A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevant

My question to you is: When you start working as an intern or resident and it comes time to do your rotation in an infectious disease clinic, how do you plan to weed out the persons with HIV who got it via means that you feel are "ok" and "means that you deem blameworthy?" Are you under the misguided assumption that medical charts come to you with a big red sign on them that says: This person got HIV via...fill in the mode of transmission here?

Will you also withhold your sympathy for those with a multiplicity of illness that have behavioral causes. Will you stand and look in the eyes of family members of persons with strokes and say, "Well, I have no sympathy for them, if they had taken their high blood pressure medicine, this would never have happened." When you treat people with heart problems will you say to them, "I don't feel sorry for you, it's your own damn fault for eating fried foods all those years?" The list goes on. Are you a religious person that believes in the concepts of sin and death? The Bible says, "The wages of sin is death," and "All have sinned and come short of God's glory." Thus, do you also believe that Christian ministers that hold to those beliefs should, when they have church members that die, not sympathize with family members? After all, if that person had not sinned, they would not have died?



You are a sorry excuse for a medical student. I have little doubt you'll be weeded out yourself.

 

A big thank you to peacemaker! You've taught me a very good lesson about the whole living with HIV thing and people's attitudes. I've only known a couple of positives in passing so this whole issue hasn't touched my life and I never gave it much thought. I was one of the people that thought this episode was too late in coming - I see now that I was wrong.

Thanks again for giving my poor, old brain a jump start, and getting me thinking about the issue....

 

Thank you for that. I have epilepsy - which isn't even a condition you can "get" off someone else; to put it generally, you're either born with it or develop it due to something like a brain tumour or a head injury. I don't know how it is in other countries but here (GB) it's still stigmatised in that people are ignorant about it, think there's something majorly wrong with you and look askance at you when you state pure and simple "I've got epilepsy therefore I can't drive/can't do such-and-such a job/am not insured to do such-and-such (delete as appropriate)." The authorities here make no effort to explain what epilepsy is, what happens, what to do if someone has an attack, etc. A couple of years ago a newspaper reported that a diabetic epileptic man had killed someone and stressed his two conditions. But there was no reason for either of them to have prompted or excused what he did. I was extremely angry at this gratuitous reporting and wrote to the paper who, I think, must have got the idea because they published it....No wonder people find it easier to hide or just not talk about conditions they might have - the reactions are just too predictably negative. It's about time some people had a kick up the backside.

 

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

I'm going to jump on the unpopular bandwagon for a minute. The question becomes, how does one separate objecting to irresponsible behavior -- drunk driving, chain smoking, drug abuse, unprotected sex with partners of unknown sexual history -- from feeling compassion for someone who is suffering the consequences of that behavior?

I'm not being rhetorical. My mother was killed by a drunk driver. One of my in-laws smoked so ferociously he insisted on going through an entire pack of cigarettes (in about an hour) a day after a heart attack, which gave him a stroke which paralyzed half his body. He continued to smoke for the next 30-odd years until he lost his tongue, jaw, and most of his throat to cancer. Then it went north. He died slowly and painfully.

How do I express objections to the behavior, which is clearly damaging, without then holding the person responsible for the consequences of his or her actions?


The Vulcan who forcibly mind-melded with T'Pol -- attempted mental rape -- should be held accountable for the assault. That was the reprehensible act. Obviously Vulcans can and do meld safely and willingly without hurting one another. The rape did not cause the disease.

Sex doesn't cause HIV. Promiscuous sex doesn't cause HIV. Drug use doesn't cause HIV. But these acts expose people to HIV. I object to the acts.


Maybe I'm a cold-hearted bitch, but I can't find it in my heart to be sympathetic when someone says "I drove drunk and wrapped my car around a telephone pole" or "I've smoked two packs a day for twenty years and now I have terminal lung cancer" or "I did a huge dose of methadone last night and now I'm vomiting blood" or "I had unprotected sex with a different person every week for the last six months and now I've got X disease."

When someone says "I am not sympathetic to someone who is HIV-positive because I believe that it can only be transmitted through high-risk behavior," this is ignorance of how HIV is transmitted. Patently not everyone HIV-positive did something stupid.

(Another aspect to this I've just realized: all the behaviors above EXCEPT the sexual acts are addictive: alcohol, nicotine, drugs. Is that why people who contracted HIV through unprotected sex get slammed even harder? Because there's no "I couldn't help it, I couldn't stop myself" kind of excuse?)


peacemaker, I recognize my own prejudice. Help enlighten me. (I'm an atheist; you can skip the scripture.) What should I think of people who do irresponsible things and then suffer horrible consequences? You've posted that you do outreach of sorts. What do you tell people to help them change their minds? I'm willing to listen.

 

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

I understand where you're coming from, but it is possible to sympathize and disapprove of reckless behavior to similtaneously. While I see the importance of personal accountablity, and taking responsibilty for one's behavior, the situation is not that cut and dry.

There are often mitigating circimstances for self-destructive behavior. For instance, Alcoholism and Drug addiction are recognized diseases, often inherited. While this doesn't excuse dunk-driving, some people are in the grips of a progressive, deadly cycle which they are incapable of escaping. Similarly, tobacco addiction is one of the physcially hardest addictions to break, and some simply aren't capable of it., even if death is imminent.

Clinical Depression can also lead to self-destructinve behavior such as un-safe promiscious sex. Lack of value in ones own life can lead to suicidal risk taking. Gay people who have been emotionally abused by their family/community/peers/society, often fall into this category. Thankfully, as society becomes more mature in it's attitudes about sexual orientation, the disproportionate rate of suicide, depression, alcoholism, and HIV among gay people is decreasing.

 

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

I hope peacemaker answers, but you're not by yourself in that wagon. (What ticked me off in this thread was the poster who seemed to imply that the evil-doers deserve no care, but the innocent deserve care.) I often have compassion for people I feel little or no sympathy for. Someone is hurting, someone is dying. It says something about "me" as to how I treat them or advocate treating them.
(If someone is a protector (doctor, therapist, policeman)the problem with knowing how someone got where they are is that it makes it too easy to jump to conclusions: i.e. the argument in Stigma. The disease was equated with the group of people, and because the people were "bad" the disease was not worth study, treatment, or cure. To not cure disease, not treat the sick, not educate the ignorant and not encourage the rest to do better ... well, it flies against self interest, let alone morality.

 

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

This may feel like an aside but, doesn't it feel good to be discussing REAL issues as raised by a new Star Trek episode for once instead of how Enterprise is all about T n' A or how some people thought Nemesis sucked?

I, for one, hope TPTB keep stories like this coming because this is the best I've felt about Trek in a while. Sure, there are still people who think Enterprise is the worst thing since Hitler and will NEVER like it but so what? I like all Star Trek. I'm not a gusher and I do sometimes get pissed off when TPTB do things I don't approve of. But, I'm just one fan.

Either way, I thought Stigma was well done!

 

In my 23 years as a registered nurse/public health nurse, I have never, and I mean never refused to treat anyone based on some misguided belief that "they deserved to get sick, therefore let them die." If this is an example of the attitude of what the upcoming doctors will be, then it's time for me to retire. I refuse to be a part of a compassion-less medical community.

I apologize to the moderators of this forum. But this post upset me to no end. Ban me if you must.

rikertroi :'(

[/QUOTE]

Twist his words then pretend to be sickened. He never ever stated he would refuse to treat them.

He said why should he cared about them.

Don't twist his words to support your crap.

 

"It is the same thing in Africa. Those people are litterally wiping themselves out with AIDS. The uneducated people I have sympathy for. They don't have the understanding to protect themselves. The people who do know about how HIV and AIDS is transfered and don't protect against it do not desearve care. If a person WILLINGLY and with FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN continues to run the risk of getting a desease, it is their own damn fault." - VoyagerLuver.

"The people who do know how HIV and AIDS is transfered and don't protect against it do not desearve care."
Coming from someone planning to study medicine I certainly took this to mean that he/she didn't think they ought to be cared for, medically. Rikertroi was talking about his attitude. No, I doubt if Rikertroi or I seriously considered this poster was going to become a "stealth" doctor and make up his own rules as he went along, but it would certainly give me pause if I knew my physician didn't think I deserved medical care for the condition I was suffering from.
If that's NOT what was meant by that paragraph, well then the poster was just unsympathic, not professionally bankrupt.

well, check in again tonight, see if anyone else has a spare cup of the milk of human kindness... or if the thread dies an honorable death.

 

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

There are several ways to look at it. "You reap what you sow..." "Karma" "the mortal coil" ...there are several words for it. Everything we do has consequences, one of these days, you will do something that will make you desire the sympathy, empathy, or help of others. Consider this: even if you are an atheist, it's hard to escape the idea that if look at people the way that our med. student here said he does, then you don't mind if people do that to you or somebody you love.

This leads to...

How, really, honestly, do you think that would make you feel. Stop to consider for a moment what life is like for somebody with a stigmatized illness. If you can honestly say you want to feel that way yourself and that, if you were that person, you'd be okay with that, then your lack of sympathy or empathy is justifiable. Just remember, bitterness rots the root. How many bitter people do you know that are genuinely happy people?

Lastly, with regard to HIV in particular, our med student here assumed that it was a. his business to know how somebody got infected, and b. he would somehow find out how an HIV positive person got infected. In order to withhold treatment, he'd have to have that information at hand. Why is it his business? If it's his business to know because he needs to do triage with it, that speaks for itself.
Which is more efficient and satisfying? Which is more humane? Would you rather expend your energy doing moral triage or is it better to simply care for people for being people.

I believe people have intrinsic value. I do not do moral triage. I may not like the actions of others. I'm an evangelical Christian, you're an atheist. We're at odds on our worldviews. However, that doesn't mean I would ever withhold my help, sympathy, or anything from you in the way of love and compassion. In my case, that is because I believe all people are created in God's image and as such deserve love, care, compassion, empathy and respect for one reason: they exist, not because of anything they have said or done that I may or may not like. You're an atheist, you may have similar values, not with the theological reason, but there are nontheistic ways of articulating the same idea.

The whole I idea of knowing how somebody got infected is at the heart of Stigma. The whole reason T'Pol refused to disclose her psychic rape was because she knew it would used to fuel the prejudice of the establishment. That's exactly the feeling we positives have when asked "How did you get it?" We've seen it too many times. Why should negatives draw such a distinction, when we, the positives, do not?

One more point...are many HIV positive people suffering the consequences of their actions? Yes, they are. However, how are you to determine that? Is it really your business to know, and, if you do know, consider this...Those of us with HIV that may be or rather "are" suffering the consequences of actions that are considered to be distasteful, immoral, or irresponsible, then is it incumbent upon you or anybody else to compound that? Is the withholding of sympathy or empathy, or treatment itself truly part of those consequences. Is it your job to pile more negative consequences on our heads than what we already have in the disease itself and other consequences we've suffered. What abt. those whose families have shunned them or friends have dropped them? Is it our med. student's duty or your duty or my duty to add insult to injury and reject them too? Of course not.

 

Twist his words then pretend to be sickened. He never ever stated he would refuse to treat them.

He said why should he cared about them.

Don't twist his words to support your crap.

[/QUOTE]

Um, med student boy said that "they obviously don't care abt. their health, why should I care?" He also said, that certain groups "do not deserve care."

No words were twisted. His meaning was quite clear, and rikertroi represented them perfectly.

 

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

(Bold stuff is peacemaker's quotes...)

Everything we do has consequences, one of these days, you will do something that will make you desire the sympathy, empathy, or help of others.


One of these days? *chuckle* How about on an hourly basis?


if you look at people the way that our med. student here said he does, then you don't mind if people do that to you or somebody you love.

Let me be absolutely crystal clear: I do not agree with the idea that objecting to irresponsible behavior means the person doesn't get medical care. That's insane, it's asinine, it's cruel. Yes, I would drag a drunk driver from the wreck of his car and bind his wounds. But don't expect me to visit him in the hospital and bring him flowers.


If you can honestly say you want to feel that way yourself and that, if you were that person, you'd be okay with that, then your lack of sympathy or empathy is justifiable. Just remember, bitterness rots the root

I think you're blending a few things here. I hold myself responsible for my own stupid actions. Still kicking myself over any number of them. That isn't bitterness. I expect others to hold me accountable for my own stupid actions also.


Lastly, with regard to HIV in particular, our med student here assumed that it was his business to know how somebody got infected,

of course not, and I addressed this above. I'm not talking about medical care. I'm talking about Karma, as you called it earlier.


However, that doesn't mean I would ever withhold my help, sympathy, or anything from you in the way of love and compassion.

Then you're a better man than I am, Charlie Brown.


The whole I idea of knowing how somebody got infected is at the heart of Stigma. The whole reason T'Pol refused to disclose her psychic rape was because she knew it would used to fuel the prejudice of the establishment. That's exactly the feeling we positives have when asked "How did you get it?" We've seen it too many times. Why should negatives draw such a distinction, when we, the positives, do not?

I am not advocating asking someone how s/he got infected. It's no one's business. I agree with T'Pol's decision also. However, the situation in the episode is not what we're discussing here. The Vulcans were neglecting research on the disease because it conveniently killed off people whose behavior they objected to. That is not my point. (It's abhorrent!) My stance would be to say to Tolaris, "Why are you melding with anyone who's interested without first determining if this person has Pa'nar Syndrome?"


Is it really your business to know,

It is not, of course.


Those of us with HIV that may be or rather "are" suffering the consequences of actions that are considered to be distasteful, immoral, or irresponsible, then is it incumbent upon you or anybody else to compound that? Is the withholding of sympathy or empathy, or treatment itself truly part of those consequences. Is it your job to pile more negative consequences on our heads than what we already have in the disease itself and other consequences we've suffered. What abt. those whose families have shunned them or friends have dropped them? Is it our med. student's duty or your duty or my duty to add insult to injury and reject them too? Of course not.

Then how do I separate my compassion from condoning the irresponsible behavior in the first place? That's my dilemma. If I offer sympathy, I am saying "This is not your fault." But irresponsible behavior IS the fault of the person doing it. And I can't support irresponsible behavior. Back to square one.

 

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

(posting again in case you missed it
I understand where you're coming from, but it is possible to sympathize and disapprove of reckless behavior similtaneously. While I see the importance of personal accountablity, and taking responsibilty for one's behavior, the situation is not that cut and dry.

There are often mitigating circimstances for self-destructive behavior. For instance, Alcoholism and Drug addiction are recognized diseases, often inherited. While this doesn't excuse dunk-driving, some people are in the grips of a progressive, deadly cycle which they are incapable of escaping. Similarly, tobacco addiction is one of the physcially hardest addictions to break, and some simply aren't capable of it., even if death is imminent.

Clinical Depression can also lead to self-destructinve behavior such as un-safe promiscious sex. Lack of value in ones own life can lead to suicidal risk taking. Gay people who have been emotionally abused by their family/community/peers/society, often fall into this category. Thankfully, as society becomes more mature in it's attitudes about sexual orientation, the disproportionate rate of suicide, depression, alcoholism, and HIV among gay people is decreasing.

 

Jeez, I hope B&B do an allegory on race next because a lot of you guys don't seem to give a crap about discrimination when it concerns race.... but when it concerns people with HIV, however, you show much love. And before I get a bunch of responses telling me how wrong I am and how righteous you are, just go back to that Affirmative-Action issue that was in the news a week or so ago and remember how you felt about that.

 

And the fact that there are aliens on board and are integrating with humans says nothing about the show being racist or not?

I've heard the argument before. People claim ST doesn't put enough effort in fighting racism. No racist alive would accept any alien, ever, in any television show if that alien would not pose a direct thread in the show.

The fact that there are aliens on it, negates any argument trying to prove that ST does not put enough effort into it!

 

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

s

I'll address two issues in response. They are related.

You say on the one hand that it isn't your business to know how somebody got HIV. Ok, we agree, because it's not. However, you then go on to ask how you can separate your compassion from condoning on not condoning their irresponsible behavior. Let's just take out the word "irresponsible" and stick with behavior, because the object there is behavior not irresponible.

If you say its not your business to know how somebody got HIV, then how can you then go on to talk about condoning behavior (or not condoning it). By saying its none of your business, you've thereby eliminated any reference to how somebody got HIV, eg. their behavior. There is then an inherent contradiction in saying on one hand, "It's none of my business," while, on the other, saying, "I don't extend my sympathy, empathy, or compassion, based on my knowledge of someone's behavior." Either their behavior matters or it does not. You either do moral triage or you extend unconditional love to someone. Is your love conditional or not?

Quick Note: Not to you...but to religious persons, in particular Christians here, who go to great lengths to talk about unconditional love, that is a serious concern. If God loves people unconditionally, then, when you say, "It matters to me how you got infected," you have just made your love conditional. That is not what you are mandated to do....

I maintain that people have inherent value APART FROM their behaviors, what they say, etc. You can either expend your energy doing moral triage, or you can take the high road. You don't have to condone or not condone behavior if it does not matter, because, as you say, it's not your business. However, if it matters, you are saying it really is your business. Which is it?

It's abt. consistency. Mostlyharmless does a good job abt. talking about mitigating behaviors. There is not a quick and easy answer to "how do I separate" the two. You just do it.

You still didn't answer my rhetorical question. I think the answer for you may be found in thinking through it carefully. Isn't living with HIV enough "suffering" for the person with HIV. You don't know the life circumstances of having it. I, for example, lost my relationship with my father. On the other hand, the relationship with my Mom and my paternal grandparents grew. Others I know lost close friends, based simply on the disclosure of their HIV status. Others were shunned on the assumption they were gay, when they are not gay. The list of "consequences" goes on. Is it your job to compound those consequences by witholding sympathy or empathy? If you say, yes, I assert that is exactly what's going on.

Is sympathy really saying, "What happened isn't your fault?" If it is, then only those not at fault for things that happened to them are deserving of our sympathy. Are you unsympathetic to persons with heart disease? What about strokes? What abt. colds and flus? After all, if they'd just eaten right, exercised, or just washed their hands, they'd not have gotten sick, right? I maintain the only requirement for compassion is the existence of the person. Nothing more, nothing less. Sympathy says, "I love you, I will do anything for you to help you, even if what is happening to you is the result of you...insert here." It isn't tied to moral triage, because moral triage is not germaine to the extension of empathy or sympathy with anyone. That includes forgiveness. If you do something to hurt me, and then something bad happens to you, then I will still help you, because, if I have opportunity to help you and I do not, then I have become like you, no better than you, the person that hurt me. How then can any anger or resentment I have for you be valid, if I am now hurting you back. "Love your enemies," as it were. It's an extension of the same idea.

 

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

No we didn't "miss it". Never mind that it's not factual. Scientists are still trying to figure out whether alcoholism is a disease. Researchers are constantly going back and forth over the issue of gentics versus environment. Don't believe me? Look it up. The last time I checked the genetics proponents were leading 4 to 3, but the issue is still undecided. This is a case of if you say it enough times it will be true.

I do know this, I have never used Heroin, but if I shot up toinight I would be an addict and gentics doesn't have a damn thing to do with that. If you take a powerful enough drug you will be addicted! Now of course the problem is what is "a powerful enough" drug. Judging by the number of alcoholics in this country, it appears that for many people small amounts of alcohol can lead to overusage which can ultimately become alcoholism.

People often get addicted to drugs in the normal course of medical treatment. To say the addiction itself is a disease is silly, but in this society where no one wants to be responsible........well ok it's a disease. There now you can file insurance and sign up for welfare, etc.

If you know the risks and you partake anyway, it's not a disease it's just plain irresponsbility.

It is that "cut and dry" and that's why education is so important.

Sorry about the rant, but every time I hear this kind of bs I cringe.

 

**Mod On**

For everyone who's been keeping this thread on topic and civil, thank you. When I started here in the ENT forum the kind of place I wanted to have was one where people could get together and talk about the serious issues raised on the show in a productive and interesting manner. It's threads like these that are the reason we're all here.

Now, for those who only wish to come in and snipe, or to mock the opinions on either side of this argument, please remember that you're not helping your cause. And you are only detracting from this discussion.

There are some explosive issues in here, let's remember to treat each other with the respect most of you have been paying.

**Mod Off**

Compassion is something that every human being deserves. We are all flawed unworthy creatures. I don't believe in Karma. I think everybody gets a load to bear and that some people's loads are heavier is just bad luck. Compassion is something owed to all your neighbors because compassion is what you would need in their shoes.

Compassion for someone doesn't mean that you necessarily condone something they may have done. It just means that you recognize them as a human being. When it comes to something like AIDS I think it becomes self-defeating to quibble with someone over how they got this deadly disease that's trying to kill them. Treating them is a paramount concern. Then we use that experience as a way of educating others, so that the disease doesn't spread, so that others are not so condemned.

We all make mistakes, we all have been fortune's child and fortune's foe. There but for the Grace of God go any of us.

Well, whatever biological component there is to alcoholism, it is at minimum, a psychological disease, which if untreated can be as dangerous or deadly as any virus.

 

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

(Bold by peacemaker again...)

Let's just take out the word "irresponsible" and stick with behavior, because the object there is behavior not irresponible.

I disagree. There are accidents and there are bad choices.


If you say its not your business to know how somebody got HIV, then how can you then go on to talk about condoning behavior (or not condoning it). By saying its none of your business, you've thereby eliminated any reference to how somebody got HIV, eg. their behavior.

I suppose what I am envisioning is someone asking for my sympathy for something s/he "did to him/herself," as lousy as that sounds. You drive drunk, you crash your car, I have no sympathy for you. Period. We might still be friends, but don't cry to me about not being able to get to work, and don't ask me for a ride.


You either do moral triage or you extend unconditional love to someone. Is your love conditional or not?

An excellent and difficult question. I have no ready answer. I have to think about it.


You don't have to condone or not condone behavior if it does not matter, because, as you say, it's not your business. However, if it matters, you are saying it really is your business. Which is it?

It is only my business if the person in question makes it my business by telling me; if the person doesn't volunteer, I have no right to ask.

And behavior does matter. Cirrhosis from a blood transfusion is not the person's fault. Cirrhosis from fifty years of drinking is the person's fault. If I do not object to the behavior, then I am condoning it.

This is a real sticking point for me. Mostlyharmless, I heard you fine the first time. "It is possible to sympathize and disapprove of reckless behavior similtaneously." That's what I am asking about: HOW? To me these things seem mutually exclusive. What are your thought processes that you can feel this way?


Sympathy says, "I love you, I will do anything for you to help you, even if what is happening to you is the result of you...insert here." ...That includes forgiveness. If you do something to hurt me, and then something bad happens to you, then I will still help you, because, if I have opportunity to help you and I do not, then I have become like you, no better than you, the person that hurt me. How then can any anger or resentment I have for you be valid, if I am now hurting you back. "Love your enemies," as it were. It's an extension of the same idea.

If this is genuinely how you live, then I say again, you're a better person than I am. I feel anger. I feel hurt. I do not have sympathy for people who hurt me. I have no compassion for the man who ran my mother down like a dog in the street, dragged her 176 yards, backed up over her legs, and then drove home. I could wish that my cancer-ridden in-law had not suffered so, but his cancer was a direct consequence of his constant smoking.

sn't living with HIV enough "suffering" for the person with HIV. ...The list of "consequences" goes on. Is it your job to compound those consequences by witholding sympathy or empathy?

Another difficult question. I will consider it.

Thank you for taking the time to address my posts. I appreciate it.

 

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

evay,

I'm glad you're asking these questions. I just want to say that this is the way I live my life. I'm not perfect, though, and sometimes I catch myself failing to live that way. That's just being human. When I find myself doing that, I do try to correct it.

Basically, all I'm saying is this, and I'll just use you as an example, because you've had some really, really bad experiences from what you write. You've been through your own private hell. Living with HIV, I have mine. Because it is impossible to know everybody's private hell, I just operate on this assumption: Everybody has one, who am I to add to it?

Driving home from the gym tonight, I was thinking about the "How to" part of your question. What works for me might not work for you and what works for anybody else may not work for either one of us. You'll have to find your own way on this. The fact that you are asking "how to find that way," shows that you want to find it.

I want to leave you with this consideration. Start with yourself. What is the source of your selfworth? Is it your achievements? Is it the people around you? Is it anything other than yourself? Do you understand what I'm asking? If you can figure out you own source of self-esteem or self worth or self efficacy, then ask yourself if that is the same standard by which you value other people.

Here's an example: People that are workaholics or "over achievers" will usually tell you that they derive their self esteem from what they can do or what they get done. If they don't feel up to a task or don't get their work done or don't do high quality work, they feel bad abt. themselves. This often leads to depression. They'll also tell you that the abilities of others or the actions of others determine how they treat or feel about others.

I'm not saying you sound depressed or that you value yourself by your achievements. This is only an example. I'm just giving you an example of how some people value others and themselves. My point is that if you value yourself for reasons other than you mere selfexistence and dignity, eg., intrinsic self worth, that may be a possible path to help you figure out "how" to separate the actions of others with the extension of sympathy or empathy toward them.

This will strike a cord: Why was it wrong for the man that killed your Mom so violently to kill her? What is it ABOUT YOUR MOTHER...not abt. her killer...about YOUR MOTHER that made her valuable. I would suggest that you love her because she exists and she is a person and that she is just plain your Mom...not because she loved you or that she did good things for you and so on, but what made it wrong was the fact that she just plain was a person and that you loved her. Everything else about her was a corollary to that, rooted in her personhood. Her personhood did not depend on what she did for you or for others; those things devolved from her personhood. Maybe that's a good place to start...think of yourself that way, then learn to think of others the same way. You can dislike or deplore their actions, but you can still love them w/o condition, even when it hurts. Love does not require you to like everything people say or do, it simply requires their existence and yours.