The dawning

The definition of dawn used by the old desert Arabs (the Bedouin) – that dawn is that moment in time when there is sufficient light to distinguish between a white and a black thread – has a romantic appeal about it. There is a vagueness which opens up many trains of thought. One determination of dawn will be different from another. There are inevitable shades of grey implicit in the definition as is the quality of the eyesight and judgement of the observer. Also implicit is a tolerance and an acceptance that there will be differences in interpretation – that the beginning of the day – the beginning of anything is never finite. This level of tolerance and acceptance of differences of opinion is needed today, particularly when the ‘blame’ game begins.

This is not to say that the Bedouin were particularly tolerant or intolerant, students of Arab history will be able to shed light on this topic – it is the human quality of the definition that appeals. We each have our own views of the world as seen through the filters of our particular circumstance; our education; our life experiences; our society and culture but above all based on the view we have of ourselves and our position in ‘our’ world.

No one, repeat, no one, ever does anything to deliberately disadvantage themselves. Any action taken by anyone will always be because of some perceived benefit or advantage. Poor judgement may be evident as when a politician tells an ‘untruth’ and is instrumental in losing an ‘unlosable’ election; it is evident when a financier engages in corrupt dealings; it is evident when someone deliberately kills another. But the fact remains that at the moment the decision was made to carry out the action, it would never have been carried out if not for some perceived advantage – to try and cover up a mistake, to make more money or to eliminate a rival.

It is always a matter of choice – to carry out the deed or not to carry out the deed.  To then deliberately seek punishment for the perpetrator is a natural reaction, but is it the best course of action? Remember that shades of grey exist and there is no absolute black or white.

Surely a new dawn in the treatment of criminals is called for – to educate them to have at least some understanding that all humanity is related - would be better? We all have our strengths and weaknesses and no one can claim to be ‘better’ than anyone else. According to our understanding of life, we all do the best we can. To ‘blame’ someone for an error of judgement is a bit harsh. Society should be ‘blamed’; you and I should be ‘blamed’ because we make up the society that gave a particular person a view of the world that happens to differ from ours.

 Educate the perpetrators so they may understand that there is a law or cause and effect. Teach them ethics. That treating others as they would like to be treated is the only viable option. That what goes around, comes around. That if you hit someone with a stick often enough they will sooner or later turn around and hit you back. This means in effect, you are hitting yourself. Not very clever!

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.

American Government (in)justice

I have written about this before – many times – but I repeat again that injustice is the root of most of the problems in the world today. When governments, of whatever persuasion, start hiding their activities from their own people then you know that there is a problem and this arouses my sense of outrage. Injustice and unethical behaviour are inexcusable.   

While (generally) I hold America and Americans in high regard I am particularly targeting their Government’s “holier than thou” attitude and a “do as I say, not as I do” approach to some policies which I find offensive and unworthy of the American people.

I know that politics is a dirty game but denying illegal or unethical activities and behaviour is taking things too far. In this regard the American Government has lost its “moral high ground” with the treatment of those in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre (Gitmo), by the vitriol directed at Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder), Bradley Manning (American soldier who is alleged to have supplied Wikileaks with information) and whistle blowers generally. Other countries (including Australia) are guilty of similar offences.

It is necessary to examine the issues impartially because this is very important.

If a government, American, or that of any country conceals information from its population how can voters make an informed judgement on the effectiveness or otherwise of that government? Especially, as mentioned above, if the information so concealed may be of such an unethical or illegal nature that any disclosure would diminish the government’s standing in the eyes of the voting public and cause the officials concerned much discomfort!

This is where whistle blowers such as Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are, as far as I am concerned, performing a valuable service – not just to the American public but for mankind generally. It is necessary, for any individual’s or government’s well-being to be shown up for what they are, prone to unethical activities, lying and plain criminal behaviour (unfortunately all of us are at times guilty of these).  Unless governments and individuals acknowledge their weaknesses how can they correct their errors and aspire to reach their full potential? How else can the voting public be given enough information to know if they want or need a change of government other than by the information provided by whistle-blowers? Without this information the voting public is in danger of being manipulated, against their wishes.

Whistle blowers need to be commended for their actions, not condemned.

The American Government, in particular, has forgotten or chosen to ignore the fact that their Declaration of Independence includes the basic tenet that people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to "alter or abolish" that government ...!  

Also remember that America is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (as is Australia). This states in the preamble that, “All human beings are born with equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms.”  It goes on to declare in:

Articles 6:

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article10:

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

 Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

It would appear that the Americans by holding inmates indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay detention centre and by their treatment of whistle-blowers generally, are violating many of the most fundamental human rights and I ask the question “Why?” I also ask the Australian Government a similar question – why hold individuals (“illegal boat people”) in indefinite detention without judicial review or recourse to the courts? Such actions promote injustice and are plain wrong and will be subject to unintended consequences.

I strongly suspect that this abrogation of  basic Human Rights stems from the fact that officials are discomforted by the disclosures which, in turn, generates a desire to punish whistle blowers for showing to the world that Americans (or Australians) are not as ethical, as just or morally correct as they would like to be known for.  Their declared abhorrence, almost a hatred of whistle blowers is testament to this.

Those who fail or refuse to do good in the face of evil are sowing some dangerous seeds. It worth recalling the famous quote by the British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke (1729-1797):

“All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.”

Anders Behring Breivik - and Mental health.

Can you imagine it – one of the most gruesome mass murders in modern times and psychiatrists cannot determine if the perpetrator is sane or insane! This is bizarre. After over 100 years of research and “experts” still cannot determine, with any degree of accuracy, if someone is sane or insane – it's a matter of a health professional’s judgement regarding the apparent behavioural and thought disorder patterns presented by an individual. This is a kind of “suck it and see” approach. There is no “test” for insanity or in fact for any other mental problem. This is something that the general public is never told.

I have been following Breivik’s trial in Norway quite closely and I have read much of what has been said about him on the internet – newspaper articles and scientific journals. Breivik is intelligent (possibly above average); he is articulate; he is meticulous in his planning (his killing spree was at least three years in the planning – possibly more); he is a conforming conservative in that he conforms to an older idea of what a “white”, Christian, Norway should be and he appears to be quite rational in that he can explain why he did what he did and is apparently satisfied that he achieved a level of success.

Breivik may have delusions of grandeur – just read some of the things he has said and look at photos of some of the uniforms he has worn. But these sorts of delusions are not unknown among the general public – this includes politicians and businessmen.

Breivik may be grossly misguided but he is certainly not insane (and my “assessment” is as good as any experts – just an educated guess). He knew what he was doing and is quite prepared to accept the consequences.