My one reader will know that I have a great liking for poetry (I like to think that I do actually have one reader who follows my mental perambulations through my writing, even though I have no idea who this long suffering person might be). I find solace and inspiration in poetry. The gentle rhythm of the metre and words I find peaceful and have a calming effect on me.
The particular poem I am writing about is just part of “Twilight” by John Masefield. Thinking of friends who have died the words of the last line of the poem are:
“Beautiful souls who were gentle when I was a child.”
It was the words “who were gentle when I was a child” that struck home to me. Now I had a wonderful childhood – with gentle people – so I have no direct experience of a childhood without gentle people but there seems to be a great deal of press coverage about people who would seem to have souls that are neither beautiful nor gentle and I wonder about the effect this has on the general public. This constant bombardment of negativity about paedophilia, child abduction, physical and sexual abuse perpetrated by people who should know better must give rise to emotions of resignation and helplessness – “there is not much I can do about it” and “if everyone is doing it why can’t I” sort of thing. Individuals who think like this have lost their moral compass and need some help and guidance
I fully appreciate that (fortunately) there is still a majority of “beautiful souls” who, in their roles as parents, as teachers, carers and mentors are doing a wonderful job with children. However, when one reads that about 1 in 4 or 5 women have suffered some sort of abuse by the time they are adults I am appalled and I am left wondering why this should be.
Alcohol and drug abuse are often raised as reasons for physical and sexual abuse but are no excuse – even when drunk one should still have a semblance of self control. I have been drunk in the past so I know - but I have no experience with drugs, never having taken any non-medicinal drugs in my life.
It is not the drugs or the alcohol that are the problem it is what caused the user (or abuser) of these substances to start using them in the first place; what emotional pain are they trying to dull; what anguish are they trying to hide; what memories are they trying to extinguish; what unbearable stress are they experiencing?
Answer these questions and half the problem will be solved.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Sharia Law in Australia
I know very little about the finer points of sharia law. I am certain about one thing however and that is, like oil and water, Religion and the Law don’t mix. Sharia Law is not codified, in fact, as I understand it Muslim clergy are the ones who interpret Sharia Law from their understanding of the Koran.
The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils wants a parallel system of Law in Australia whereby Muslims can marry, divorce and conduct business under Sharia Law. Why? Is Sharia Law better? Does it provide a “better” form of justice? Don’t they like “our” system of law? I mean we don’t stone women to death for adultery, do we? We don’t condone gang rape girls for the social “crime” of being seen with a non-Christian, do we? I would remind Muslims that “our” law is based on Christian principles (Love thy neighbour as thyself) and dates back to Roman times, which predates Sharia Law by some 600 years.
To submit to such requests is to, eventually, have a country – Australia –governed by Sharia Law, like Iran. God (or Allah) forbid!!!
Let me ask a question of the Muslims. If the situation was reversed and a whole boatload of Christians ended up in a Muslim country and demanded that they be allowed to marry, divorce and carry business under “Western” non-Sharia based law, would they be allowed to?
Stupid question!!
The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils wants a parallel system of Law in Australia whereby Muslims can marry, divorce and conduct business under Sharia Law. Why? Is Sharia Law better? Does it provide a “better” form of justice? Don’t they like “our” system of law? I mean we don’t stone women to death for adultery, do we? We don’t condone gang rape girls for the social “crime” of being seen with a non-Christian, do we? I would remind Muslims that “our” law is based on Christian principles (Love thy neighbour as thyself) and dates back to Roman times, which predates Sharia Law by some 600 years.
To submit to such requests is to, eventually, have a country – Australia –governed by Sharia Law, like Iran. God (or Allah) forbid!!!
Let me ask a question of the Muslims. If the situation was reversed and a whole boatload of Christians ended up in a Muslim country and demanded that they be allowed to marry, divorce and carry business under “Western” non-Sharia based law, would they be allowed to?
Stupid question!!
Sunday, May 15, 2011
What is Schizophrenia?
What is schizophrenia? The short answer is that no one knows. The effects are well documented even though they are not necessarily unique to schizophrenia. Since the term was first used by Eugen Bleuler in 1911, intense research has so far failed to identify the condition’s causes though it is thought to be a combination, in varying degrees, of genetic, environmental and neurological factors. This debilitating mental disorder is believed to affect about 1% of the World’s population and is generally first diagnosed in late teenage and early adulthood. For reasons not yet established more males than females are affected.
Not only is schizophrenia difficult to define but is without any confirmed pathological, molecular or genetic origin – it has no confirmed biological basis. Diagnosis is made from observed behaviours meeting the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV Axis 1) criteria. These criteria relate principally to the determination of an afflicted individual’s mental state, from their speech patterns and perceptions which may indicate possible hallucinations and/or delusions. This is supported by observed unusual behaviour which may affect the afflicted person’s ability to function effectively in the broader community. Therefore any diagnosis cannot be objectively “scientifically” proven, it is subjective - someone’s opinion and interpretation of behaviour. Furthermore it is not an illness which prescription medication can cure. It is certainly an unfortunate and debilitating condition but it is not an illness – and to call it such is misleading and wrong.
There appear to be many factors involved in the causes of schizophrenia. Obstetric complications, such as foetal hypoxia (foetus deprived of oxygen); viral infections the mother may have experienced during pregnancy; even the season of the year when giving birth, (winter being statistically the least favourable); the patient’s social status; even where the patient resides - in an urban or rural locality (urban being the least favourable), all appear to have a bearing on the incidence of this condition.
While not one single factor has been identified as common to all patients with the condition researchers are working on some evidence that schizophrenia may be a polygenic disorder (influenced by many genes) which is further influenced by environmental factors and a person’s emotional vulnerability while developing in teenage years. Stress appears also to be a factor in the development of schizophrenia as it is recognised in playing a significant role in many medical conditions. It is now thought, with some individuals, that certain levels of stress experienced may exceed their adaptive capacity and thus compound the vulnerabilities of the person concerned. Comments critical of the patient’s demeanour and behaviour together with the alternative of an over-protective relationship have a significant bearing on the course of schizophrenia – this is called a high level of Expressed Emotion. Some patient’s may suffer a relapse from a relatively stable condition which allowed for their discharge from a treatment centre. There is, however, no agreement on the meaning of relapse.
It is now known that people suffering schizophrenia are more likely to recover and less likely to suffer a relapse if they live in a calm, non-critical, non-overprotective environment – a low level of Expressed Emotion. It is well documented that early intervention programmes are of vital importance in determining a favourable outcome for schizophrenia patients but there appears to be no agreement on what recovery actually means. Recovery varies considerably in effect from individual to individual – is it a “clinical” objective recovery (decided by using DSM IV criteria) or an individual’s subjective assessment of their quality of life? It was believed that, once diagnosed with schizophrenia, there was no chance of recovery. There is now, however, a body of evidence suggesting that the situation, for many sufferers, may not be quite so dire, particularly with those individuals not using street drugs and not drinking to excess. With a correct balance between antipsychotic drug treatments and other psychosocial and psychological interventions it is now known that between 20% to 30% recover sufficiently to lead relatively normal lives, with a further 20% to 30% manifesting continuing moderate symptoms. Other reports show that the recovery rate is actually quite high though generally under-reported and is actually somewhere between 50% and 60%. All this shows that the “experts” still don’t really know.
Given the astonishing lack of knowledge about what causes schizophrenia, expressed emotion, relapse and recovery together with the limited understanding of how they relate to one another, how scientists can claim statistical “evidence” and validity proves anything is really surprising. Research is consistent in reporting that high levels of expressed emotion are likely lead to a relapse by patients with schizophrenia. Why this should be, however, is not fully understood. The many factors involved may possibly be partly genetic but certainly involve subjective elements which are difficult to define and measure. No one knows what it really means to recover or relapse nor is it understood from “what” a recovery or relapse is occurring! Also no one knows why high levels of expressed emotion (an “un-calm” environment) may be a predictor of a patient’s relapse.
A mental condition as complex as schizophrenia cannot be artificially restricted to fit the requirements of the DSM-IV. Nature will not be governed by man-made conditions which attempt to force it to answer questions required for statistical analysis to satisfy the ideals of “scientific research”. Statistics are unable to adequately assess the nuances and subtleties of words, gestures, feelings, imaginings, desires and beliefs that, in varying degrees, are so tied to and characteristic of each individual and which are known to have an effect on the outcome of schizophrenia and any relapse or recovery.
To force a patient suffering from schizophrenia to take medication – without knowing what the medication actually does or how it works (and with significant side effects) – is ethically questionable and quite wrong in my opinion. The better way is to look at the physical and emotional environment and conditions which spawned the patient’s affliction. It is necessary to find out what all this means to the patient – their interpretation of the events and how it has affected his or her thinking.
Schizophrenia is as much a mysterious condition as it was 100 years ago, certainly the "experts" have no idea what it really is or how to "cure" the condition.
Not only is schizophrenia difficult to define but is without any confirmed pathological, molecular or genetic origin – it has no confirmed biological basis. Diagnosis is made from observed behaviours meeting the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV Axis 1) criteria. These criteria relate principally to the determination of an afflicted individual’s mental state, from their speech patterns and perceptions which may indicate possible hallucinations and/or delusions. This is supported by observed unusual behaviour which may affect the afflicted person’s ability to function effectively in the broader community. Therefore any diagnosis cannot be objectively “scientifically” proven, it is subjective - someone’s opinion and interpretation of behaviour. Furthermore it is not an illness which prescription medication can cure. It is certainly an unfortunate and debilitating condition but it is not an illness – and to call it such is misleading and wrong.
There appear to be many factors involved in the causes of schizophrenia. Obstetric complications, such as foetal hypoxia (foetus deprived of oxygen); viral infections the mother may have experienced during pregnancy; even the season of the year when giving birth, (winter being statistically the least favourable); the patient’s social status; even where the patient resides - in an urban or rural locality (urban being the least favourable), all appear to have a bearing on the incidence of this condition.
While not one single factor has been identified as common to all patients with the condition researchers are working on some evidence that schizophrenia may be a polygenic disorder (influenced by many genes) which is further influenced by environmental factors and a person’s emotional vulnerability while developing in teenage years. Stress appears also to be a factor in the development of schizophrenia as it is recognised in playing a significant role in many medical conditions. It is now thought, with some individuals, that certain levels of stress experienced may exceed their adaptive capacity and thus compound the vulnerabilities of the person concerned. Comments critical of the patient’s demeanour and behaviour together with the alternative of an over-protective relationship have a significant bearing on the course of schizophrenia – this is called a high level of Expressed Emotion. Some patient’s may suffer a relapse from a relatively stable condition which allowed for their discharge from a treatment centre. There is, however, no agreement on the meaning of relapse.
It is now known that people suffering schizophrenia are more likely to recover and less likely to suffer a relapse if they live in a calm, non-critical, non-overprotective environment – a low level of Expressed Emotion. It is well documented that early intervention programmes are of vital importance in determining a favourable outcome for schizophrenia patients but there appears to be no agreement on what recovery actually means. Recovery varies considerably in effect from individual to individual – is it a “clinical” objective recovery (decided by using DSM IV criteria) or an individual’s subjective assessment of their quality of life? It was believed that, once diagnosed with schizophrenia, there was no chance of recovery. There is now, however, a body of evidence suggesting that the situation, for many sufferers, may not be quite so dire, particularly with those individuals not using street drugs and not drinking to excess. With a correct balance between antipsychotic drug treatments and other psychosocial and psychological interventions it is now known that between 20% to 30% recover sufficiently to lead relatively normal lives, with a further 20% to 30% manifesting continuing moderate symptoms. Other reports show that the recovery rate is actually quite high though generally under-reported and is actually somewhere between 50% and 60%. All this shows that the “experts” still don’t really know.
Given the astonishing lack of knowledge about what causes schizophrenia, expressed emotion, relapse and recovery together with the limited understanding of how they relate to one another, how scientists can claim statistical “evidence” and validity proves anything is really surprising. Research is consistent in reporting that high levels of expressed emotion are likely lead to a relapse by patients with schizophrenia. Why this should be, however, is not fully understood. The many factors involved may possibly be partly genetic but certainly involve subjective elements which are difficult to define and measure. No one knows what it really means to recover or relapse nor is it understood from “what” a recovery or relapse is occurring! Also no one knows why high levels of expressed emotion (an “un-calm” environment) may be a predictor of a patient’s relapse.
A mental condition as complex as schizophrenia cannot be artificially restricted to fit the requirements of the DSM-IV. Nature will not be governed by man-made conditions which attempt to force it to answer questions required for statistical analysis to satisfy the ideals of “scientific research”. Statistics are unable to adequately assess the nuances and subtleties of words, gestures, feelings, imaginings, desires and beliefs that, in varying degrees, are so tied to and characteristic of each individual and which are known to have an effect on the outcome of schizophrenia and any relapse or recovery.
To force a patient suffering from schizophrenia to take medication – without knowing what the medication actually does or how it works (and with significant side effects) – is ethically questionable and quite wrong in my opinion. The better way is to look at the physical and emotional environment and conditions which spawned the patient’s affliction. It is necessary to find out what all this means to the patient – their interpretation of the events and how it has affected his or her thinking.
Schizophrenia is as much a mysterious condition as it was 100 years ago, certainly the "experts" have no idea what it really is or how to "cure" the condition.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
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”.
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”.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
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!
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!
Saturday, March 5, 2011
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!
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!
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!
Monday, February 21, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)