to listen to, rather than dismiss.

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Tue 17 Oct 2017, 07:47
Assignment 4B: Self-Care and Secondary Trauma

While we celebrate diverse approaches to healing during the formation of this tradition, I would also want to bring in the value of Healers generally being on the same page when it comes to values and standards—and with a chain of command, clear role responsibilities delineated, and basically a community system in place. 

That way, when a Healer begins to approach burnout, there isn't the sense of "but nobody else is going to do it and people will suffer while I'm resting". Ideally, the situation would call for that a supervising Healer would say to another Healer who is showing signs of burnout, "You are not up to performance standard, so go get some rest and nourish yourself for two weeks" or whatever time they might need, that the Healer can request such a time for themselves.

Time alloted to active and resting shifts is especially important for the sustainability of something like one's own side of a battle...where it may be the case that allotting for rest time won't happen, and burnout for everyone is somehow a better strategy than retreat.

From my experience with a bleak and almost at times catatonic depression, I would say that everything in life needs vitality, and depression is a symptom of that vitality being depleted. It becomes difficult to perform basic tasks such as getting up to eat, or having a wash.

With some traumas I have had, however, I would be far more active when I remained wounded. I can easily imagine people of a general disposition to have clarity and determination that stems from their pain—rather that than their understanding of being wounded at that time being a liability that must be dismissed, sort of, "go and heal, come back to do these things when you don't care as much" doesn't make sense.

What fuels someone, what drains someone, what gets in their way, what they're used to—is different for each individual. As tempting as it might be for some to accuse somebody working beyond their capacity of stubbornness or pride, or a Healer who might faint at the sight of blood as a coward, those are very internal motivations. 

This, I believe, highlight the importance of a Healer's self-care: because I believe even Mindscape walkers and telepaths can take it differently, or struggle to understand. Self-exploration and self-care is a struggle too, but it is that Self which is closest to knowing personal limits, and what is effective to restore that which is lost when going to those limits. 

Healers as community, hopefully, would be able to accommodate for that, whether that's a referral to a MindHealer to make appointments with—or as nominal as a long night's sleep, a hot shower, half an hour of guided relaxing meditation, and a cup of herbal tea with a side of biscuits.

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Sat 21 Oct 2017, 06:21
Skype Seminar 18 October 2017

Refresher of previous topics covered. To champion Death means to understand when and how to let go, and the cycles of mortal life. To champion Pain means to respect what message pain imparts, which can be to rest and take self-care instead of pushing one's limitations.

However, something like physical exercise can cause pain, for that indeed deliberately pushes limitations but for personal improvement. If the same pain that tells us to rest, can also tell us to keep going, then how do we make the distinction?

Attempting to "heal" as a method may appear without regard for circumstance can instead be imbalancing and damaging. 

Counterexample: "me-time" in self care as opposed to self-isolation and pushing away loved ones in depression. The sense of need to be alone becomes maladaptive.

Counterexample: impulse to pursue or fulfill, may be a natural instinct for restoration but can become destructive addiction. Also maladaptive.

What is the line between the patient's autonomy and need for Healer intervention?

Request of the patient...Unless the patient is not aware of maladaptive, destructive disposition (often the case). Further investigation into the deeper causes of behavior may be conducted non-invasively by the Healer. 

— Sit with the patient and calmly take then back through the first feelings that led to self-destructive life choices.

— To inform someone through a typical behavioral intervention script ("ABC acts have XYZ bad consequences to the people closest to you, what healing would you avail of, cutting off if no behavioral changes can be given") can come off to mean "your pain is hurting us" and can cause repression or suppression of need-impulses. Rather than healing the situation, it aggravates a depressed and/or addictive person's symptoms of deeper personal and relational issue.

What advantages does championing Pain or Death then give? As for Pain (Temporal Nocturne's personal experience) to be a Champion of Pain grants a deeper understanding of pain, whether the manifestation is physical or mental. Such understanding is an advantage in Healing, to help a patient work through it, to understand how best to ease it, and not to fear or shirk from any manifestation of it in the patient or self because it is well understood. 


Case Study: Face the Raven / Heaven Sent / Hell Bent. On <Temporal Nocturne's> Gallifrey, if someone regenerated, if anyone was in the room with them, the regeneration caused a strong bond, almost artificial Bond to form between the Time Lord and any in the room. When Eleven regenerated into Twelve, that Bond was formed with Clara. When Clara died, that Bond was forcibly broken, causing the Doctor to essentially go mad with grief. At what point should Healers intervene in that grief and broken Bond, and how should the Healer intervene?

The limits of Healer intervention. Patient determination and the right to dictate their own treatment versus their own good and/or the good of others. (This relates to the first question but with broader application.)

Choose either Pain or Death. How would knowing and working with one of Them assist you in your work in understanding a patient or other who needs Healing, and how would you apply that level of intimate knowledge?

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Fri 27 Oct 2017, 21:43
Assignment 5A: When To Intervene (Case Study)

If someone regenerated, if anyone was in the room with them, the regeneration caused a strong bond, almost artificial Bond to form between the Time Lord and any in the room. When Eleven regenerated into Twelve, that Bond was formed with Clara. When Clara died, that Bond was forcibly broken, causing the Doctor to essentially go mad with grief. At what point should Healers intervene in that grief and broken Bond, and how should the Healer intervene?


Knowing the risks that these circumstances would bring later, I recommend the one who regenerated meet a Healer for general aftercare as soon after the regeneration as possible. This might include a more eased removal of the Bond or Bonds if possible, or (less invasively) training methods of self-modulating emotions in the event that the Bond be forcibly broken. If the patient had not taken such precautions, then I believe the call for intervention would be the patient’s request for Healing, and/or the patient’s evident self-harm, and/or the patient’s evident harm to others. 

If by request, then MindHealing for the grief process that the patient would go mad from. I believe this has the advantage of the patient being most likely (not guaranteed, but likely) to bring the potatoes

In cases that the patient does not request Healing but harms themself, monitoring when and how to intervene to de-escalate or negotiate to the above partnership of MindHealing effort is what I would recommend. 

Outright restraint might eventually be necessary but to prohibit self harm can be perilously counterproductive: the pain of this action is, to me, a symptom to be observed and perhaps alleviated before it becomes extreme, but let us not lose a natural report of the source affliction by repressing it. 

In cases that the patient begins to harm others, however, outright restraining or otherwise prohibiting the patient from harming others would be my first recommended recourse. Succeeded by, as mentioned, de-escalating lashout and negotiating to understand and treat the source affliction.

Last edited by Faemon on Fri 27 Oct 2017, 23:55; edited 1 time in total

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Fri 27 Oct 2017, 21:58
Assignment 5B: When To Intervene (Broad Application) 

The limits of Healer intervention. Patient determination and the right to dictate their own treatment versus their own good and/or the good of others. (This relates to the first question but with broader application.)

 I consider this prompt an examination of what is ideal as opposed to what is real. Ideally, patients would not dictate their own treatment or lack thereof to the detriment of any other individual. Ideally, Healers intervene upon the full informed consent of a body to the end of restoring balance. 

Individuals, however, whether nominal Healers or otherwise, can lack understanding or behave in shallow and selfish ways. We have covered case studies of patients more concerned with reinforcing classist caste hierarchies than with wellness, or patients so invested in disablist worldviews that such prejudice effectively defines that patient’s lived experience and individual choice for their own body and life—this is what we’re given to work with. 

The value judgement between a more ideal calling on which a Healer’s decision is based, and correct interpersonal conduct on which a Healer’s decision can also be based, can in these cases appear out of alignment with one another. 

As Healers, it can be perilous to disregard a patient’s bigotry insomuch as it informs what a patient consents to. The patient’s refusal for any treatment because the only available adept Healer is of a lower caste, for instance—it would violate the patient’s individual consent for a Healer to claim prerogative to perform healing duty upon the patient’s own body by their “unworthy lowborn” hands. 

We can’t count on or predict the patient’s opinion of the ends justifying the means; the patient may feel violated for the rest of their otherwise healthy lifespan, in which case it may be callous to remind somebody who feels personally violated that their feelings are not facts (that they’re well because of treatments they did not consent to). Or, should the Healer concede not to treat such a patient, that the Healer has not been remiss in their calling…and instead deferred to classism and disablism, or otherwise granted power to harmful ideology. 

There would not be mutual respect of interpersonal boundaries without equal personal empowerment. 

As I believe the known universe to be out of balance, and every perspective limited with heuristics if not outright bias, this is not simple to discern and announce—yet, decisions must be made, even declining to decide is effectively a decision.

 Can a Healer then claim to know better, and to serve better, the restoration of balance that a patient won’t agree or consent to? This may appear to be my argument, as I remind of case studies of difficult patients (the difficulty not even the source or process-to-treat an ailment)—but as also mentioned, Healers can lack understanding as well, or act out of shallowness and selfishness, or harbor ulterior motives other than the patient’s wellness or restoration of balance. 

Ideally, there would be some consistent agreement to what imbalance looks like and whose purview what prerogative to what falls under. The trust of that interaction would ideally never be misplaced, and the Healing process would proceed at the patient’s request and commitment to full cooperation, to the best of the Healer’s skill, and the grace of the Menti Celesti. 

This may even often be the case. 

This does not eliminate the importance and difficulty of preparing for instances that this is not the case. 


 In the above recalled cases, deferring to the patient’s autonomy is subtle. Perhaps the Patrician leading a battle, who is injured and would rather die than have a lowborn do any Healing, would leave the cause and commanding forces at a disadvantage upon death. The consequences do not affect this individual alone: this is a decision that affects a community that the Patrician and lowborn Healer share. If a Healer were to figuratively “die on this hill” that their insubordination would save their community and their cause—or literally, suffer exile or execution for a decision that displeased and violated a Patrician and allowed that Patrician to lead their people to victory—It should not be so easy to condemn. 

If a Healer in such a situation stood by that they would not heal anybody without the patient’s own request, especially not at the patient’s explicit request not to be healed, I would personally understand and support that decision. The consequences have no virtues, values, or opinions: the consequences simply exist. 

I categorize the issue described here so far as subtle, as it considers consequences that reach so much farther along the value judgment chain. 

To consider a prospective patient’s injury of others, without the patient’s request for nor consent to Healing (without identifying as or taking the role of patient)—I believe it to become more difficult to adhere to the limits of Healer intervention being only the patient’s request. 

Perhaps the community event’s “patient zero” has those they have harmed request Healing for each of themselves; but in the grander scheme, these patients are themselves acting as “symptoms” of a community ailment: the presence of the one who harmed them, and the conditions that generated such harmful behavior. 

In such cases, if we wait for patient zero’s request, then in a way we risk allowing harm through our inaction. 

I believe in a Healer’s duty to (and necessarily the prerogative to) address the source. Because to make a villain or enemy out of such an individual, to leave them to the warriors’ and order-keepers’ judgment, is to neglect to provide an avenue for restoration. I believe that a Healer may intervene to take preventative measures, as I have previously answered in the case of a regeneration Bond: to recommend after-care, and gently sever the Bond so that it is not violently severed later on. 

The deed in that case, however, is a Healer’s recommendation; to continue to diagnose and treat an unwilling patient—even for the sake of preventing harm to community members—is far more invasive than that. 

This is difficult. It can only be the Healer’s introspection that ensures such aim and efforts are not based on vanity, arrogance, or sentimentality—and but again, the consequences are not contained to the Healer’s personal intuition.

 I want to say: Let the Healer’s way truly be a calling, not a simpering. Let us not be bystanders who can bear witness to imbalance and know better, but don’t do anything to better—only because we were not consulted or invited to intervene. Let kindness be fierce. 

If, however, the present Healer consensus leads to a policy of radical Non-Intervention (to keep Healers in check, whose activity is defined by intervention) as in Healers only begin any consideration or activity upon explicit request—then I would defer to that as well. Harm is inevitable whenever it becomes someone else’s problem—but to let our conscience concede to our limitations, is also a virtue.

Associated Member, Initiating...
Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-17
View user profile

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

on Fri 27 Oct 2017, 23:51
Assignment 5C: Pain or Death

Choose either Pain or Death. How would knowing and working with one of Them assist you in your work in understanding a patient or other who needs Healing, and how would you apply that level of intimate knowledge? 

For a similar previous essay, I chose Pain. In this essay, I would explore the advantages of understanding and applying intimate knowledge of Death. For myself with very patchwork possible memories of other lives, however, and none recovered of my own death as an event…Death is a finality to me and carries an insurmountable mystery.

 I can understand some aspects surrounding Death, instead. It’s my experience with suicidal ideation that had cursed me with knowledge of at least one case that belief informs feelings rather than external facts that can be corroborated by people who are not depressed (at least, not depressed in the same way; or, not depressed and not preoccupied with a death wish either, as these may not necessarily be the same thing.) As well as many possible consequences of actions based on that and similar beliefs. 

Unfortunately, I suspect most people who can only imagine being preoccupied with such a socially verboten concept, can only express how counterintuitive it is, the phrase, “permanent solution to a temporary problem” might appear clever, but presupposes that the addressee has not internalized that the ‘problem’ is their own life and existence, or psychological pain cannot manifest such an extreme that death is preferably to another moment living in pain, or that the addressee has the creative energy and emotional stamina to even wait out the problem let alone conceive actionable solutions, or that there is any hope or way to anticipate better ways for the world to be in this individual’s mind (to balance everything that supports Death as a choice.) 

That’s for wanting Death. As for mourning Death, I did find a timely video diary entry by a Shadow Work witch that I follow, and realized that it’s not only experience. I have watched a parent waste away from illness, and it was humbling what autonomy that takes away from the body, and what becomes of the mind when the brain is affected. 

This parent had been abusive to me all my life, so it was difficult to accept my own reaction when I first heard that this illness was terminal (I very much and desperately wanted my parent to die…but, an inconveniently present childish part of me did not want my parent to die); and then afterwards, knew it would never be accepted by anyone else if I showed my sheer relief and joy upon such a painful and undignified passing of a human being. 

Every year afterwards in the winter, I would have recurring dreams of smelling my parent’s living and waking decay as they walked around whichever apartment I had moved into, and hemorrhaged over everything as they had in later stages of the illness. I personally suffer much less now that they are a ghost, but there may be a different way of missing resolution. 

However, my sibling and I had a fundamental disagreement as to how to mourn. On our parent’s death anniversary, my sibling wanted to go on a commemorative beach trip, and insisted and then demanded that I go along…under threat of cutting off financial support, for my failure to be emotionally supportive. I had dropped out of school due to mental illness, and had limited employment options. At the same time, I had always found travel, especially to strange new places, especially unnecessary journeys, to be extremely stressful. At the time, mere mention of my parent-abuser would still set me on flashbacks, and I predicted that my sibling would also want to talk about our parent the whole way. 

I considered it a good middle ground to wish my sibling well on their solo vacation while I let the death and anniversary pass to the best of my mental wellness. My sibling considered it very differently, as a stubbornly selfish decision on my part or a passive-aggressive way for me to mete out punishment—and that is roughly the most knowledge I have of that specific instance.

 While the following video is a lengthy 40 minutes, I did appreciate the wisdom of not intervening in grief with respect to individual boundaries.

More recently, a co-worker of mine passed away, and Death remained a raw and new experience. The deceased appeared to be healthy, and the death was very sudden as many short-term and long-term plans had been set in place with this individual’s activities with co-workers and friends. 

The distance of acquaintance, in my case at least, provided a perspective that I can only describe as awkward. The sense of loss is almost tangible in the spaces the deceased agreed to occupy, that had become familiar. Knowing the cause of death in somebody so healthy had spurred a more urgent awareness of health in that area. 

I had no personal bond or emotional investment with the deceased, but did start crying when I told my significant other about it, vividly remembered the deceased voice when I was organizing the books (we work at a library; the deceased had opinions on everything available to read), and had a dream this week that the deceased had made and gifted me with a colorful knitted bag that I repaired the button-hole of. 

Death can affect each living person differently who had witnessed it, but so too each Death. 

Finally, I want to examine the commonplace and less mysterious or final presence of Death. This is Death as part of life cycles (as Narcissa put it well) and growth. The rot of organic material that has been discarded, is an almost ritual regular natural phenomenon of perpetually unlocking physical and chemical energies. Even vegans could go to food stores and notice that everything that gives life and nourishment is dead, gone to seed and/or changed by cooking fires. Finally, cellular deaths so common an expression of vitality in human bodies: marrow to birth red blood cells that age to death within four months, skin that dies in imperceptible layers to generate flesh to close the scratches and outgrow the burns, osteoblasts and osteoclasts that form and reform our bones over decades. This is to say nothing about how the mind and perspective changes with time and stimuli, not even leaving cells. 

We don’t generally mourn ourselves or living people except in special cases, but we are all dying a little every moment. Without Death, we have no nourishment, no growth, no healing, and no life. Time Lords and human earthlings don’t have so little in common in this sense, then: ever-regenerating, still there can be a moment of, “I don’t want to go."

Associated Member, Initiating...
Sponsored content

Re: Faemon's Notes & Assignments for the Gallifreyan Healers Course

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum