Ron's Jealousy of Harry (clarification)

[Milz]

No: HPFGUIDX 16334

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Milz" <absinthe at m...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> 
> > 
> > > Her near pathologic obsession with studying can be considered a 
> cry
> > > for
> > > attention (not to mention a potential diagnosis of
> > > Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder)
> > 
> > I saw that Heidi addressed this already.  I agree completely that
> > Hermione displays no signs of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.  Why 
is 
> her
> > desire to achieve academically a bad thing?
> > 
> 
> I work for a medical group. The psychiatrist in the group is a fan. 
> Anyhow,we were discussing Hermione about a month or two ago. He is 
of 
> the opinion that Hermione is obsessive and compulsive about her 
> studies. But he can't diagnose her with OCD, because her behaviors 
> don't interfere with her daily functioning. However, she can be 
> diagnosed with "Personality Disorder, NOS" (NOS = 'not otherwise 
> specified'). It doesn't mean she's a bad person or even that she's 
> mentally ill. It just means that she has a personality trait that is 
> more apparent in her than in other people. Everyone has varying 
> degrees of obsessive and compulsive behavior. It's only when it gets 
> to either extreme that it becomes pathologic. I've got to admit, 
> studying material that you know by heart over and over and over 
again, 
> seems a little extreme.
>  
> 
> > > The only way I think I can objectively dissect and analyse the
> > > characters is to examine their actions within the context of the
> > > chapter(s) as they take place. I think using the final outcome 
to
> > > interpret their actions in earlier chapters (or in earlier 
books)
> > > gives a somewhat tainted analysis of their actions 'in situ'.
> > 
> 
> I briefly did medical chart reviews for extra income, so I have an 
> inkling of how Demelza is analysing the characters. In medical chart 
> review, ideally you're supposed to review the chart as though the 
> events were unfolding in front of you in order to determine the 
> appropriateness of the care delivered; meaning that 
> appropriate/rational steps were taken at each step. Then you look at 
> the discharge diagnosis and the determine whether or not the care 
was 
> reasonable/appropriate. You're not supposed to look at the discharge 
> diagnosis and use that to determine the appropriateness of the care 
> delivered (most insurance companies and HMOs do it this way so they 
> can save money, which is why I don't do med chart reviews anymore.) 
> Reviewing the chart that way taints its analysis, because it doesn't 
> take into consideration the alternate scenarios the care giver had 
to 
> consider to make the diagnosis. Doing it this way, you can always 
make 
> the case why the delivered care was inappropriate (like I said, it 
> saves lots of money for the company!). But if you review it the 
ideal 
> way, the care (unless they really, really, totally screwed up) can 
be 
> almost always justified because you get a clearer picture of what 
the 
> care givers were facing and why they acted accordingly (the company 
> must reimburse and therefore lose money). The ideal way of 
reviewing, 
> where the chart is examined without pre-conceived notions and as 
> though the events are unfolding before you, is actually fair, 
because 
> it takes the "maybes", "what ifs", and "supposes" into consideration 
> and makes you think "was this reasonable with the information known 
at 
> this point in time".  Like I said, this method doesn't save money.
> 
> I think this is how Demelza is analysing the characters, using the 
> known information that the point in time of the chapter of an 
> incidence, then looking at the conclusions being drawn from it and 
> seeing if the material supports those conclusions. 
> 
> I "chart reviewed" Ginny recently and I have a completely different 
> and more favorable impression of her now.
> 
> :-)Milz (who profusely apologizes for the medical examples and for 
> tainting this forum with dirty words like "insurance companies", 
> "HMOs", "care givers", "reimburse")

Let me clarify this point. In the ideal method of chart review, after 
examining the events as though they are unfolding in front you, you 
then determine the actions taken were reasonable/appropriate to arrive 
at the diagnosis/final outcome. If they aren't reasonable, you have a 
problem (well the care givers have a problem, the patient has a 
problem and the company has grounds to withhold payment for services 
rendered). If they are reasonable, then you don't have a problem, 
unless you're the company 'cause you'll have to pay for the services 
rendered.

:-)Milz (who apologizes once again.)