Скачать книгу

as the Achilles heel of medical dominance.

      Loxley (1997) identifies a number of questions that are useful to inform stages 5 and 6 of ethical mapping:

       Who defines the problem?

       Whose terms are used?

       Who controls the domain or territory?

       Who decides on what resources are needed and how they are allocated?

       Who holds whom accountable?

       Who prescribes the activity of others?

       Who can influence policy makers?

Schematic illustration of ethical mapping.

       Given a similar situation, how could I respond more effectively, for the best and in tune with my vision?

      The practitioner asks

       ‘What are my options for responding differently, more effectively, and in tune with my values, given a similar situation?’ Is my vision still adequate in light of this past experience?

       What are the potential consequences of responding differently?

       How do those influencing factors need to shift so I can respond differently?

      The cue opens a creative space to play with possibility and plant seeds of possibility in the practitioner’s mind (Margolis 1993). It is an invitation to throw open the shutters of the mind to see things laterally, to get out of our normal frame of reference and challenge our habitual ways of perceiving and responding to practice. It is like opening different windows in the mind to see things from new perspectives.

      O'Donohue (1997, pp. 163–164) writes: ‘Through these different windows, you can see new vistas of possibility, presence, and creativity. ‘Complacency, habit, and blindness often prevent you from feeling your life. So much depends on the frame of vision – the window through which we look’.

      In weighing up the best response given a similar situation, the practitioner considers the potential short and long term consequence of each option.

      Yet, it is one thing to consider how to respond differently. It is quite another to act in accordance. The creative tension between vision and reality.

      The practitioner must respond to four challenges:

       Am I skilful and knowledgeable enough to respond differently?

       Do I have the right attitude?

       Am I powerful enough to respond differently?

       Am I poised enough to respond differently?

      In envisaging more effective ways of responding the practitioner must see beyond their previous horizon of responses and ask whether their repertoire of responses is adequate and skilful enough. It opens the door to seek new skills and knowledge and challenge the appropriateness of previous ways of responding.

      Practitioners tend to respond based on three criteria:

       Responses they have used before.

       Responses that have worked before.

       Responses they are comfortable using.

      These criteria reflect a habitual and unreflective practice that may not lead to desirable practice. Other ways may be more appropriate that the practitioner has yet to become aware of. It is a question of opening the mind to possibilities that requires humility that I might not always get it right.

      Yielding is not passive. It is being sensitive to energy flows and extending wisdom. Allow the winds of change to flow through you rather than against you. Be flexible with what is happening today. Yield to the circumstance, yet rooted with who you are.