CULT CHARACTER OF SHANDS ARTS IN MEDICINE PROGRAM
CONTINUES
By Bob Allston
This is a July 3, 1999, update to my Web site entitled Mainstreaming Arts
in Medicine.
By this time I have been in the Shands Arts in Medicine program
something over 15 months. This page examines a recent exchange of email
demonstrating that the policies of exclusion, isolation, stonewalling and
discrediting continue in the program.
Three recent emails are examined below. The first is from Tina Mullen,
Administrator of the Shands Arts in Medicine program, to me. The second is
my response to hers, and the third is her response back to me again. The
reference to John in the emails is to Dr. John Graham-Pole, one of the two
founders of the program.
Tina's email to me:
hello. do you have time to meet with john and i on friday morining
around 9:30? this is about your participation as a volunteer musician -
which we value highly. we just need to discuss with you some issues coming
from outside the program.
thank you - tina
My response to her email:
Hi Tina,
I will of course look forward to meeting with you and John. Please
confirm and email me a brief description of what is to be addressed and
decided so I won't be cold on it if you don't mind.
I don't know what the scheduled subject is but my AIM Web site has
been out for over two months and as a volunteer I am interested in group
discussions of the issues addressed in it with any AIM members that might
be interested or with John one on one if he prefers.
Paulette Mehta talked with John about my site and mentioned to me he
was interested in talking with me about it. About six weeks ago John
requested me to contact him about it. I emailed John confirming my
interest in discussing it. I saw John at a holistic health group gathering
three weeks ago and at my request he said he was interested in talking
with me about it. However, so far nothing has materialized.
Since my site has come out, I have been asked for the first time not
to go into the BMTU patient waiting room. I have done so cheerfully
although I used to listen with a kind ear to many family member's accounts
of their loved one's characteristically roller coaster medical situations
and offer information about the University, local roads, shopping,
housing, etc. as such subjects arose; as would be expected of any
volunteer. And as such I think its reasonable to say my presence there was
a plus. I have no idea whether my Web site was the inspiration for
removing me or not.
I haven't complained about it, and I'm not now, except to note that it
doesn't make much sense to me. There is however an issue that is of more
concern to me. About a month ago, I was told for the first time that I
would have to leave the mutually beneficial living arrangement that I have
shared for two years with a man that I am very fond of. So I went looking
for another place to live. Then a few days ago I was told that I was
welcome to stay. The timing and circumstances suggest the strong
possibility that some AIM members unhappy with my site may have been
behind it.
I have not registered my AIM Web site with any search engines which
means that it won't come up on a search such as on the phrase "arts in
medicine"; and it isn't available to Web surfers (unless someone else may
have registered it). I also haven't given the URL (address) to anyone
outside of a few local people including all the long time active AIM
members I had the email address for; although no doubt it has been passed
around a bit. As well, I've made no effort to garner support for my views
among people that might be critics. In other words, I've maintained a very
low profile with my Web site in the hope that it would foster a mutual
understanding between myself and the founders of AIM toward an
accommodation.
As a volunteer, and as mentioned in the site, my communications, both
verbal and written, have been rejected in AIM, prompting my Web site,
although of course you did not do so and you have already kindly discussed
with me the issue that addresses you in the site.
In my site, I favor open group discussions of issues, and an "open
door" appeal policy for unresolved or particularly sensitive issues.
However the AIM modus operandi appears to be private discussions with the
founders on issues across the board. John and Mary often see AIM
volunteers and artists in residence on a one on one basis and of course on
a much shorter time frame than the month plus I have been waiting to see
him. Indeed in the over a year that I have been in AIM I have never had a
meeting with him or Mary of any kind to discuss such issues although my
Web site is testimony to the fact that there are numerous issues that as a
volunteer I'm interested in discussing.
Thus I am perplexed why John hasn't seen me sooner and why he
uncharacteristically deems it necessary for you as administrator to be in
the discussions, rather than other AIM people when I presume the subject
at hand hasn't been run by me yet; not that I don't of course enjoy
talking with you.
It is further perplexing to note that the subject of discussion is
something that has come up from outside the program when surely the first
order of business for John, Mary, you if you care to, others in AIM that
care to, and me, is to discuss the many issues relating to mainstreaming
arts in medicine I have been waiting so long to discuss. Thus whatever
the scheduled subject is, I look forward to the opportunity do so in the
near future.
Bob
Below is Tina's response to my email above:
i'm sorry i didn't have time ot resopnd to this before our meeting. i
hope we didn't catch you off guard - but one on one conversations about
such subjects seem to work better - based on our past experience with the
program.
on a personal note - i'm stunned that you are suprised that no one
will discuss your web site with you - it was personally hurtful to all
involved. if you want to talkk to me about it, thats fine. the few who
have read it were so hurt by it that i've asked others not to bother, thus
very few aimers are aware of its content. i try to seperate my personal
feeling from my job - but in this case, be prepared for a heated response.
did your website play a part in the other issues you mentioned - no!
My analysis of the above series of emails follows:
The meeting was cordial and only concerned complaints about my piano
playing; resulting in a significant reduction in my use of the piano which
of course I agreed to.
I came across the head of the Arts in Medicine music section in the
hall the other day and she apparently knew nothing about the matter
although as far as I know, this is the first time any regular player has
been asked to reduce their playing.
As an administrator, it appears Tina has little understanding of
minimum academic, educational, science, etc., standards, or I would think
she would find something more to recommend my site than to merely say it
is hurtful. For, including links, it must contain something over 200 pages
of discussions of AIM related social/cultural/economic/organizational,
etc., issues from various perspectives.
She also doesn't understand that organizational theory fully supports
the critical analysis of the actions of key people to determine the nature
of organizational problems in a non-profit organization such as AIM. For
those in an organization, it is to be expected and tolerated if not
necessarily enjoyed. It simply goes with the territory and it is clearly
long overdue for someone to examine AIM.
Obviously, I'd much prefer that someone else was doing it. However,
whoever does it, I hope of course it will result in a good professional
environment in which to run with (develop, study ,explore) the healthcare
value of the art/mind/body idiom.
Tina is also advising AIMers away from the site apparently merely on
the grounds it is hurtful; thus discrediting both me and the site,
and turning inner circle AIMers away from gaining any knowledge of what is
in it, and thus significantly diminishing the possibility the site might
generate change from within AIM. She may have decided to characterize the
site as hurtful for of course any reason, however, it has been previously characterized in this manner.
As mentioned in the site, my previous AIM papers were also ignored and
this just appears to be a continuation of the same policy of blocking
inner circle AIMers from exposure to the issues I have been raising.
During the discussions, I reiterated my desire to have a talk with
John, and said I didn't see that the two of us had any serious differences
although I might have some differences with some other AIMers; to which he
just smiled. As mentioned in my email above, he has been saying he would
meet with me for some time.
However, I passed John in the Atrium on Wednesday, June 30, and he
said he would try to see me the next week.
Tina suggests that no one wants to talk with me about the site. In the
talks, I reiterated the position that we had no AIM sponsored talks about
subjects such as those presented in the Web site and needed them. Indeed,
I don't have any trouble finding people outside of AIM's inner circle to
discuss issues from the site with and the overwhelming majority support
most of what is in it. However there's little object in bothering people
outside of AIM with it anyway; for its the people in AIM's "inner circle"
I want to reach, who are apparently being conditioned to believe it is
merely a hurtful outburst of some kind, with nothing of value otherwise.
I have already had a short chat with Tina with limited results and now
that it appears all the arguments in the site mean nothing to her, I'm
skeptical more discussions would lead to anything and I might risk getting
into some meaningless tiff with her under such circumstances. In short, if
all the 200 pages of arguments and documentation in the site are water off
a duck's back, I can't expect much more verbally.
Thus it appears that all the principals, John, Mary and Tina have
little or no appreciation for such standards, at least the way I have
portrayed them, and between them I expect they may have effectively
stacked the deck in AIM's inner circle with people who have little or no
appreciation for them either; although I hasten to add I know they don't
all think this way. Of course the fact that John is head of pediatric
oncology at Shands and Mary is a a Ph.D nursing candidate carries a
great deal of weight with anyone, as it did previously with me.
Considering that we are at the fourth largest State's best university
and teaching hospital, finding people of this nature is somewhat of a feat
in itself.
Indeed, if you went looking for professional people around Shands you
would be lost to find more than a handful that would feel anything like
comfortable with AIM assuming they knew it very well. Indeed many of them
would probably be in John's close circle of friends; although I hasten to
add that I would assume he also has many friends with more conventional
views. Also of course, most people around Shands don't know the Arts in
Medicine program in detail.
Down at the piano a few days ago, there were a number of people (who
play the piano) gathered around the piano and I was asked to play. It was
a bit awkward because when I said I couldn't play because of complaints
against me, they all simply thought I was joking and it took the longest
time to convince them I wasn't.
In thinking it over, they had a point because such a thing simply
hasn't happened before with anyone playing the piano on a regular basis,
as far as I know. Someone complained about my playing a long time ago, but
nobody asked me to play less and I just played softer and heard nothing
more about it.
I presume Tina's email statement above stating "did your website play
a part in the other issues you mentioned - no!" refers to my comments that
my Web site may have been motivation for other AIM members to put pressure
on my living arrangement and getting me kicked out of the BMTU waiting
room. However, even though she categorically denies it, I'm lost to see
how she could possibly deny it, because she's got no way of knowing. Thus
I'm wondering how many of these things could be retaliation from AIMers
who are in effect being primed to rationalize doing such things due to
the fact the administrative head of the program is vilifying me.
It also appears it would be rather easy to complain about anyone. I
gather that in the case of both the BMTU waiting room and the piano, the
name of the complainant is never revealed.
Many AIMers know people around the Atrium where the piano is; and thus
justified by the administrative head of the program's characterization of
me, it wouldn't be difficult to enlist someone to make a complaint.
I hope this policy doesn't precipitate more serious retaliation as
well; for some AIM members tend to associate their entire personal
fortunes, stature and careers with their position in AIM.
In sum then, in looking over my past fifteen months or so with AIM,
somewhat of a profile of how AIM manages to avoid addressing its low
standards emerges.
Someone who comes into AIM and attempts to demonstrate that it doesn't
meet standards might anticipate: (1), not being recognized at meetings,
(2), having their papers ignored, (3), being vilified for allegedly making
personal attacks on AIM people, and (4), being subjected to various forms
of harassment otherwise.
July 30, 1999, update. Please note that
everything on this Web page was placed here at the time of the July 3,
1999, update and I haven't changed anything on it to reflect the events of
this July 30, 1999, update except to insert this paragraph linking to the
update here and change the paragraph numbers to reflect the new
paragraph.
As to why anyone would go to all this trouble to maintain AIM as it
is, my guess is that John and Mary have ideological perspectives they
believe can't be accommodated through conventional standards. I guess
Mary's new age and pop culture rhetoric are relatively self explanatory in
this regard, however just what John has to gain from this modus operandi,
isn't clear to me.
Perhaps I should clarify my position on new age and pop culture things
in the program. I certainly don't have a problem with it as long as it
isn't confusing patients regarding good medical treatment and
isn't replacing good academic/research/educational/science, etc.,
standards. AIM can and should recruit people from all walks and
beliefs.
However when it comes to such things as research into the
effectiveness of what we do, education of our members and others,
organizational relationships with staff and volunteers, writing and
documentation for the public and academic community, etc., then we've got
to maintain generally accepted standards to be credible. Mary Lane and
John, as founders, both cross this line. At the same time, from the little
I know of this rather broad issue regarding our artists, my guess is that
some of our best artists would probably be quite comfortable within good
standards.
However, be that as it may, AIM does nothing to appraise people that
it doesn't support a good professional academic/arts/science/educational
environment; and it is thus unfair to those who, for whatever reason,
become involved with AIM and anticipate moving forward with the
art/mind/body idiom in a progressive professional manner.
Thus for me, only after investing over a year in AIM and making
numerous attempts to contribute to it as an unpaid volunteer in a very
respectful and polite manner, has it become increasingly apparent to me
that good standards aren't supported and those who are accustumed to them
or otherwise expect them may not be popular with the founders and
administrator. And it is inevitable that others are also investing time
in AIM to varying degrees, only to find themselves being marginalized or
pressured to get out as well.
Shands is an academic/research/scientific/health care organization,
with numerous state, federal, local, foundation, private, public, etc.,
sources of funding, some of which goes to AIM; in which standards of
various kinds are expected. As well, staff must have a reasonable
educational/research/scientific/health care environment to be
productive and credible.
One could easily find yet more reasons but suffice it to say, it
follows that anyone in such an organization has both the right and duty to
maintain this environment and when they find it appears sub-standard, make
a case for improvement-- without being harassed, vilified, marginalized,
stonewalled, etc.
I look at it this way: There is somewhat of a standing joke (with more
than a grain of truth) about small rapidly growing business organizations
that typically go to venture capitalists to finance expansion. For their
trouble, the hard working proprietors are told to leave their management
positions and replace themselves with managers with a good track record
from larger well managed corporations to run their companies. (Microsoft
being a notable exception). Also, if a business suffers from poor
management, it may go broke in which case it typically suffers a radical
shake up of people across the board, again dictated by outside people, in
this case a bankruptcy court. And of course, well run businesses often
make radical changes as a matter of course to stay abreast of market
conditions.
In this process, people who challenge long established modus operandi
in these organizations are often accused of airing animosities and gripes
by those who are hurt or prefer the status quo.
For better or worse, this is simply the way the system works and from
the broad sociological and economic standpoint these dynamics are socially
beneficial.
At the same time, non-profit organizations such as our AIM are less
(or simply not) subject to such self correcting market dynamics; often
allowing them to drift along for years getting increasingly self indulgent
without ever having a good hard look at themselves.
Then if change belatedly arrives, it can be viewed as aberrant,
destructive or hurtful by those accustomed to the security of a long
standing self justifying status quo; while in the broader view it is
simply (hopefully) healthy corrective organizational change.
Keep in mind also, that if my site makes no sense to anyone, clearly
it won't generate any change. However, if it does then perhaps it will. In
short, whatever ideas I may have, they don't mean anything unless others
find them meaningful.
Thus, some may view what I'm attempting to do as aberrant or
unnecessarily destructive or hurtful. But whether they do or not, I
personally view it as an attempt to foster beneficial change through the
social/organizational dynamics I'm talking about here.
Of course, if there was any way to attempt it within AIM rather than
through a Web site, I would have jumped at it. And of course the fact that
there wasn't, is one of AIM's more serious problems in and of itself. For,
as far as I know there still isn't any AIM forum of any kind for general
discussion of issues raised by members. The founders continue to keep a
tight lid on what is discussed. At the same time I should mention that I'm
not privy to much of what goes on, and unless someone tells me something
or I come across it otherwise, I could easily miss it.
Of course, as I have mentioned previously, my site is only about my
personal views and the Web is full of such sites; most of which few people
pay any attention to. So saying however, I hope the effort I have put into
the site will produce some beneficial change.
In my Web site on the legal profession, I use terminology such as
corrupt, degenerate, greedy, arrogant, etc., in describing lawyers. You
won't find any such terminology anywhere in this site. To the contrary,
AIM has been good to me and it has many great people that I have very much
enjoyed working with.
There are of course many problems with having poor standards beyond
just the problems created specifically within AIM; and I will touch on
just one here:
Professional people who come to Shands, or otherwise interact with
Shands, expect to see good standards and it all goes to make up the
hospital's collective reputation in the professional and patient
community.
These dynamics are, however, highly accentuated with the introduction
of the Web. Increasingly, more professional people, students, etc.,
looking for a medical school or staff position of some kind will get their
first impression of Shands through surfing the Web, than through other
means.
If they have heard of the arts in medicine program and want to have a
look at it, they will most likely find one or more of Mary Lane's Web
pages and John GP's Dr. Artist page although probably not Don Lutz's
pages. I don't remember off hand just what else is out there, except of
course the official Shands site which covers AIM.
Such people surfing the Web typically have a lot of ground to cover
and there is nothing to be gained from emailing in negative views on
something like AIM or most anything else. Thus, very little negative
feedback will get back to Shands compared for instance to those who visit
Shands.
However when they see Mary Lane, as a Ph.D candidate in the nursing
school, healing the earth and presenting other new age or pop culture
rhetoric, it can't help but register. And it is inevitable that it will
place Shands at a competitive disadvantage, no matter how slight, in the
minds of such prospective students or staff.
If they aren't used to something like this in their own institutions,
they might wonder a bit whether the whole nursing school or other Shands
healthcare disciplines are in the business of healing the earth as well.
Questions might be raised about the Dr. Artist article as well, although
its linguistic complexity probably saves it to some degree.
And the more competent and desirable such prospective students or
staff might be, the more places they will have their choice of going to;
and thus the more such a negative impression will make a difference in
their choice.