Individuals with somatic symptom disorders tend to have considerable difficulty with how they experience and appraise their bodily symptoms. The illness and the dysfunctional focus and behavior around the illness can assume a central role in the person’s life.

Somatic symptom disorders were originally thought of as “hysterical,” without legitimate medical causation, or as hypochondriasis. Though thinking has changed, negative judgments about unfounded illnesses can still be attached to individuals with these disorders. The boundary between medical and emotional problems can be further blurred. In some cases, an individual labeled with one of these illnesses may simply be experiencing a developing medical condition that has not yet been well defined. For all of these reasons, social workers need to take particular care in diagnosing somatic symptom disorders and in providing a fully biopsychosocial and multidisciplinary approach.

Required Reading

Cleaveland Clinic. (2019). Conversion Disorder in Adults. Retrieved from https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/17975-conversion-disorder-in-adults

GARD. (2017). Conversion disorder. Retrieved from https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/6191/conversion-disorder

CDC.gov. (2018). What is ME/CFS?. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/me-cfs/about/index.html

CDC.gov. (2018). Treatment of ME/CFS. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/me-cfs/treatment/index.html

Remedy Health Media. (2019). The Biopsychosocial Approach. Retrieved from https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/treatments/psychological/biopsychosocial-approach

Video 

Jennifer Brea Conference Video:

In this Assignment, you describe what that approach might look like for one client.

prepare:

· Imagine that Jennifer Brea, whose TEDTalk (TED Conferences, LLC, 2016) Video you watched, is referred to you for ongoing supportive therapy when her psychiatry consultant decides that she does not have a conversion disorder. Despite the psychiatrist’s opinion, her primary care physician ignores that consult and labels Jennifer with the conversion disorder anyway. Be sure to investigate what the ‘conversion’ diagnosis means when responding.

Assignment

 PowerPoint (5–7 slides) in which you address the following:

· Explain in a concise professional manner how you would conduct your first meeting with Jennifer. Identify specific steps you would take to understand her circumstance and needs.

· Explain how you would proceed with her medical team in terms of advocacy for her as a client believed to have this condition.

· Explain why you would need to take a biopsychosocial approach to her ongoing care.

· Explain what social, family, vocational, Internet, and medical supports you would explore to help with her longer-term stabilization.

· Analyze the controversy in diagnosing a mental disorder based on unexplained physical symptoms. Within your analysis, consider how power and privilege influence who provides the diagnoses and which groups are more likely to be diagnosed with certain disorders. Explain your thoughts on this debate.

Support your presentation with research and references to scholarly literature.

Make sure you add in information in the note section explaining each slides and Include a transcript and/or edit closed captioning in your presentation to ensure your presentation is accessible to colleagues of differing abilities.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

INDUCED STRESS

A proposed 5 ft X 5 ft spread footing will support an office building. The column load plus the weight of the foundation will be 80 kips. The bottom of the foundation is 2 ft below the ground surface. The unit weight of the soil is 121 lb/ft3, v = 0.35 and K = 0.83 (you may not need this info). The water table is at a depth greater than 30 ft. Calculate and plot the induced vertical normal stress below the center of the footing. Plot induced stress at increments of 2 ft to a total depth of 16 ft below the bottom of the footing.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

can someone help answer this question plz.question 1Your instructor will choose the discussion question and post it as the first post in the discussion forum. The requirements for the discussion this week are a minimum of four posts on four separate days including responses to at least two classmates.. The total combined word count for all of your posts for this discussion, counted together, should be at least 600 words. Answer all the questions in the prompt, and read any resources that are required to complete the discussion properly.In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week, complete your initial post by Day 3 (Thursday) and your other posts by Day 7 (Monday). We recommend that you get into the discussion early and spread out your posts over the course of the week. Reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as you can.Week 3, prompt option #1: Creating an Inductively Strong argument (Also check out the attachment)This week we are learning about the power of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is not only extremely common, but it can also provide very good evidence for conclusions. This discussion prompt allows you to present an inductive version of the argument that you have been developing in this course. Prepare: To prepare to write this discussion, read Chapters 5 and 6, focusing especially the section on “Strengthening Inductive Reasoning” in Chapter 5. Take a look as well at the required resources from this week, including What is a Strong Argument? [Link]Reflect: Create a new (and improved) version of the argument that you have been developing throughout this course. Try to make sure that all of your premises are true and that your reasoning is inductively strong. Again, consider how someone with the opposite point of view might criticize your argument and see if you can improve it to avoid those objections.Write: Present your argument in standard form and explain any weaknesses that might remain. A weakness could mean a premise that many might disagree with or questions about the strength of the inference. Indicate briefly how you might address those weaknesses to strengthen your argument further. What further information might strengthen your argument the most?Guided Response: Read the arguments presented by your classmates and analyze the reasoning that they have presented. Comment on the strength of their reasoning. Help them out by pointing out any respect in which a reasonable person might disagree with the truth of their premises or with the strength of their reasoning. Give suggestions for how the argument might be improved. If someone presents good suggestions for your own argument respond with an improved version of the argument.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Inductive reasoning is never-ending!

One interesting thing that we have learned about inductive inference is that it is never final. New information can come along to further strengthen or weaken an inductive inference. This exercise gives you some practice in seeing how inductive reasoning can be strengthened and weakened with new information.

Prepare: To prepare for this prompt take a look at Chapters 5 and 6 in our book, paying special attention to the section titled “Inductive Strength” (including the section “A Closer Look: Using Premises to Affect Inductive Strength”).

Reflect: Fine an inductive argument that occurs in some online source (make sure to cite the source) or think of one that you have heard used in your life. Consider its strength and how it might be strengthened or weakened in light of further information.

Write: Present an example of inductive reasoning. Comment on the strength of the inference. State a premise that could be added that, if true, would strengthen the inference. Now list another premise that could be added that would weaken it again. Now add another premise that could be added to strengthen it yet again. Continue this process even more times if you are enjoying the process and find it interesting.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Black swans and Hildegard “Whole Wheat,” the notorious bread thief.

Inductive reasoning is never-ending because new information can challenge our heretofore strong conclusions. Consider: it used to be thought that all swans were white. “White” was part of the definition of swan. There was even a saying “very much like a black swan,” which meant “something that can’t exist.” It’s sort of like when we say “when pigs fly,” or it’s like a “square circle” –an impossibility. But then in the 16th century, Europe discovered the existence of Australia and with it, the existence of — you guessed it! — Black swans. Before Europeans knew black swans existed, their reasoning about the necessary whiteness of swans was strong. After the discovery of black swans, such reasoning became weak. 

This is the major difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. New evidence doesn’t threaten deductive reasoning like it does inductive reasoning. (But new evidence won’t improve deduction, either.) 

An example to help you with the prompt:

P1. I saw that lady take a loaf of bread without paying for it.

P2. Taking something without payment is stealing

P3. Stealing is a crime. 

P4. People who commit crimes are criminals

————————————————————–

C. That lady is a criminal

To strengthen the conclusion: The lady was purported to be the notorious bread thief, Hildegard “Whole Wheat” Smith. 

To weaken the conclusion: But! I heard from the baker that she prepaid for the loaf of bread yesterday, so she did not take it without payment, so she did not steal, so she is not a criminal. 

To strengthen the conclusion: But then! It turns out the money she gave was counterfeit money! So it wasn’t true payment, so it was stealing!

To weaken the conclusion: However! It turns out Hildegard’s bread thieving was part of a publicity stunt to raise money to fight poverty and hunger, and all bakers were truly compensated after the big reveal. 

To strengthen the conclusion: However! The lady I saw wasn’t Hildegard Whole Wheat, but someone impersonating her! 

See how this could go on and on forever? 

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

This assignment requires you to analyze the network diagram for PureLand Wastewater and make specific recommendations to improve network security. Specifically, you must design zones and conduits as described in Chapter-9 of your text, establishing zones and conduits. Use the Network Security Improvement template for this assignment. The network security improvements you develop will be a part of your cyber security improvement plan.  Your assignment will be graded according to the rubric which can be viewed when clicking on the assignment link.

Assignment Resources:

• Textbook:
  • Industrial Network Security, 2nd Edition by: Joel Thomas Langill and Eric D. Knapp- Chapter 9

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"