Experiencing difficulty. Have been aware of this for a few days now and have been unable to “shake it off.” Have decided the best means to address the issue is to use the blog and “write it out,” to attempt an analysis and gain understanding of the difficulty.

Breakthrough Moments

In January 2013 there was a breakthrough moment as I became aware of the distinction between my “applied self,” the one who mustered the effort to write the insurance appeal, and the “space self,” the apathetic persona who operated at a much reduced level. Having experienced this distinction, I was able to act as described in Goethe’s Faust: “Whosoever unceasingly strives upward . . . him can we save.”

The 2013 breakthrough moment gave me increased perspective. I sense I am undergoing another “breakthrough moment,” and a further increase in perspective. 2013 resulted in increased application and effort. This 2015 “breakthrough” appears to be having an opposite effect.

The Evidence

This section describes events occurring within a relatively short span of time. Each of these events appears to have contributed to the change in mental outlook.

1.0   It is Over Fantasy

Described in this post, this was a very powerful moment. I now look at the period from January 2013 to the immediate present as constituting me in a tube. My attention was constricted and very narrowly focused. The focus of attention was on my dealings with the insurance company, and the attempt to gain funding for what I understood to be critically necessary rehabilitation. Without that funding I was doomed to never recover. A key aspect of this fantasy was contacting Colin, letting him know the fight was over, and arranging for us to meet and celebrate this fact.

Until this fantasy moment, my focus had been fixed on the tasks associated with fighting the case. In effect, my case submissions, and associated filings, constituted my program of rehabilitation. Once I commenced walk therapy, the positive results were applied in the insurance battle. There was no sense of this conflict ever being finished, only awareness of the next submission to be made. Dr D told me that I should take a vacation. I understood the concept of “time off” but beyond that it made little sense to me. I had to push forward.

2.0   Meeting N

This was powerful for a number of reasons, chief among them the fact it was my first opportunity for true mTBI peer to peer communication. In Ghost in My Brain, Elliot describes TBI victims sharing a sense of having become alien, non-human entities. They have lost their humanity, those aspects of the self that contribute to bonding and active participation in the ceaseless tide of what it means to be human.

When I meet with non-concussives, I am wary and careful in my behaviour. When I meet with my doctors, I am less wary but still conscious of a barrier, of the difference between their experience and mine, the lack of words to precisely articulate and share that experience. Meeting with W gave the first profound sense of being able to speak of the injury experience, and have it immediately understood (W has experience of acquired brain injury). This rapport was tempered by the fact that W was my boss. I wanted to impress the boss and not disclose all my problems. Regardless, this relationship was very beneficial to my understanding of my injury.

The brain injury support group is intended to create an environment for direct exchange between concussives. I found it difficult to follow the conversational thread. I also have a history of not being a “group guy.” My character better fits that of “The cat who walks by himself.”

3.0   Ghost in My Brain

I have had difficulty reading this book. The printed volume has been sent back and replaced by a Kindle edition which I find more readable. But readability is not the only problem. The content is hard to accept. The forward to the book contained a paragraph which had a very negative impact.

The book has not been fully read. It has delivered better understanding, and increased insight into TBI and the means to recover (basis for another post). But it has also reinforced a number of adverse understandings:

1. The medical community lacks understanding of TBI
2. Society lacks awareness of TBI and its effects
3. Specialists who are supposed to have, or are required to have, or maintain, knowledge of contemporary science in respect of TBI, fail to act in accord with their professional obligations
4. Government and other bodies engaged in oversight of item 3) fail to act in accord with their obligations toward their citizens
5. Some medical professionals deliberately act in ways that serve to undermine and injure their patients
6. Elliott, the author of Ghost in My Brain, spent over 8 years in the search for an appropriate rehabilitation methodology. I have only spent 3 years in the same search. The notion that 3 years is not yet the halfway point is difficult to accept
7. Elliott had financial resources and professional networks not available to me, or to the majority of TBI victims

While the book has provided insight into mTBI, it has also illuminated the depths of the injury, and the difficulty of making full recovery. It is like being at the bottom of a well and lighting a single match. Suddenly, you can see your hands again, Oh Joy! In the same instant comes the forced awareness that you are situated at the bottom of a deep well, lack climbing, or communications gear, and your single match is about to extinguish itself.

4.0   Deliberate Ignorance

My basic assumption in my battle with the insurer is that the conflict deals with facts, and the presentation of those facts. Once I make full presentation of the current science in respect of mTBI, then the insurer will recognize its errors and my case will be successfully resolved.

Yesterday was a fine fall day; I went for an extended walk in an attempt at self-cheer. While walking, I came to the realization that the insurer’s actions are not those of an innocent and misinformed institution. The insurer provides sponsorship to the Marie Robert Neurotrauma Foundation which is a leading Québec scientific institution dedicated to brain trauma research. The insurer cannot provide this sponsorship and then pretend it does not understand the basics of contemporary brain science.

It should not be necessary for me to have to present contemporary medical science to the insurer. The law is clear. The insurer is required to provide coverage for all forms of injury stemming from a motor vehicle accident. They are not allowed to pick and choose one form of injury and reject another. In essence, they have decided to reject acknowledgement of mTBI.

When this realization hit, there followed a shocked awareness of the insurer as being engaged in willful blindness. My travails are not due to the insurer not knowing. They are due to the insurer not wanting to know. The motive? If the insurer were to recognize my claim then it will be forced to recognize the claims of similarly afflicted citizens of Québec. Were the insurer forced to pay out on these claims this would result in a change to its revenue model. The persons in charge of the insurer appear to have greater concern for the protection of their own entitlements then they have for the fulfillment of their mandate to deliver insurance protection to the citizen’s of Québec.