Dr Nitschke and assisted suicide.

Dear Oh dearie me! Here we go again. People are getting on their high horses over who may die, by what means and when. The Australian Medical Board (or any such organization) should know better than to dictate what a doctor may or may not do, in this case Dr Philip Nitschke, who has had his medical practitioners licence suspended because he admitted to supporting 45-year-old Perth man Nigel Brayley in his decision to commit suicide despite knowing he was not terminally ill.

People differ in their attitude to life and their emotional experiences to the daily “grind”. Who, other than the person concerned, is “qualified” to determine if they are “right” or “wrong” about this?

If any person has decided, for whatever reason, that life is no longer worth living and they are determined to end their life, who has the right, the knowledge or the moral authority to state that such a decision is “wrong”?

To claim that there is no such thing as “rational” suicide is ignoring the facts. The world we live in today – our dysfunctional society that allows the irrational behaviour, the injustices practiced (racism, sexism, domestic and child abuse) , the increasing prevalence of homelessness and poverty, the staggering disparity between the very rich and the very poor all give rise to frustration, to stress and to anger. All this may lead to despair because of a loss of control which in turn may lead to depression and then, possibly, to a person’s determination to escape from life, as currently experienced, by whatever means available.

Are they wrong? Are they “mentally ill”? Are they no longer “rational”?

Look to the cause – not the result. It is worthwhile repeating the quote from Jiddu Krishnamurti (May 12, 1895 to February 17, 1986) that, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”.

For any “authority” – statutory body, organization or individual – to demand that any person they know who wishes to end their life MUST be directed to a “mental health professional” and compelled to be assessed and compelled to accept treatment is wrong. Such a process and such treatment, in my experience, consists principally of medications.

Before anyone says, “OK. What is wrong with that”? please read what follows below.

“UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FDA Product Information Warning:-
Patients with major depressive disorder, both adult and paediatric, may experience worsening of their depression and/or the emergence of suicidal ideation and behaviour (suicidality), whether or not they are taking antidepressant medications, and this risk may persist until significant remission occurs. Although there has been a long-standing concern that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients, a causal role for antidepressants in inducing such behaviours has not been established. Nevertheless, patients being treated with antidepressants should be observed closely for clinical worsening and suicidality, especially at the beginning of a course of drug therapy, or at the time of dose changes, either increases or decreases.  Consideration should be given to changing the therapeutic regimen, including possibly discontinuing the medication, in patients whose depression is persistently worse or whose emergent suicidality is severe, abrupt in onset, or was not part of the patient’s presenting symptoms.”

Now, is there still reason to believe that medication is the best form of treatment as dictated and directed by a “Mental Health Professional”?

Furthermore the findings in the 2012 report of the Australian National Mental Health Commission are very disturbing. According to the report the Commissioners found that:

“Most Australians may not know that treatments with prescribed psychiatric drugs may lead to worse physical health. There are increased risks for some specific treatments such as antipsychotics and for those with underlying vulnerabilities such as diabetes. This can mean that the antipsychotic medications that are prescribed to manage severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, contribute to the risk of having severe physical illnesses.

The national survey of psychotic illness uncovered the extent of general health problems for people in this group:

·         Diabetes was at a rate over 3 times found in the general population.

·         One third carried the risk of a ‘cardiovascular event’ within five years.

·         Half have metabolic syndrome, which is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes as a side effect of prescribed antipsychotic medications.

·         They have nearly twice the rate of being obesely overweight.

·         They smoke at a rate 2 to 3 times higher than the general population.

·         They have high blood cholesterol levels at 5 times the rate of the general population.

It is evident that people with the most severe mental illness have a worse level of overall health than people with more common mental illnesses, which compounds the health difficulties they need to overcome.”

NOW is it still considered appropriate to subject anyone suspected of “mental illness” to this form of treatment?

For some to state that suicide is wrong because “only God can decide when a person should die” – how do they know? What about the possibility that God may have already “decided” and allowed the expression of free will, that God gave us all, thus freeing the person who wants to die, to die, in the manner of their choosing?

Presumably free will allows a person to make a choice – good, bad or indifferent.  What is “wrong” with that?  

For the Medical Board of Australia to suspend euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke because he "presents a serious risk to public health and safety", is ludicrous and beyond reason.

Pharma-psychology - more on Faith based medicine.

Some time ago I wrote about Psychology and that in my view psychological “cures” based on pharmacology (i.e. drugs) is founded on faith and may be considered as a pseudo-science. This aroused a fair bit of interest and one informed comment by an unidentified contributor. This post is really a continuation of my original.

There is a profound ignorance about the connection (if there is one) between mind and brain. It is all very well for neuroscientists to point out that with the various brain scanning techniques now available it can be seen that different parts of the brain “light up” when a patient is talking about an enjoyable experience or when thinking about a mathematical problem. But HOW does the excitation of neurons translate into memories of the experience or the solution to a maths problem? And what comes first – is it the activity of the neurons which creates the thoughts and memories or does the creation of the thoughts and memories activate the neurons? No one knows.

Consider now, from a psychological point of view, our freedom to choose – known as the “problem of mental causation”. Regarding the multitude of properties attaching to the human brain, in terms of its physical activity, there are occurrences that in strictly scientific terms should be impossible:- How can it be that subjective (non-material) thoughts of the “self” can so influence the function of the brain that it compels the brain to direct one course of body action rather that another?

It is a fundamental fact of science - a precept - that nothing can happen that is not governed by natural laws of material causation (i.e. physical things cause physical effects). Thoughts are non-physical (they are subjective), therefore by definition cannot cause anything physical to happen....!!

The one and a half kilogram brain is certainly an incredible organ.

But why, Oh why, if we know so little about how and why the brain works do psychiatrists, when presented with a so called “mental disease” persist in pumping the brain full of drugs? They prescribe drugs even for children – some as young as 2 and 3 years old. This is inexcusable; this is unethical. 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? It should not be forgotten that behaviour can never be considered a “disease”, as an illness. A person may be ill at ease and this may affect their behaviour but they are not “sick” – unless there is a pathological reason, which would then be beyond the scope of psychology.

All this may be a bit technical for the casual reader but as many people a possible should try to understand the basic facts – Firstly, that no one knows what actually causes any individual to suffer from a mental problem (and make no mistake people do suffer); Secondly, that the “Bible” of Psychologists and Psychiatrists, the American Psychological Association’s DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders edition IV) lists over 360 disorders – which I find bizarre; Thirdly, using the diagnostic tools listed in the DSM-IV mental health professionals have reported to the Australian Bureau of Statistics that 19% of Australians, will in their lifetime, suffer from some form of mental disorder! That is 1 in 5 Australians will need some form of treatment (most probably drugs). This I also find bizarre.

All this is determined on a highly problematical and yet to be proven “scientific” basis. For instance after nearly one hundred years of research there is no objective test for psychosis (classic psychotic experiences involving, for example, feelings of persecution, thought interference and auditory hallucinations) – it's a matter of a health professional’s judgement regarding the apparent behavioural and thought disorder patterns presented by an individual (as determined using the DSM-IV diagnostic tools - in other words ticking multiple choice boxes on a list). Furthermore if psychosis is deemed to have a genetic base – as some psychologists now claim - the questions relating to any evolutionary advantage will need to be answered.

Then there is the grave issue of side effects of these drugs – they can be very severe indeed. For instance the West Australian Government’s Chief Psychiatrist warns as follows – quoting from the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA):-

FDA Product Information Warning

Patients with major depressive disorder, both adult and pediatric, may experience worsening of their depression and/or the emergence of suicidal ideation and behavior (suicidality), whether or not they are taking antidepressant medications, and this risk may persist until significant remission occurs. Although there has been a long-standing concern that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients, a causal role for antidepressants in inducing such behaviors has not been established. Nevertheless, patients being treated with antidepressants should be observed closely for clinical worsening and suicidality, especially at the beginning of a course of drug therapy, or at the time of dose changes, either increases or decreases.

Consideration should be given to changing the therapeutic regimen, including possibly discontinuing the medication, in patients whose depression is persistently worse or whose emergent suicidality is severe, abrupt in onset, or was not part of the patient’s presenting symptoms.

Still happy about taking these drugs??

Finally I include the following email I received from a correspondent which may be of interest to some readers (I suppress his name for obvious reasons): 

“A year ago you wrote about your take on the perceived horrors of the West Australian Mental Health Act and its so called 'Chief Psychiatrist'.

I am an Australian, and in another State. But I can tell you all of the states in Australia have the same kind of heinous 'mental health acts'.

 You are completely, and utterly correct in your assertions. I am a survivor of forced psychiatric drugging in Australia and I can tell you, far more than it being 'worse than prison' (which is correct), it is enough to make you lose all faith in humanity and all agreement in the false assertion that this Australia is a 'free society'. If your brain can be raped, on the say so of one man, without court hearing, without charge, without opportunity to hire a lawyer, you're living in a piece of shit fascist state.

It took me years to even be this articulate in response, and I am one in 10,000 in terms of the survivors of forced psychiatry in this country. The vast majority are rendered drooling zombies, and I'm not frigging around.

 It is always nice, always ever so slightly encouraging, to see an Australian even remotely  empathising with the people targeted by these laws. It is challenging enough, to not arbitrarily HATE all Australians who would dare vote for governments who continue such heinous laws.  Which includes 99.99 percent of Australians.

.....which makes for a lonely existence nonetheless. 

Kudos to you, for at least acknowledging what disgusting torture governments dish out in this country.”

(I hasten to add that I have nothing personal against the Chief Psychiatrist – I have never met or spoken to him. I am sure he is a man with the mental welfare of the Western Australian population at heart).

NOW are you still happy about being prescribed and taking antidepressant medication??

Why is suicide considered a bad thing?

Amended September 11, 2018:

I know this is quite an old post but I strongly believe it is as relevant as ever. Some people do commit suicide and this has surely happened since humans first walked the earth.

This is not a treatise on the causes or possible reasons for suicide but the complexities behind the act have puzzled me for many years. In particularly our seeming abhorrence and our obvious dismay, regret and great sadness that anyone should even contemplate the need to end their life, by whatever means has taxed my understanding and the meaning of my life.

What follows below is my considered opinion:-

I ask the question – why is suicide considered such a bad thing? Now I am not advocating that anyone should commit suicide. I am just trying to pick apart the emotional clutter that accompanies this very personal and private act. The only answers I get are that it is a waste of a (usually) young person’s life; that they were loved; that they had unlimited potential, now never to be realised; that they had a future to live for – etc., etc.

This is partially correct but is not a real answer. The person concerned – the person now deceased – obviously had a different view of life. Their view, which I am not discussing (I have no idea what that was); I am discussing our view; that of the outsider; the ones left behind.

Why do we “outsiders” (I deliberately use this word because we are “outside’ that person’s inner world) consider suicide to be such a bad thing? Are we affronted because someone considers living – in their current situation – to be so bad, so threatening, so limiting as to be not worthwhile continuing? Are we discomforted because this rejection, this dismissal of all we has striven for (in “our” world), may reflect poorly on us, those left behind, regarding the way we have organised the world? Are we disturbed by the confronting prospect of having to admit that we make mistakes and that the way in which the economy, our legal, welfare and education systems are set up may actually cause distress, that we are not always fair or just in our dealings? Do we feel guilty that we have developed a financial system that promotes the massive imbalance between the very wealthy and the very poor and the disadvantaged?

We have to recognise that we are all, all, party to the ills of the world. We created them. If we look with even a modicum of insight we should see in ourselves the cause of these short comings and see ourselves reflected in the eyes of the distressed. And we should be dismayed.

Is this why we consider suicide a “bad thing” and are so shocked when it occurs?

It is needful to remember that we, each one of us, have our own experiences of life. These are our own. No one can see the world through our eyes with the same imagery and emotional response. No one can see the world through our eyes with our life experiences and our interpretations of those experiences – these are our own.

So I ask the question again – why is suicide considered such a bad thing? Obviously for the person concerned the prospect of death is more alluring than continuing living as currently experienced. What is “wrong” with that? It is their choice.

Then for some to say that only God can decide when or where a person dies is surely a gross over assumption - how do they know? What special insight do they possess? Is it not possible, because (I assume) God gave us free will that God may have already decided to allow a person who wants to die, to die?

Furthermore to declare (as some authority figures do) that most people who commit suicide suffer from a mental "illness" or disorder is surely wrong. It is also highly presumptuous on the part of the person making such a declaration – how do they ACTUALLY know! This is categorising a person, who now has no recourse or ability to refute the presumption. This is putting a label on someone. And then what about those “outsiders” left behind to live with the event – the family and friends? Are they to be made to suffer further pain with the stigma provided by so called experts who provide the “knowledge” that their son, daughter, friend, brother, sister “must have been mentally deranged” to have committed such an act. This implies that no “normal” person would ever do such a thing! What about self-sacrifice when there is loss of life? Isn’t this an act of suicide? But if it saves the life of others it is considered “noble”!! ("There is no greater love than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends" - English King James Bible: John 15:13).

Research on completed suicides is notoriously difficult. It is always referring to an historic act – something that has already happened. Police, coronial, autopsy, psychiatric and psychological and counselling reports are analysed and carefully combed to try and establish some reason or motive for the suicide. This is fraught as it is impossible to know what was actually going through the person’s mind at the precise moment in time when they took their own life. At that moment they made a choice. Why? We can never know.

Shall we now look at what suicide actually is? Someone taking their own life – right? It seems that the “act” is only considered suicide if it results in the quick death of the person concerned. But what about those who commit suicide in the “long term”? Those who drink or drug themselves to death over a number of years, what about them? They may suffer from abuse, or from unbearable pressures associated with their domestic arrangements or at work. They may determine that the easiest and most “socially acceptable” way of easing this pressure or pain, is to get drunk or to get “stoned” on a regular basis. It may take some time but in possibly five or ten years they will be dead.   The emotional (and economic) “cost” of this (“long term suicide”) far exceeds that of any number of “quick” suicides.

To get back to the “mental illness or disorder” accusation. Disordered from what? What are these people supposed to be disordered from? From “normal”? As far as I can discover there is no accepted definition of “normal”. Possibly those considered “disordered” react to life’s trials and tribulations differently from those around them. Are they wrong? Or are we “outsiders” just being intolerant and lacking in understanding or compassion? Maybe these people are just eccentric – God knows there are enough odd ball people in the community!! Some behaviour may be considered mal-adaptive or possibly anti-social by “outsiders” but not by the people concerned – otherwise they wouldn’t act the way they do!

Similarly, why should anyone "live" according to another's expectations?  

There is an essay, “Suicide”, by the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711 – 1776) wherein he wrote, “I believe that no man ever threw away Life while it was worth keeping.”

What follows below is a warning relating to anti-depressant drugs:-

USA Federal Drug Administration Product Information Warning

Patients with major depressive disorder, both adult and pediatric, may experience worsening of their

depression and/or the emergence of suicidal ideation and behavior (suicidality), whether or not they are taking antidepressant medications, and this risk may persist until significant remission occurs. Although there has been a long-standing concern that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients, a causal role for antidepressants in inducing such behaviors has not been established. Nevertheless, patients being treated with antidepressants should be observed closely for clinical worsening and suicidality, especially at the beginning of a course of drug therapy, or at the time of dose changes, either increases or decreases.

Consideration should be given to changing the therapeutic regimen, including possibly discontinuing the medication, in patients whose depression is persistently worse or whose emergent suicidality is severe, abrupt in onset, or was not part of the patient’s presenting symptoms.

From the above it is apparent that psycho-pharmceutical medications are not always the answer!

Finally I will repeat a quote, from the Indian sage Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), who said, "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"

There we have it - in a nutshell!