Listen now | Joletta Belton writes and speaks about her experience with chronic pain so that patients, clinicians and researchers can understand the patient perspective. I have heard Joletta speak several times at pain conferences in San Diego and in Oslo, Norway, and each time she had one of the most informative and engaging presentations.
Wow so many gems in this podcast. Lots of gratitude to Joletta for her being able to share her heroic journey. So much strength and resilience there. And now contributing in this field from it ! Amazing.
Thank you Todd. There’s so many gems to be heard , which touch on so many levels. “ love and be loved” Lorimer. Compassion , space to tell story , etc ..
Gibes me great gratitude for the school I went too , and it’s emphasis on building a compassionate listener.
And one last thing , I heard Joletta become hopeful at some point. Perhaps through her own experience of snowboarding again and femur not exploding out. Wanted to touch on instilling hope , seems very important. And I keep hearing Peter osullivans name coming up. Any podcast with him ? Thank you
In the early 1990’s I attended a lecture on the history of Worker’s Compensation Scheme’s around the world, their origin and general makeup. The presentation was from an academic medical doctor whose name escapes me.
In NZ where I work and live, our Worker’s Comp is called the Accident Compensation Corporation, which is a no fault compensation scheme for an injury caused by accident.. This accident can be from a mental or physical cause.
Essentially ALL Worker’s Comp schemes around the world, are apparently modelled on the first ever scheme which was set up in Prussia by Otto von Bismark around the 1880-90’s if my memory serves me. It was modelled on essentially three categories of worthiness
1) The injured worker injured at work. Most worthy category
2) The injured worker injured whilst not at work. Less worthy but still worthwhile.
3) The malingerer. Not at all worthy and should not be compensated.
ALL systems/internal processes of all Comp Scheme’s are designed to detect 3) above, to ensure that ‘malingerers’ receive no money/help.
Thus when you enter a Worker’s Comp scheme (as a claimant) you are continually required to prove that you are not in group 3) above.
The final point of the talk was a question. If you are continually required to prove that your problem/pain is real, how does this affect your chances of getting better?
This lecture came to mind as I listened to Joletta’s early history.
It is something I have kept in my mind when an ACC patient (particularly long term claimants) presents to me.
I am not sure that I have an easy answer to this conundrum but with the improved learning about chronic pain now, as compared to the early 1990’s, it is definitely food for thought.
Wow so many gems in this podcast. Lots of gratitude to Joletta for her being able to share her heroic journey. So much strength and resilience there. And now contributing in this field from it ! Amazing.
Thank you Todd. There’s so many gems to be heard , which touch on so many levels. “ love and be loved” Lorimer. Compassion , space to tell story , etc ..
Gibes me great gratitude for the school I went too , and it’s emphasis on building a compassionate listener.
And one last thing , I heard Joletta become hopeful at some point. Perhaps through her own experience of snowboarding again and femur not exploding out. Wanted to touch on instilling hope , seems very important. And I keep hearing Peter osullivans name coming up. Any podcast with him ? Thank you
In the early 1990’s I attended a lecture on the history of Worker’s Compensation Scheme’s around the world, their origin and general makeup. The presentation was from an academic medical doctor whose name escapes me.
In NZ where I work and live, our Worker’s Comp is called the Accident Compensation Corporation, which is a no fault compensation scheme for an injury caused by accident.. This accident can be from a mental or physical cause.
Essentially ALL Worker’s Comp schemes around the world, are apparently modelled on the first ever scheme which was set up in Prussia by Otto von Bismark around the 1880-90’s if my memory serves me. It was modelled on essentially three categories of worthiness
1) The injured worker injured at work. Most worthy category
2) The injured worker injured whilst not at work. Less worthy but still worthwhile.
3) The malingerer. Not at all worthy and should not be compensated.
ALL systems/internal processes of all Comp Scheme’s are designed to detect 3) above, to ensure that ‘malingerers’ receive no money/help.
Thus when you enter a Worker’s Comp scheme (as a claimant) you are continually required to prove that you are not in group 3) above.
The final point of the talk was a question. If you are continually required to prove that your problem/pain is real, how does this affect your chances of getting better?
This lecture came to mind as I listened to Joletta’s early history.
It is something I have kept in my mind when an ACC patient (particularly long term claimants) presents to me.
I am not sure that I have an easy answer to this conundrum but with the improved learning about chronic pain now, as compared to the early 1990’s, it is definitely food for thought.