The mechanism of scientific classification, or traditional science in general, is an "encryption" process wherein access is only available to individuals who knows the language of science. Access to information and knowledge is oftentimes dependent on external factors such as socio-economic capability, age, educational attainment, and race, among others. In this mechanism, not all extant and observable information is understood, thus providing little or no venue for understanding and critical thinking on the part of the individual who does not know the language of traditional science. A6. Financially benefiting or profiting from healthcare and the medical profession is a latent example of how scientific classification has made healthcare a very expensive and exclusive sector wherein specific groups of people are given access to it. Medical practitioners who are able to educate themselves in the field of biological science have gained access to information and knowledge about the field, which also enabled them to have access to the profit that the healthcare sector is receiving from people needing medical attention. The reality that patients and healthcare consumers pay the expensive amount of service provided them without question is an example of the "empiricist control" that pervades the healthcare sector and medical profession.

A7. I consider the issue of subjectification as a result of the empiricist control as representative of the mechanisms of dividing practices and scientific classification discussed earlier. Subjectification centers the focus on the individual, who is treated as a "subject" who becomes 'imprisoned' by the mechanisms that traditional science has developed society for years. 'Imprisonment' in the context of Dzurec's analysis...

Strong belief in these ways of thinking limits the individual's worldview, making him/her susceptible to experiencing stagnation in terms of knowledge development.
A8. As a medical professional, it is sometimes hard to suppress one's feelings or emotions to influence a judgment about an issue, especially one that is medical in nature. There is always the danger that one will be called unprofessional because s/he allowed himself/herself to be unreasonable, to let his/her emotions govern over reason. In nursing practice, as Dzurec argued, it is essential that the individual maintains the "being with" philosophy, which reconciles and takes into account that both emotions and reason are results of the same neurological processes in our brain, therefore making them a unified and one way of thinking, rather than the duality of the mind/body question the author brought into fore in the article.

B1. The "being with" philosophy that Dzurec discussed in the article is agreeable because I believe that an individual thinks both with emotions and reason, with these two elements linked rather than independent of each other. "Being with" best describes the unity of emotions and reason within the individual, which takes into account the nursing reality that a medical practitioner must not be only objective, but s/he must also be able to treat his/her profession with subjectivity or emotion, since s/he is dealing with patients, wherein decision-making sometimes entail not only reason, but emotions as well.