Friday, November 30, 2012

Mental Health



It has been reported for years that the rate of mental disorders in Australia (and, I might add, most of the developed nations) is an alarming one person in five (1 in 5). This is a truly astounding figure. In fact I would call it a national catastrophe.

Just imagine the outrage and panic if 1 in 5 were diagnosed with AIDS or contracted influenza. There would be panic and a national enquiry and millions would be spent on research and medications of some sort. But mental health? If 1 in 5 of the population will suffer from some mental problem – what then is normal and how is this determined?

It is worth remembering that with mental health: “the facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent”. In such circumstances it is difficult to resist the temptation to cherry pick data to suit whatever popular theory is being promoted at the time. The flow is from theory to observation to statistical analysis and back again – if great care is not taken then cherry picking will again take place in a misleading and apparently endless loop. Convention, it seems, must be followed – this is obvious from the fact that authors of articles that are not “politically correct” find it very difficult to have them published in mental health journals!

Prescribing mind altering drugs to people already suffering mental issues is counterintuitive. Yet this is what happens. The problem, which the “experts” seem to find difficulty in accepting, is that medications in various formulations and strengths have been prescribed for mental “illness” for something like one hundred years. Yet the problems remain. Logically this leads to the conclusion that, ipso facto, either the medications are ineffective or the aetiology (the study of causation, or origination) of mental disorders is misunderstood and therefore, by default, misdiagnosed – or all three.  

Using the same methods over and over again expecting different results each time is not very clever – in fact I believe this is an indication of some mental problem! Following the same course of action – prescribing medications that cause problems that further application of more powerful medications cannot alleviate is, also, not very clever. And yet this is what we seem to be doing with the current approach to mental health!!!

It is almost as if psychiatrists and psychologists are circling around the subject of mental health without fully appreciating what needs to be done (for example, after nearly one hundred years of research there is no effective biological test for any mental disorder – it's a matter of a health professional’s judgement regarding the apparent behavioural and thought disorder patterns presented by an individual. Furthermore if some mental disorders are deemed to have a genetic base the questions relating to any evolutionary advantage will need to be answered). I find it bizarre that there are over 360 different psychiatric disorders listed in the DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – fourth edition – text revised, published by the American Psychiatric Association) with the further understanding that U.S. insurance companies (through their close relationship with pharmaceutical companies) now require a DSM-based diagnosis before they will reimburse prescription drugs on health plans. So again I ask the question that needs to be asked - what now is considered normal?

In this regard an over reliance on pharmacology is fraught; a “chemical imbalance” in the brain means what, exactly? What is the “correct” chemical balance and how is this determined? There is no known test that can determine the “correct” level of chemicals in the brain! Furthermore it should not be forgotten that behaviour can never be considered a “disease”, as an illness. A person may behave in a seemingly bizarre fashion and may be ill at ease but this does not mean they are “sick” – unless there is a pathological (medical) reason, which would then be beyond the scope of psychiatry or psychology.

Nothing is more fitting or useful than to be considered a normal human being living a fulfilling life in society but then, if the Australian Bureau of Statistics is correct, and 19% of Australians will suffer some degree of mental disorder during their lifetime then, once more, what is normal?

The needs and necessities of individuals vary. What is a prison for one sets another free. Yet “normal” can range from mildly eccentric with not a few who are apparently happy when leading a life some may think as abnormal, non-social and “odd ball”. There are seven billion individual ways human life is currently being expressed. I repeat, what is normal and, more importantly, who is checking?

What is needed is a complete rethink on the “medicalization” of mental health; a complete rethink on the causes (aetiology) of mental problems and a greater realisation that there are real problems in the administration and application of the law - as it applies to mental health; real problems caused by the obscene imbalance of income between the very rich and the very poor and the continuing, corrosive, effects of injustice which is prevalent in all societies. These have a major impact on mental health generally.

More drugs are not the answer.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Israel - Stolen goods bring no prosperity.



I am not quite sure where I first read the phrase, “Stolen goods bring no prosperity”, but it rings true. Just think of any individual, business or government that has deprived anyone of what was rightfully theirs; just think about those who have fraudulently or unjustly used or taken advantage of someone’s intellectual property; think about those who make a living by avoiding or evading government regulations.

What brought this phrase to my mind has been the ratcheting up of the Israeli/Gaza impasse which has been bubbling away since 1947. I strongly disagree with anyone who advocates violence as a solution to any problem. Violence begets violence. People who feel aggrieved should avoid conflict at all costs – no one wins a war. Oh yes! Battles may be “won”; “victors” may assume sovereignty over land and peoples; trade may follow the “gun” but at what human cost? Violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt.

After the end of the Second World War the dispossessed Jews and those who had survived the appalling treatment meted out by the Nazis with the infamous “final solution” known to history as the Holocaust were “given” what is now Israel. This is a historic fact and I am in no position to argue the merits or demerits of this “gift” by the sympathetic Allies who had defeated Germany. What I can say with certainty however is that the Palestinians who were living in the Palestine/Israel area and who had been living there since Biblical times were now (in 1947) dispossessed of the land (and in many cases their possessions as well) to make way for the “new” nation of Israel. Many of these dispossessed Palestinians ended up in Gaza. It is my understanding that no compensation was ever paid or reparation ever made.

This injustice rankles. They were never asked; they never gave “permission” for the land to be expropriated. Injustice is never forgotten; injustice is burned into the soul – just ask the Jews! The Jews have been treated very badly by all peoples – from ancient Babylonia to modern day Christians and Muslims. They have been fighting and striving for millennia for Judea, their “home land” – what they consider their Holy Land, their God given right. Why should the Palestinians, dispossessed by the Israelis feel any differently about their “home land”; their Holy Land, part of which is now Israel?

The fact is that the ultimate source of land is beyond human ingenuity; we may surmise how land was formed aeons ago – but no one can create a single grain of sand. Land just “is” – therefore by default land belongs to no one; land, Holy or otherwise, belongs to everyone. We humans are merely the temporary caretakers.

The Israelis, if they want peace and stability, will, ultimately, have to share the land they occupy with the original inhabitants – the Palestinians. This land was in effect “stolen” from the Palestinians in 1947, and until the Israeli recognize this and accept sharing as a future reality the phrase that opens this post - “stolen goods bring no prosperity” – will haunt the Israelis and torment the Palestinians.

War and violence will never, ever, solve the problems caused by injustice.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Catholics priests, Paedophilia and Cardinal Pell’s response.



Something is dramatically wrong when a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, the titular head of the Catholic Church in Australia, Cardinal Pell can say (in apparent justification) that, and I quote from the Weekend Australian newspaper dated 11-12 November 2012, despite the Catholic Church having received hundreds of complaints of child abuse and notifications of paedophilia in New South Wales and Victoria he believed “it was no worse than any other organisation, and had been unfairly vilified”.

I find this statement astounding, utterly beneath contempt and unworthy of any “organisation” – particularly a church like the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Pell is obviously looking after his position and is protecting his back. The statement was obviously made to protect the “image” of the Church and to diminish anyone who dares to criticise the activities of the Church and its ministers.

It would be well for Cardinal Pell to recall the words of Jesus (King James - Matthew 18.6):

 “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believes in me, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea.”

As I understand it the whole point of a “Church” is that it espouses spiritual values and is supposed to guide, to nourish, to uplift its members. The whole point of priesthood is the (supposedly) spiritual training priests receive which is (supposedly) designed to make them “better” that the average parishioner so that they (the priests) may better minister to the needs of their “flock”. 

It would be well for Cardinal Pell to also recall the words of Jesus (King James – Matthew 22. v37 - 40):

 “37. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38. This is the first and great commandment.
39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.”

How can anyone trust an “organisation” such as the Catholic Church that breaks its own Laws, with children, innocent children; breaks the COMMANDMENTS, no less, of Jesus and then have its leader (Cardinal Pell) say, “We have been unfairly vilified?”

This statement beggars belief. Not only should a Royal Commission be set up to investigate the many hundreds of accusations of paedophilia and abuse but Cardinal Pell should stand aside from his position until this whole messy business is sorted out and the Church “cleansed” of its defilement.

I paraphrase Oliver Cromwell and say to Cardinal Pell and the Church hierarchy, “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”



(For the record - I am a non-practicing Anglican).