Change (and choice) is necessary.

Why is it that many people are so resistant to change or find it so difficult to choose between alternatives? Possibly change, and the consequences that will inevitably arise, may give rise to anxiety or worry and denial with some people. This is strange but understandable and may be a possible reason why we form habits – a predictable pattern of behaviour in a particular circumstance. Habits have the “benefit” of saving one from choosing or having to make decisions and, in addition, from past experience, the results are known to be generally “safe” and non-threatening.

For whatever reason, however, some worriers or anxious people have need to keep at least some semblance of control over events in their life. Change or choosing some alternative is something that cannot be contemplated. Such people like things to be “just so”. Any change takes them out of their comfort zone and introduces new and possibly uncontrollable factors which they cannot abide. Hence the anxiety.

Some cannot abide the thought of changing where they live; want to stay employed for all their working life in the same job – or at least with the same employer; always buy the same make of motor vehicle; always holiday in the same hotel, in the same town or beach resort; always insist on the same “Sunday roast” that they have always had every Sunday and so on and so on - the list is endless.

But reason suggests that this is a fruitless exercise. Nothing remains static – everything changes over time. Sometimes very quickly and sometimes over many years but change is inevitable. Change is not an option – it happens regardless.

Life, at least as we experience it on this Earth, needs change. Without change there would be no learning, no increase in knowledge. Without change there is no growth. Certainly there would be no personal growth without change and the choices we make, good, bad or indifferent.

We change in our lives – from children to adults to old age. Thereafter the greatest change of all and this is not a choice but an inevitability, and is accordingly feared by many – that death comes to us all at some time.

Boat people (illegals) - we treat animals better than this.

Animals on the farm; animals in zoos; animal at home – all are considered with care for their welfare and well-being. The various Animal Welfare organizations see to this and have the force of law behind them. But humans who we consider as “inferior” we treat with no respect, no compassion and with no dignity. Why?

When someone is so diminished that they are no longer considered human what happens? Slaves know that they have some value (they were either purchased by or work for someone who gives them some idea of what they are worth because they produce something of value) – judicial prisoners know that they have recourse to a legal system and generally there is limit to their incarceration; refugees - “boat people” (illegals) - in the Australian context, have nothing.

These people are desperate. To have it indicated to them, in no uncertain fashion by the Australian Government, that they may as well give up hope of  any help, assistance or compassionate regard would be devastating. To be so diminished as to be considered only as counters on a game board to be pushed about from country to country is similar to an annihilation of any ideas they may hold of their worth as human beings.

Again, in the Australian context refugees, “boat people” (illegals) are neither criminals nor are they deemed to have a value – they appear to be “non-people” and the Government wants nothing to do with them.  They are moved “off shore” to desperately poor or to micro-countries that Australia can pay off to accept this Australian “detritus”. They are a nuisance to the Government and should just go away.

This is an abrogation of what is decent; an abrogation of what is right and is neither ethical nor moral and is doing the image of Australia much harm. It is a fact – almost a “Law” that for every cause there is an effect. This cannot be codified, it cannot be quantified or qualified and there is no measure to gauge what the effect may be. But of a certainty there will be an effect and it may not be what anyone expects.

Always – repeat ALWAYS – treat people the way you would like to be treated. There is no other viable option. To act or behave in any other manner is to diminish oneself and a belief in the humanity we are all party to.

Duty

There are few things that get up my nose more than injustice and cruelty. These two words (and the activities they refer to) will overlap to a greater or lesser degree and in some instances they may equate to the same thing. A cruel act will almost certainly be unjust and in many instances an injustice may be cruel. And then there are the overriding aspects of morality and ethics. Of a certainty, whatever activity or behaviour is unjust or cruel cannot be either moral or ethical.

The other day Archie asked for my comments on activities which are often disguised as, or confounded with, “Duty”, but are really cruel and/or unjust.

Now ‘duty’ is an old word, certainly going back to Anglo-Norman times. But it is unfortunately, often misunderstood. I know “duty” gets mixed up with obeying orders (in the military or paramilitary forces and in judicial or extra-judicial matters). It also gets a bad rap from the appalling revelations about the actions of totalitarian or quasi-totalitarian governments, and unfortunately some “democratic” governments such as  “renditions” when Americans sent (send?) suspected terrorists to countries that are prepared to sanction torture to extract information – “I was just obeying orders”. In my lexicon, however, “duty” has an ethical basis. It has a basis in an action for the benefit of others; a duty of care – almost an obligation. My old stand-by the Oxford English Dictionary defines duty as, “That which is owed; a debt of money, goods or service; the action or behaviour due by moral or legal obligation; action required by one’s business, occupation or function.”

But and it is a big but, as has been said before by others, “duty is not only about doing things right, it is about doing the right thing.” Typically, the demands of justice, honour, and reputation are “imbedded” with duty.

Of course, historically, as mentioned above, totalitarian regimes – and it is a depressingly long list, all, under the guise of “keeping public order” and therefore their “duty”, maintain(ed) an appalling level of control and vicious retaliation against any dissent. Religious persecution also has a large part to play in this – excommunications; witch hunts; death by stoning for blasphemy and such other extremes.   

It is a proven fact that when the conditions are appropriate (if that is the correct word) we are all capable of involvement in such extreme activities - all of us – individuals, governments, corporations and businesses included. We all need “over sight” to ensure that we do not lose our sense of proportion; do not lose our humanity. Without a “duty of care” civilisation would not be what it is. Not everyone agrees, which is why we have laws, rules and regulations.

Free speech is the basic tenet of democracy – all other “rights” stand or fall on this one fundamental, (the freedom to worship and freedom to meet and congregate with whomsoever). The exceptions (there are always exceptions) are that child pornography, engaging in or depicting sexual violence, inciting criminal activity, defamation or slander or engaging in the persecution of any ethnic group are generally strictly forbidden and legislated against. Similarly activities that engage in or encourage corruption, malpractice or fraudulent behaviour are legislated as crimes.

Obeying orders and doing one’s Duty is no excuse for harming another person.

Biology of “Mental illness” – fact or fiction?

The majority of physical illness diagnoses can be verified by objective clinical tests. The majority, if not all, of psychiatric 'mental illnesses' cannot be (those caused by alcohol, drugs and certain real diseases, Alzheimer’s and Huntingdon’s excepted). Many medical diseases have verifiable causes. Psychiatry has none. 'Mental disorders' are simply categorizations of behaviours or thought processes which are then given labels.

The truth is finally – after too long a period of denial – “coming out”:

There have been claims, published in professional journals and in the media for decades, of gene discoveries and that mentally disordered patients have faulty genes and chemical imbalances in their brains. All are now shown to be wrong.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has now officially admitted that there are no genes for mental disorders. In an official APA press release dated May 3rd, 2013, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders version 5 (DSM-5) Task Force head David Kupfer MD stated, “In the future, we hope to be able to identify disorders using biological and genetic markers that provide precise diagnoses that can be delivered with complete reliability and validity. Yet this promise, which we have anticipated since the 1970s, remains disappointingly distant. We’ve been telling patients for several decades that we are waiting for biomarkers. We’re still waiting.” 

 In this statement, American psychiatry has at last come clean about its failure to support its claims of a biological basis for “mental illness” with actual scientific findings.

The hope is that one day, as David Kupfer MD plaintively tells us, research may, “culminate in the genetic and neuroscience breakthroughs that will revolutionize our field. In the meantime, should we merely hand patients another promissory note that something may happen sometime? Every day, we are dealing with impairment or tangible suffering, and we must respond. Our patients deserve no less.”

I have raised the fact before that almost by definition, psychiatric disorders are not medical conditions. If they are shown to have a biological basis, they cease being psychiatric disorders and are transferred to other areas of medicine, such as neurology. This point has been made repeatedly by others more qualified than I. As far as I can determine there is no evidence that DSM “mental disorders” are true medical conditions, but if such evidence comes in, they will be treated as medical conditions and not psychiatric disorders.

As I understand it, psychiatry and psychology have been trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. There is an attempt to reconcile the objective, quantitative, scientifically measurable aspects of the biological brain with the subjective, qualitative and immeasurable aspects of the mind with the hope of arriving at some meaningful answer.

I know that various scanning techniques have identified parts of the brain that “light up” when emotions or thoughts are invoked. But no one has ever been able to determine what comes first; do the thoughts “light up” the neurons or do the “lit up” neurons generate the thoughts?

We need to know the answers to this conundrum because the present level of psychiatric research conformity demands that any mental disorder can only be the result of some biological/chemical deficiency in the brain which can be cured by pharmacological products alone. The fact that the APA (above) has had an unusually reflective moment and realised that it may be wrong in promoting the quest for biological markers for mental disorders is illuminating to say the least and well over due.

Pharmaceutical drugs are not the answer – so what now?

I suggest that if it took years for any particular individual to develop whatever mental disorder symptoms are presented to the health professional concerned, popping a pill may, temporarily, alleviate the problem but will not cure it. What is needed is a long and time consuming, gentle, empathetic, holistic approach to the person concerned – listen, LISTEN to what the person has to say. There is always a message in there somewhere. It may need deciphering. The message will undoubtedly be garbled and may, for example, be an attempt to interpret an event which occurred when the person was an infant who would have lacked the relevant emotional or cognitive abilities to arrive at a satisfactory answer.

Once more, pharmaceutical drugs are not the answer. They are only marginally more efficacious than a placebo (and in some cases – generally not reported by the pharmaceutical companies concerned – may actually perform worse than placebos). Drugs, without exception, have severe side effects and have physical effects on the body, which often reduce life span by many years.

So, to answer the question posed at the beginning of this post - it now accepted that the assertions mental disorders are caused by biological factors are myths and based on fantasy, not facts.

Governments withholding information from the public

I have a rooted objection to being patronised or being considered as a “lesser” being.  What follows is a slightly modified version of a letter I sent to the Prime Minister of Australia the Hon. Tony Abbott PM. I believe that the sentiments expressed could easily be considered valid by the citizens of any nation:

“I write to you as a concerned citizen regarding your Government’s decision to withhold information provided to the public (the voters) of Australia relating to the plight of refugees trying to make their way to this country. The excuse offered is that this is an “operational” matter that cannot be made public. This as you will be well aware is a diversionary tactic and could be considered as a “weasel word”.

Your determination, your fixation on the “stop the boats” mantra is doing Australia immeasurable harm and by default to you, as Prime Minister and your Government. This greatly concerns me. By withholding information how are we the citizens, and voters, of Australia supposed to judge whether your actions are trustworthy or in our interests? For instance if another “Tampa affair” should eventuate how would we know (in 2001 the Australian Government refused to allow the Norwegian MV Tampa with over 400 refugees it had rescued from a fishing boat in distress to enter Australian waters) ? If another “they threw children overboard” accusation was made how would we know (refugees falsely accused by the Australian Government of throwing children overboard to force a rescue)? How will we ever judge your actions in a true and fair manner if we are only fed what you decide we are (apparently) “worthy” enough to know?

Take a hypothetical – if a massive earthquake or volcanic eruption demolished most of New Zealand’s North Island and thousands of “boat people” used whatever means at their disposal to make the dangerous trip across the Tasman Sea to the “safety” of Australia would they be stopped and sent to Nauru or Manus Island? Not at all! They would be welcomed because they are from our culture, speak English, are well educated and in desperate need. There would be no accusations of “queue jumping”; no accusations of “illegal immigrants” would there? 

So why attach derogatory and misleading terms to describe the unfortunate people fleeing dangerous countries – Afghanistan, Iraq (remember Australia helped create the problems in both these countries) Sri Lanka, South Sudan and similar places of great unrest and human misery? All peoples, whoever they are, and as a requirement of our common humanity, need to be treated with respect, dignity and compassion – particularly children. To do otherwise is to diminish yourselves and thereby the Nation.

Animal welfare organizations have the force of legislation to ensure that animals on farms; animals in zoos; and at home, even in abattoirs – are all considered with care for their welfare and wellbeing. But humans who we consider as “inferior”; humans we consider as “criminals”, or are treated as if they were criminals, are incarcerated on remote islands! This is no way to treat anyone – certainly not children. This manner of treatment has echoes of the 18^th and 19^th century policy of transportation - remember the Colony of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land? Remember “Devil’s Island” off the coast of French Guiana?

Please! This is the Twenty First Century and (hopefully) we have moved on from taking punitive action against those who we (or the representative Government of this country) deem unworthy of the shelter offered by this country. Such action leads to a dangerous path resulting in unknown and unforeseen consequences.

All close knit groups, collectives, with people in positions of authority, such as the Australian Government Cabinet, have a natural tendency to abuse their power. They all need oversight to prevent the situations so graphically exposed by the Abu Ghraib abuses, in Guantanamo Bay and those examined by Professor Philip Zimbardo (Stanford University) in his famous book “The Lucifer Effect – how good people turn evil”. And we, the voters of Australia, are your Government’s oversight and we need to know what it is that you are doing in our name.

Tell us what we MUST know to fulfill our duty as voters – not what you think we should know (which is propaganda)!!”