In conclusion it can be argued that those patients who are passive and adhere to their treatment regime or medical advice without questions or resistance to even the most unpleasant procedure, are therefore adopting the role of role of learned helplessness. By contrast, those patients who refuse to follow every instruction to the word, and attempt to retain some control over their mode of living, cannot be suffering from learned helplessness, as they are actively resisting the demands placed upon them by both the illness, and the medical practitioners. This is similar to the coping skill which most psychoanalysts like to term "denial" (Reich, 1975). As noted earlier, the relative degree of non-adherence to treatment depends upon the severity of the illness, and that the greater the risk to life and limb, the lesser the degree of non-adherence. However, it is important to remember that Seligman's theory is one which has been adopted/adapted from animal psychology. Human psychology, although related, has further factors to consider, such as those relating to cultural, educational, social, and religious differences. It could also be argued that patients who refuse to comply to treatment on religious and cultural grounds, such as Jehovah's witnesses refusing to accept blood products, cannot be experiencing learned helplessness. It is clear that, while the adoption of learned helplessness is beneficial to the medical staff who have to treat the patients, it can be damaging to the long term mental state which the patient experiences, and should not be encouraged. …
