Mental health issues - again!

What is it with this (mental “health”) subject, this “condition” that so confuses people? First off, let’s be clear on this, it is NOT an illness, as in measles, or diabetes which have well defined pathological markers and have well documented developmental stages and certain, scientifically proven medical cures or control measures. Mental health, on the other hand, has been closely examined for over 100 years and yet the questions relating to the various “conditions” described in the psychological and psychiatric “Bible” – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version IV (DSM IV) produced by the American Psychological Association (APA) are no nearer being answered. Why or how some people suffer from “mental health problems” is unknown.

To me an illness is something defined, medically, by the affect it has on the human body – high temperature, skin eruptions and possible damage to organs leading to their possible failure and such like. This scientific knowledge allows physicians to specifically treat the condition presented and to either prevent it occurring in the first place (preventative medicine) or to either cure it (measles) or control it (diabetes). Thus an illness is something people HAVE – a medical, pathological condition. There is no known pathological test for mental health that will determine whether a person is depressed, schizophrenic or bi-polar (some mental health issues may be the result of the after affects of excessive drug or alcohol intake). There is no proven genetic component. Furthermore no one knows exactly how or why certain pharmaceutical drugs seem to have a beneficial effect.

Anything affecting a person’s mind, on the other hand, may result in behaviour not generally considered as normal. Again, referring to the DSM IV this altered behaviour, observed by others, checked against certain criteria listed in the DSM IV determines if a person is “diagnosed” as depressed, schizophrenic, bi-polar or whatever. Thus there is nothing objectively “scientific” about any “diagnosis”. Any “diagnosis” is subjective and based on the opinion of the observer (however well trained they may be). Then there is the claim that some “mental illnesses” may be genetic in origin (ie schizophrenia) but this is a long way from being proven. Anyway even if genes are involved genes are not “self emergent” – they are “switches” that need to be turned “on” or “off”. In other words they do not operate on their own accord. They need a “trigger” to operate – always something in the environment.

If the environment is the culprit this would mean that something witnessed or experienced by the sufferer has affected them to such an extent that they now view the world from a different perspective. Does this make them “sick”? It has been admirably stated by others that, “If you talk to God you are praying. If God talks to you, you are schizophrenic.” A “mental illness” may affect a person’s behaviour - something that they DO. How can anyone, except the person concerned, determine if such behaviour is “wrong” or “abnormal”? Anyway there is no known, universally accepted, definition of “normal” – what is “normal” for me may not necessarily be “normal for you. Is it not conceivable that certain behaviour be just considered as eccentric?

Consider Moses (Exodus 3.2) - he heard the voice of the Lord coming from a burning bush but no one thinks that is odd. Now if I presented myself to a hospital and said that I heard the voice of the Lord coming from a burning bush I know that I would be considered mentally ill and most probably medicated to calm me down!! Surely there are enough “odd-ball” and eccentric people in the broader community to allow for the odd extremes without hospitalising and forcing pharmaceutical drugs on them against their will?

Why must we (and I include myself in this “we’ as I am part of the Australian society) force our views on what “we” consider to be right or wrong on to others who may hold quite valid but different views?

If (according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics) one in four people in Australia either has suffered, is suffering or will suffer from a mental “illness” (as defined by DSM IV) then surely there is something dramatically wrong with the way we currently live our lives? Just read any daily news paper, or tune in to any radio or TV news programme and all you read or hear about is Man’s inhumanity to Man – the cruelty, the injustice, the manifest unkindness, general lack of consideration and want of compassion is quite extraordinary. All this is bound to affect people in one way or another. Is it not possible that people who are diagnosed as “mentally ill” are just trying to adjust to a way of life that appals them, that may be too much for them to accept and they are just trying to escape to a “safe” place? Medicating such people to the point of stupefaction is no answer and certainly not the correct solution. Nor is incarcerating them in mental institutions.

To conclude maybe I should, once again, repeat the words of the Indian sage Krishnamurti who once said, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”.

Howling Dog

Most people will know this story – or at least some variation of it. It is a simple tale of a man who visits a friend who he finds on the back porch sitting on a chair, idling away the time by whittling on a piece of wood. He strikes up a conversation with his friend but is constantly interrupted by a dog lying next to the chair, who, every now and again whines then emits a howl. Somewhat alarmed he asks his friend if the dog shouldn’t be taken to a vet and treated for an obviously painful ailment.

The friend says, “No. He is lying on a nail but it is not hurting enough for him to get up and move. So he just lies there whining and howling.”

Now how many of us are in a situation, domestically or at work, which gives us grief in that it is emotionally draining, stressful and generally unpleasant? If this is your situation (and I believe that many people find themselves in this situation) which, to put it plainly, is not conducive to peace of mind, what are you doing about it? Are you just accepting the emotional pain without getting up and moving and just like the dog in the tale above, complaining about your situation but remaining where you are? Why? In the name of all that is wonderful, why?

In our society it is a criminal offence to physically restrain someone against their will - unless of course you are already in prison, which is a different story entirely. I am talking about voluntary situations where you made a choice which turned out to have been not very good. We all make bad decisions at times. If you made a bad choice, take a deep breath, choose again and move on with your life.

Remember, without chains, you are only held against your will if you have, (even subconsciously), given someone permission to hold you. Move on – withdraw that “permission” and live the life you choose to live. Live your life, not the life someone else want you to live.

Now choose and move on! Do something! Doing nothing isn't an option!

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!

Please talk to me!

What do you do – or what can you do, at work, when your superior cuts you out of the loop of information and limits the control you have over your life? I guess that you would have an argument and then walk out and find another job. But what happens when a country's leader does the equivalent of the same thing?

With all the modern means of communication, why is it that people don’t talk to each other? Governments communicating with their citizens; firms communicating with the workforce, down to an individual level, to let them know what is going on and how they are tracking and the importance of their contribution is vital for harmonious relationships and an individual’s general well being. Yet this is a significant failing with most governments and in many organisations.

To me this is a classic example of any organisations indifference, down-right bad “people management” and very poor communications. It is also an example of the (unfortunately common) attitude that the only thing governments care about is power (and money) and that the only thing firms care about is money – their citizens or staff, their morale, work-life balance, welfare and well-being come a long way second.

I believe that poor communications is at the core of what is happening in the Muslim world at present – the current “popular” uprisings against oppressive regimes. People are getting tired of continually being told what they can and cannot do by an elite class or group who consider themselves better than others and above the law (rule by edict). Part of the problem is that Muslim law and religious practices are so intertwined that the State, religion and the law courts are one and the same.
This leads to massive conflicts of interest. Similar problems were recognised in England over 1000 years ago when the King (John) was forced to step back from actually ruling the country and to agree to the separation of powers – that the State, the Law courts and elected Parliament (the Government) should be independent from each other.

Muslim (Sharia)law does not operate in this way. But I really think that something similar will have to occur in countries where Koranic Law prevails. Currently the Mullahs are both the lawyers and the enforcers of the law – in effect they are the law makers, judges and ‘executioners’ of the law. They are not, however, trained in law – they are trained in the Islamic religion. This is not necessarily the same thing. The Koran, as I understand it, suggests a code of conduct, which if followed should lead to peace and harmony between all peoples. The same applies to Christianity and Judaism – we are all ‘children’ of Abraham after all. The trouble is no one follows the code of conduct – everyone has their own interpretation – just look at the problems between Shia and Sunni Muslims - both followers of the same faith.

I suggest that until there is a separation of powers in the Muslim world these uprising will continue for some time yet. People need some personal control over their lives – an elected parliament gives this element of control. If this separation of powers actually happens then there will be a long overdue renaissance in the Muslim world.

Dog Hanging

The other day I came across a bizarre news item. Some woman, in America, had apparently become so upset that a dog had chewed her Bible that she hanged the dog and then burned it! She apparently said that God had told her to!

Now I know that God can and does do many wonderful things but I cannot believe that He instructed this woman to torture and kill one of His creatures because it chewed a book! - even a sacred book, such as a Bible.

A fine Christian attitude this woman has! In her heart there does not seem to be much compassion or the ‘milk of human kindness’ does there? If found guilty of animal cruelty she faces about four years in prison. What she needs is treatment and also, even if she has never read it, she needs to understand the sentiment expressed in the lines from the  poem, “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge -

“He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.”

Wikileaks, Injustice and Peace

I have said this before and I will keep saying it till the day I die – injustice is the cause of most of the human induced misery on this planet we call Earth. Injustice is the most important factor in most of the troubles we have in the world at this time.

This is true of those who are trying to prevent details of their questionable activities being disclosed by Wikileaks; it is true of the Chinese authorities imprisoning a man (a Nobel Peace award winner) for daring to expose corruption and human rights abuse in China; it is true of any corrupt and dictatorial government or regime anywhere in the world; it is true of any organisation or company that has a “money at all costs and damn the consequences” culture; it is true of any family suffering from the ministrations of an abusive adult; it is true of any gang or group that consider themselves “different” or “better” or “exclusive”; it is true of any individual who harbours the notion that others owe him (or her) a living and that they are somehow privileged above all others.

There is no way of avoiding it – injustice in THE problem. There is also no avoiding the fact that we – collectively – have created the social and economic conditions we – collectively - find ourselves in. We have done it – there is no one else!

It is evident, everywhere, that despite the centuries of moral and ethical teachings, people have only imperfectly learned that it is in their own interests to consider the needs of their ‘neighbour’ and to treat others as they, themselves, would like to be treated. To fail to do so and to fail to recognise the needs of the society to which they belong, is to invite disaster – both individually and collectively.

I am going to quote from an old book by Carl Gustav Jung, the great Swiss Psychologist, the 1916 publication “Psychology of the Unconscious”. It is a bit long winded and the language used may be unfamiliar to modern ears, but what he says is true none-the-less. I quote from the introduction to the work:

“Life itself has needs and imperiously demands expression through the forms created. All nature answers to this freely and simply, except man. His failure to recognise himself as an instrument through which the life energy is coursing and the demands of which must be obeyed, is the cause of his misery. Despite his possession of intellect and self consciousness, he cannot without disaster to himself refuse the tasks of life and the fulfilment of his own needs. Man’s great task is the adaption of himself to reality and the recognition of himself as an instrument for the expression of life according to his individual possibilities.”

This is so true. While we are part of Humanity and share many common characteristics, none-the-less, we need to express our selves each in our own unique way. While we are about it why not aim for the highest form of contribution we can make – the highest ‘common denominator’ not the lowest?

By helping others reach their full potential we help ourselves to reach our own potential. This is just the way it is. Imprisoning, torturing and generally being less than generous to others not only diminishes the perpetrators but also diminishes us as human beings – because we are all members of the human race. By trying to diminish others and trying to ‘prove’ that we are better than those ‘others’ we are contributing to the unhappiness in the world and reducing the likelihood of peace.

Chinese Characters

There was a local news item the other day regarding Chinese authorities concern about the “purity” of the Chinese language. They are apparently contemplating means to prevent the popularization of non-Chinese words (mainly English) together with the use of non-Chinese letters and characters.

Let me admit first up that I have no knowledge at all of Chinese – I can neither read, write nor speak any words in that language, so what I am saying now is based on my general knowledge, not on specifics. But I understand that Chinese is not a phonetic language (it is tonal), in that a Chinese “word” cannot be broken down into individual vowels and consonants, like words based on the Indo-Persian–Greek-Latin languages (ie English!). I am hoping that someone, with knowledge of Chinese, will correct me if I am wrong!

Be that as it may, how the Chinese authorities are going to enforce the “purity” of their language is difficult to imagine. Being an authoritarian government I suppose they could employ undercover “word police” arresting people who dare to use non-Chinese words in their speech. The trouble with this approach is that it poses two problems for the “language purity” authorities and the Chinese people in general:-

a. As soon as authorities “ban” the use of a word the message has to be disseminated somehow. The media generally – posters, the press, TV, the internet and cell phone SMS would all need to be employed to spread the message. Immediately many millions of people who had never heard of the “undesirable” word would now know what it was! So rather than curtailing the spread, the consequence would be to spread it even further – albeit, with a warning.

b. The world is a dynamic place and language follows. Many “new” words would represent new ideas, technology, inventions and concepts and “slang”, which may have no equivalent in Chinese characters or sounds. If the authorities wish to prevent these “new” words from entering and “polluting” their language they will need to employ an army of linguists to study every and all publications and the social media so as to constantly devise new characters or combinations of existing characters to equate to the new “sounds” and meanings.

The French tried this (to prevent the encroachment of English into French) and I believe that they have given up a battle they discovered they would never win. Society changes faster than any government authority can hope to emulate and as I said before language follows a similar course. This is the “advantage” of English – it is so adaptable – it absorbs and incorporates any new, useful word, from whatever language and then “adopts” it as its own – and nobody cares one way or another.

English (simply put) is based on three principal languages – Latin, Germanic (Saxon) and French, but has incorporated words (at least the sound but with Anglicized spelling) from Scandinavia (Norse), Holland (Dutch), Greece, the Middle East (Arabic), India, Australian Aboriginal, North American Indian, many other countries and yes, even Chinese.

Remember that a language is purely a means of communication, so it does not really matter which language is used as long as people understand the message! English has now been adopted as the “official” language of air and marine safety and many other international organizations. This came about, through a process of “soft power” – admiration, striving to emulate the activities of successful people, in music, in literature and a general accessibility. Authoritarian rule will never stop a “natural” process.