I really don’t know what the fuss is about! Doing the same as we have always done may have been the only course of action when the world was younger and the population a great deal less than today, but this is far from the ideal today.
The three imperatives for sustainable life (of any type) are clean air, clean soil and clean water. Without these three – all three at the same time – life as we know it could not exist. It is much cheaper and easier to be proactive and prevent a dire situation rather than be reactive and try to correct an already dire situation.
I know that there have been hotter and colder periods of the Earth’s geological history and that these episodes may be cyclical. But I also know that at no time in our geological history have there been so many humans on earth pumping out so much pollution whilst simultaneously plundering the very means whereby the Earth regenerates itself. The chemicals, the toxic waste – air borne, water borne and lodged in the soil - that we human’s generate reduces the earth’s capacity to absorb the pollutants. These pollutants also have a deleterious effect on the life of us humans – the very people who are causing the problem in the first place by affecting our own health (lung cancer for one) the food we eat (the animals and plants) in ways yet to be determined. I suppose there is some poetic justice in this, unpleasant though idea may be.
This plundering of the Earth’s resources (in the name of economic necessity) and this continual generating pollution (also in the name of economic necessity) must be reduced. It cannot continue unabated. People will never do this voluntarily (there is too much money involved) so they have to be forced to change their ways, and taxation is the most effective way of doing this.
I for one have no objection in paying this tax. For those that may be interested I also support the so called “Mining Tax” as a means of providing a fund to keep Australia going when we have no more iron ore, or oil, or rare earth minerals to sustain our, expected, standard of living (and to pay for filling in the huge holes left in the ground by the miners).
The status quo is not a viable option. The Earth will still be around for millions of years – I am not sure about us, at least not in the form we are familiar with.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Reflections
When I look in a mirror I see a white haired man with a somewhat time-worn face. But I am not old, at least I do not feel old. I know – rather, let me say, I have knowledge of the fact that, on my Life’s journey I am nearer the end than the beginning. Sometimes I almost feel as if I am taking a pleasant gentle stroll towards a still to be determined sunset.
Even though my muscles may not have the strength they once had, my step is still firm; my eyesight is ok but needs some optical assistance; my hearing is somewhat impaired (a bad right ear as a result of military gunfire – a .303 Lee-Enfield makes one helluva noise); my heart, lungs and other internal organs are sound (I take no prescription medications); I am just within my correct Body Mass Index (BMI) at 24.5 (even if this is at the upper end of normal); I don’t smoke (never have); I don’t drink alcohol; so, generally, I think I am good for a few more years yet.
This got me reflecting on my heart and hearts in general. What incredible organs they are. Mine has been pumping blood tirelessly for over 70 years – I have a slow pulse rate, at about 60 per minute:-
Now at 60 beats per minute this
= 3 600 beats per hour
= 86 400 beats per day
= 604 800 beats per week
= 31 449 600 beats per year
And in my case, so far in my life = 2 201 472 000 beats - over 2 thousand million times without faltering or complaining!! What makes this figure even more astonishing is that, so I understand, while every other cell in our bodies is replaced many times over, the cells comprising the “pumping muscles” of the heart are never replaced (or replaced very slowly - according to new research). They actually start beating 3 weeks after conception and just keep on going. They can never rest. So these same cells in the same muscles in my heart have been expanding and contracting in a seemingly tireless rhythm – squeeze-release, squeeze-release - since before I was born!! This is a prodigious feat worthy of some high order of wonder.
Just think about it – my “heart” started beating before my brain was formed – as did yours! This means – which is quite true – that heart muscles have been found to be independent from the brain and, in some manner, seem to communicate between themselves to synchronise their movements. This is an astonishing finding which, I might add, applies to anything – reptile, fish, animal, human or whatever, that has a heart. If these cells communicate between themselves (however “communication” is determined) this would indicate that they have some degree of intelligence. Without a measure of intelligence how can anything “communicate” and understand what is being communicated? This must be why the heart has always been considered the central organ and the centre of the emotions – “she has a heart of gold”; “he is a big hearted man” and so on.
If cells are intelligent where or how does this intelligence arise? Something cannot come from nothing. To me this reinforces my belief that that there is a “collective unconscious” (as proposed by C.G. Jung) which I equate with the essence of “Life” that animates all cellular life. Something “out there” that is greater than any of us; something that is the reason why we are born at all; something that, we may assume, had a plan which may be a work in progress that commenced with the “Big Bang”, some billions of years ago. All life forms are not just an agglomeration of matter; there is something above and beyond the observable Universe which affects all sentient beings in different ways according to their kind. I cannot prove this of course – but then no one can disprove it either!
Regardless of one’s viewpoint on this matter – a heart is still a wondrous organ and worthy of a great deal more care and attention than we normally give it.
Even though my muscles may not have the strength they once had, my step is still firm; my eyesight is ok but needs some optical assistance; my hearing is somewhat impaired (a bad right ear as a result of military gunfire – a .303 Lee-Enfield makes one helluva noise); my heart, lungs and other internal organs are sound (I take no prescription medications); I am just within my correct Body Mass Index (BMI) at 24.5 (even if this is at the upper end of normal); I don’t smoke (never have); I don’t drink alcohol; so, generally, I think I am good for a few more years yet.
This got me reflecting on my heart and hearts in general. What incredible organs they are. Mine has been pumping blood tirelessly for over 70 years – I have a slow pulse rate, at about 60 per minute:-
Now at 60 beats per minute this
= 3 600 beats per hour
= 86 400 beats per day
= 604 800 beats per week
= 31 449 600 beats per year
And in my case, so far in my life = 2 201 472 000 beats - over 2 thousand million times without faltering or complaining!! What makes this figure even more astonishing is that, so I understand, while every other cell in our bodies is replaced many times over, the cells comprising the “pumping muscles” of the heart are never replaced (or replaced very slowly - according to new research). They actually start beating 3 weeks after conception and just keep on going. They can never rest. So these same cells in the same muscles in my heart have been expanding and contracting in a seemingly tireless rhythm – squeeze-release, squeeze-release - since before I was born!! This is a prodigious feat worthy of some high order of wonder.
Just think about it – my “heart” started beating before my brain was formed – as did yours! This means – which is quite true – that heart muscles have been found to be independent from the brain and, in some manner, seem to communicate between themselves to synchronise their movements. This is an astonishing finding which, I might add, applies to anything – reptile, fish, animal, human or whatever, that has a heart. If these cells communicate between themselves (however “communication” is determined) this would indicate that they have some degree of intelligence. Without a measure of intelligence how can anything “communicate” and understand what is being communicated? This must be why the heart has always been considered the central organ and the centre of the emotions – “she has a heart of gold”; “he is a big hearted man” and so on.
If cells are intelligent where or how does this intelligence arise? Something cannot come from nothing. To me this reinforces my belief that that there is a “collective unconscious” (as proposed by C.G. Jung) which I equate with the essence of “Life” that animates all cellular life. Something “out there” that is greater than any of us; something that is the reason why we are born at all; something that, we may assume, had a plan which may be a work in progress that commenced with the “Big Bang”, some billions of years ago. All life forms are not just an agglomeration of matter; there is something above and beyond the observable Universe which affects all sentient beings in different ways according to their kind. I cannot prove this of course – but then no one can disprove it either!
Regardless of one’s viewpoint on this matter – a heart is still a wondrous organ and worthy of a great deal more care and attention than we normally give it.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Mental health, surveillance, controls and us.
Amended September 21, 2018.
This is another post from some years ago that is, I feel, particularly relevant today with the news that China is using millions of CCTV cameras (with face recognition software) to keep tabs of all citizens. Those who are seen to follow the "Party Line" earn "Social Credits" and are allowed to travel both within and outside China, for example. There are many more social activities that you or I would consider normal that are denied those with a low "Social Credit" score.
Today, when we are deluged with advertising exhorting us to buy this or that product, to follow this or that cause, to do this or that because “you deserve it”, how many of us actually know what we like or even who we are? Certainly advertising is useful – in its place. But when we reach a stage of believing everything we are told – by someone who certainly does not have our best interests in mind – I think we are in trouble. How can anyone know what I need, or want, or should do? They (whoever “they” may be) may generalise and say that statistically most people do this or that or the other thing. But when “they” try to apply their generalisations to me (or you) it becomes an opinion, because they don’t know my (or your) specific attributes and needs.
The thing is that it is so easy to follow what others do. There is comfort in knowing that we conform to what the group or society is doing (whether this is right or wrong). I suppose it is that same sort of comfort afforded to a herd of gazelles about to be attacked by a lion. There is comfort in numbers – an individual gazelle’s chance of being eaten by the lion is in inverse proportion to the size of the herd – a relatively small chance. Many of us may unconsciously try to comply with the same herd instinct. I am not sure that this is, generally, in our best interests. To revert to the example of the gazelles, each gazelle conforms to the characteristics of their kind – all are of a similar colour and size. Human beings, on the other hand, are not all of one colour or one size, and what are are the characteristics of our kind? We have attributes and characteristics derived from ALL animals – we live, survive and seem to thrive in every climatic and environmental condition.
So where does this leave us human beings? We have a propensity to conform – it is so easy to do so. There is no need for us to think for ourselves. Someone (who we presume must know better than us) tells us what to do because it is deemed to be best for us (as individuals). On the other hand it is a human requirement that we each grow and develop in our own individual way for our own individual purposes. We each learn from and react to experiences and circumstances in our own unique way. We are not clones. We each, in our own way on our journey through life, add to the sum of human knowledge. This is as it should be because in this way humanity benefits. There will certainly be ups and downs, positives and negatives in this journey and with the knowledge we gain in this process. But again this is as it should be. How else can we learn?
This gets me back to where I started from – other people telling me (or us) what to do. Rather than being told what to do, there is I believe a (possibly unconscious) covert move to influence us in other ways. Why are there so many surveillance cameras in most major cities? I believe it is because the authorities (whoever they are) want us to believe that we are under constant surveillance by some unseen authority. In this way it is hoped that we “internalise” this sense of being observed and alter our behaviour. This is a form of power whereby physical control is switched from the old concept of chains, to self control through the fear of not knowing for certain whether or not we are being observed. This uncertainty will change the way we think of ourselves as citizens by introducing the element of fear which leads us to “conform” to some vague, undefined, pattern of behaviour.
Ostensibly the surveillance is to identify criminals, and one has to admit it is useful in this regard. However are we to submit to some Government ill defined “greater good”, which limits individual freedoms? By freedoms I do not in any way suggest that we can or should do what we like. Not at all. Paradoxically, because we, as individuals, always hold to the core belief that we are good, any attempt to expose activity to the contrary (i.e. by surveillance cameras) is met with an element of anxiety – no one wants to be shown up to be less than their own idea of who they are. This aside, any constraint on our ability as individuals to express ourselves as we see fit has, I am sure, unforeseen consequences. The fundamental law of life – the law of cause and effect, may be forgotten but can never be avoided. Ethics, morality and values (both personal and cultural) must be adhered to.
Stress and anxiety are known to be precursors of a variety of mental problems as defined by the Psychologists “Bible” – the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – DSM5. It is possible, even probable, that the elements of stress and anxiety brought about by this background of constant surveillance is instrumental in the, verified, higher incidence of schizophrenia in cities as compared to rural areas.
In high density urban environments we are constantly pulled and pushed by conflicting demands – we need to maintain certain standards of behaviour (on the surface at least) to keep peace with neighbours; we have a desire to maintain living standards and to have certain material goods to satisfy our children and to “keep up with the Jones’”; we are aware that we are constantly being observed by our neighbours for any transgressions. Thus we are forced to conform to standards that are not of our making and which may conflict with our individual values and moral standards. To have added to this the knowledge that we are under constant CCTV surveillance is an additional level of stress.
This does bode well for our peace of mind.
Maybe the Chinese Authorities should recall that some twenty-seven centuries ago the Chinese philosopher Confucius stated that:
"If you govern people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard."
This is another post from some years ago that is, I feel, particularly relevant today with the news that China is using millions of CCTV cameras (with face recognition software) to keep tabs of all citizens. Those who are seen to follow the "Party Line" earn "Social Credits" and are allowed to travel both within and outside China, for example. There are many more social activities that you or I would consider normal that are denied those with a low "Social Credit" score.
Today, when we are deluged with advertising exhorting us to buy this or that product, to follow this or that cause, to do this or that because “you deserve it”, how many of us actually know what we like or even who we are? Certainly advertising is useful – in its place. But when we reach a stage of believing everything we are told – by someone who certainly does not have our best interests in mind – I think we are in trouble. How can anyone know what I need, or want, or should do? They (whoever “they” may be) may generalise and say that statistically most people do this or that or the other thing. But when “they” try to apply their generalisations to me (or you) it becomes an opinion, because they don’t know my (or your) specific attributes and needs.
The thing is that it is so easy to follow what others do. There is comfort in knowing that we conform to what the group or society is doing (whether this is right or wrong). I suppose it is that same sort of comfort afforded to a herd of gazelles about to be attacked by a lion. There is comfort in numbers – an individual gazelle’s chance of being eaten by the lion is in inverse proportion to the size of the herd – a relatively small chance. Many of us may unconsciously try to comply with the same herd instinct. I am not sure that this is, generally, in our best interests. To revert to the example of the gazelles, each gazelle conforms to the characteristics of their kind – all are of a similar colour and size. Human beings, on the other hand, are not all of one colour or one size, and what are are the characteristics of our kind? We have attributes and characteristics derived from ALL animals – we live, survive and seem to thrive in every climatic and environmental condition.
So where does this leave us human beings? We have a propensity to conform – it is so easy to do so. There is no need for us to think for ourselves. Someone (who we presume must know better than us) tells us what to do because it is deemed to be best for us (as individuals). On the other hand it is a human requirement that we each grow and develop in our own individual way for our own individual purposes. We each learn from and react to experiences and circumstances in our own unique way. We are not clones. We each, in our own way on our journey through life, add to the sum of human knowledge. This is as it should be because in this way humanity benefits. There will certainly be ups and downs, positives and negatives in this journey and with the knowledge we gain in this process. But again this is as it should be. How else can we learn?
This gets me back to where I started from – other people telling me (or us) what to do. Rather than being told what to do, there is I believe a (possibly unconscious) covert move to influence us in other ways. Why are there so many surveillance cameras in most major cities? I believe it is because the authorities (whoever they are) want us to believe that we are under constant surveillance by some unseen authority. In this way it is hoped that we “internalise” this sense of being observed and alter our behaviour. This is a form of power whereby physical control is switched from the old concept of chains, to self control through the fear of not knowing for certain whether or not we are being observed. This uncertainty will change the way we think of ourselves as citizens by introducing the element of fear which leads us to “conform” to some vague, undefined, pattern of behaviour.
Ostensibly the surveillance is to identify criminals, and one has to admit it is useful in this regard. However are we to submit to some Government ill defined “greater good”, which limits individual freedoms? By freedoms I do not in any way suggest that we can or should do what we like. Not at all. Paradoxically, because we, as individuals, always hold to the core belief that we are good, any attempt to expose activity to the contrary (i.e. by surveillance cameras) is met with an element of anxiety – no one wants to be shown up to be less than their own idea of who they are. This aside, any constraint on our ability as individuals to express ourselves as we see fit has, I am sure, unforeseen consequences. The fundamental law of life – the law of cause and effect, may be forgotten but can never be avoided. Ethics, morality and values (both personal and cultural) must be adhered to.
Stress and anxiety are known to be precursors of a variety of mental problems as defined by the Psychologists “Bible” – the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – DSM5. It is possible, even probable, that the elements of stress and anxiety brought about by this background of constant surveillance is instrumental in the, verified, higher incidence of schizophrenia in cities as compared to rural areas.
In high density urban environments we are constantly pulled and pushed by conflicting demands – we need to maintain certain standards of behaviour (on the surface at least) to keep peace with neighbours; we have a desire to maintain living standards and to have certain material goods to satisfy our children and to “keep up with the Jones’”; we are aware that we are constantly being observed by our neighbours for any transgressions. Thus we are forced to conform to standards that are not of our making and which may conflict with our individual values and moral standards. To have added to this the knowledge that we are under constant CCTV surveillance is an additional level of stress.
This does bode well for our peace of mind.
Maybe the Chinese Authorities should recall that some twenty-seven centuries ago the Chinese philosopher Confucius stated that:
"If you govern people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard."
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Gentle people
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.
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.
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”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)