Wow. This is shocking and are not based on actual proper psychology - either scientific, academic nor clinical.
I'm actually shocked that those who think it is OK to write such things aren't cast out of a profession. The terms are poisonous. But also inciting. It's therefore inappropriately earmarking out for bullying and 'special treatment' based on nothing medical at all, so these people have no mandate from their position to be writing such things about other human beings.
And most of these are just labels out of context, so someone with a disability (or for example who is being offered harmful GET despite guidelines saying it is harmful and should have been removed) gets the label 'used' to hide what is instead bad behaviour from somewhere else in the system. THe last thing healthcare needs is more ways to either be vindictive or for people to cover wrongs by outcasting/putting false slander on the person who might have something valid to complain about, thereby removing the voice/testimony being believed. This says it all about a culture issue doesn't it?
- it seems something which is based purely on the 'administrative' side of the job (GPs deal with rationing and who gets what which is often handed down to them as decisions of how much time, and what can and can't be referred already decided in the form of decision trees etc?), ie whatever someone's actual background many of the tasks implicit within their day are just admin. This could even just be an administrator (I say this having been one in that broader term), and hence why I speak because without such a background to medicine in most organisations such names and descriptions would be met with disgust by those in said organisation, as a sign of the attitude of whoever wrote it.
And the bad organisations who might use it about their customers might tend to think these days about the PR if it got out and not to do so. ie so it wouldn't be funny anymore/would be a pretty serious thing.
I'm shocked people writing this sort of thing aren't sacked, because it would be a scandal anywhere else, but I guess the answer is in who asked them to do it
Using such 'persona' I do know about. And they have to be based on accurate, proper, market research. None of this seems to comply.
As are absent something which is even more important which is checks that those who aren't any of these aren't getting caught up as collateral damage by the concepts/name calling getting short-cut and the full list of criteria being cherry-picked - which I would have to assume could only be used in the most barn-door, absolutely sure and have checked there isn't something else going on (like them being wound up by something beforehand that was perhaps inappropriate, there being good practical disability-based reasons for a request etc)
I very frankly do not understand why they didn't get the professionals in, who do know how to do this ie not these 'psychs' but those who are professionals in services marketing in big businesses so have specialised in these processes and issues, - if there was an actual need (I doubt that is why this is being done, and it's about incitement and propaganda under a trojan horse of 'irritating issues' that apply to other groups - just like when they used 'frequent flyers' who were generally older people and eg alcoholics to then twist said report to being about sending those with MUS out of the medical service to CBT even though they weren't the demographic who were the frquent flyers it was just a switch-and-bait report).
