MERRY CHRISTMAS & BEST WISHES FOR 2008


What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds ? Can such faith save him ?" ... "Who is wise and understanding among you ? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in humility that comes from wisdom." (James 2:11)

Beginning with the early Greek philosophers such as Plato to present-day physicians, psychologists and neurologists, there has always been a large sector of the so-called scientific community that have professed that human beings are by nature driven by moral, "good" intentions. These scholars have furthermore, described an inherent "link", "flow" or inter-relatedness between all life in this universe and that our well-being is very much dependent upon the extent to which we are united with that universal energy or flow. Most of the ancient religions albeit with important variations, do at some point acknowledge in one omnipotent, omniscient force that has given way to all creation. Work in Education and psychology has been inspired by such luminaries as William James, Jean Piaget and more recently, William Perry, Jr. These scholars of modern science and psychology were unique in their commitment to and application of a moral/spiritual aspect of human functioning. Their work underscored a value position that epitomized moral and spiritual development as central and integral to intellectual or cognitive growth not only during childhood and adolescence but also through adulthood.

Many of us who were working towards a degree in science in the early 1980s, bred in traditional, mainstream empirical approaches also learned to critique our own experiments not only on empirical grounds but also from humansitic perspectives. While we articulated our ideas as part of a larger critical framework in the behavioral sciences (this was described in the literature under various "post-modern" terms), our beef if you will with radical bio-behavioral approaches were primarily on ethical grounds - we were closet-Christian scientists at heart! I suppose many of us still are...! Historians will agree that modern science grew out of a long-standing rift between spiritualism and our efforts to disect and control (back-engineer) nature. From the building of "priest holes" to the persecution of scientific luminaries such as Galileo, Socrates and Marx, there has been enough "bloodshed" on both sides so-to-speak where scientists and theologians have accused each other of heinous crimes against humanity. More recent legal disputes in the US such as: Daniel v. Water (1975); Edwards v. Agullard (1987); and Kitzmiller v. Dover schools(2005) continue to show this continued schism between science and spirituality.
There is however, a significant move toward repairing this deep wound that exists between well-meaning scientists and theologians and providing the forum towards greater participation in an integrated effort on the path to knowledge. The basic tenets of a Christian humanism has already had a powerful impact on modern psychology (e.g., Carl Rogers' work) and continues to have a powerful role in other areas such as healthcare, education, public policy even modern physics. Recently, the province of Ontario, Canada has adopted a Tri-Council Statement on Ethical Guidelines on Research that incorporates many of the ethical principles derived from Christian philosophy as the basis on which to adjudicate the admissibility of various forms of research in all sciences. On a personal level, Christian teachings can allow each one of us to commit to a specific standpoint with respect to enduring dilemmas in the human condition (freedom vs. responsibility; murder vs. euthenasia; rights vs. duty; art vs. pornography; and many more).

In the context intellectual development, it is important for us to understand that science and spirituality provides us with different modes of learning about ourselves and our environment. Since today's curriculum (i.e., both ends and means of education) is designed in response to diverse cognitive styles, our approach can be one of discovery, revelation and insight through graduated intellectual challenges in addition to logical reasoning. The emphasis can be on direct experience, interpretation, personal meaning-making (analysis) and quality of work rather than necessarily, the quantity and of what can be rehearsed and recalled on a stressful exam. As instructors, our role can be one of facilitating and nurturing an environment of open and continuous experience and learning, with a strong emphasis on setting down general and specific goals and objectives and providing individual trajectories of achievement. This will no doubt involve a general atmosphere of unconditional positive regard, academic freedom and expression, acknowledgement of personal and cultural history in all academic works, and personal availability. Accessibility to knowledge bases and an understanding of personal responsibility within a larger - more universal fellowship, will be central issues.

As indicated in earlier web logs, Christian humanism has played a powerful role in structuring the way in which health and social services are rendered in our community today. It continues to play a significant role in bringing about global changes in the way we set our priorities in both science and politics, in the way we preserve peace and harmony with nature and in our many humanitarian acts towards the needy all around the world and in education. We continue to lean on Him everyday, for strength and sustenance and would likely perish should we ever lose faith in His Great Work.

STEREOTYPING...not only in Canada Eh? Pity...

The spin-doctors and frustrated backroom political strategists in the Conservative Party have demonstrated for us yet another example of systemic prejudice in practice. We the public know that this sort of thing has always been there and will be there for eons to come. In a sheer "brilliant" move, the small C party has thought it smart enough to publicly display this sort of prejudiced thinking (they probably call it political savvy) on national television. What am I writing about ? The introduction of "anti-Dion" ads on television by the Conservative Party is openly described by our "ace" media/political commentators as part of a "smear campaign" directed at the new Liberal Party leader Stephan Dion. By the way, for those of you who are still living in the Trudeau era, the leader of this mixed bag of "political unknowns and non-events" that make up the new Conservative party, happens to be our Queen's own leader of Canadian public servants.

I confess that I have never been a fan of these types of ads and furthermore, do not subscribe to this method of political battle in any form. Having stated this, I should point out that they nonetheless, do provide us media-watchers and students of political science with an excellent opportunity to observe and analyze how deeply ingrained our prejudices lie. I should mention that there are different types of these ads that are apparantly directed at Mr. Dion and I have not seen all of them. The one in particular I saw recently, made several negative comments about the Liberal Party throughout the duration of the ad and finally, attributed all that negativity to a member of the Liberal Party, namely Mr. Dion. There were no specific details provided in this ad about Stephan Dion himself, although the ad was clearly directed at him.

Behavioral studies do indicate that our brains may be wired in such a way that we tend to seek order and think "stereotypically" in an attempt to predict, plan and control events around us more easily. I suggest that we should however, make the effort to prevent this "cognitive laziness" when the consequences of stereotyping are destructive to our community (e.g., racism). These "smear" ads are not only irrational and inaccurate, they also send a message to the public on a latent level, that this sort of stereotypic thinking is acceptable. These ads will no doubt have a powerful impact on not only Canadian minds but the minds of all viewers who see them. Viewers may learn to transfer their learning to other interpersonal situations at work, in schools and in other public places.

The bigger question is: Are we to witness this sort of stereotyped thinking by our public servants especially those in higher power, in domestic policy-making and foreign affairs ? If I was to stereotype, I would answer "YES".

RACISM: Not Just a Black & White Issue...No kidding eh!

We in white, industrialized nations continue to live in a "culture of narcissism". The matter has reached epic proportions where even the deaths of millions and millions of innocent lives in order to maintain a racist ideology (in democratic garb), have not deterred us away from our delusion of white-grandeur. As noted by several authors earlier, the form is essentially white but the background consists of individuals of all races and from all ethnic groups who have for one reason or another chosen to identify with the aggressor and to participate in this monstrous project that wreaks to high-heaven. What is it that allows us to steal a nation's language, wealth, land, silk, spices, music, auto and information technology and indeed their minds over a period of thousands of years to call these our own and then, later to bomb those nations, destroy their history, control their reproduction, subject them to slave labour and to ensure their degradation for generations to come? Feelings of entitlement. If so, then where do these feelings come from? Fear? Arrogance and pride? Competition? Ignorance? Economy? Overwhelming ambition? Education and social learning? These are only some of its emergent forms. What is the implicit structure that underlies these forms, these racist feelings? The answer may not provide ready solutions: our animalistic instinct to defend our sense of territory paired with our natural tendency to form connections or attachments. Both of these urges may seem antithetical to each other but as the discussion below will explain, these organic factors which once helped us to survive in a harsh environment thousands of years ago, are driving us toward extinction today.

Public Need, Professional need ... What About Individual Need? Paging Dr. Rogers!

The humanistic movement has influenced our healthcare system in important ways over the past century, in North America. It has led to greater accessibility, equality, kindness and compassion in the way in which healthcare services are rendered to members of the public. Much of this has been achieved through community development initiatives that could only be implemented through socialized medicine, as is evident in Canada. Unfortunately, as is often true with socialist policies, frontline practice has resulted in a coercive consensus. Noone has sought to challenge everyday practice primarily because of the ethical superiority claimed by practitioners, that supposedly underlies healthcare practices today. Yet, many of the abuses carried out by patients and professionals in the healthcare industry (alluded to in earlier weblogs) interestingly stem from a lack of true person-centredness or "client-centredness". Some of these problems include the following:

[1] Maintenance of Confidentiality: Probably one of the biggest causes of ethical violation in the healthcare industry today; the causes are numerous from "multiple doctoring" to clinic and hospital procedures and lack of consistency in ethical practice between professionals in different sectors of the economy - healthcare, education, law/justice, etc.;

[2] Informed Consent & Decision-Making: The healthcare industry and its policies for good or for bad, start with the major premise that members of the public are not able to make important decisions about their own healthcare even though there is an outward show and "do-it-yourself" paraphernalia (such as forms, kits and other do-dats) that are supposed to indicate greater individual freedom. Once again, there are numerous examples of this. It begins with the government telling individual citizens who they should go to in order to receive a particular service through the power of professional colleges and boards of examiners. Members of the public are not aware that there are many other members of the community who may be equally skillful at treating a particular disorder and indeed has been trained to do so but for one reason or the other has not received a license to practice. All this is supposedly furthering their agenda of public protection from unethical practice by so-called "quacks".

The list continues... The unfortunate case where a family man who suffers a motor vehicle accident with minor soft tissue injuries, is thrown into a world of so-called accident specialists who apparantly know more about his welfare than he does! With his vehicle totalled and stuck in the backyard of an auto-body shop, he finds himself jobless with no money but simply promises of future re-imbursements and reams and reams of legal forms signing away basically his rights to everyone except his pet iguana. Over the following few months which can be stretched to over a year, this man is poked and prodded and subjected to a series of unnecessary procedures (including mental health) often at his own expense. If he survives this humiliating course of events which may include court battles and other forms of mediations, he comes out of this mess with a broken car, thousands of dollars in debt, medications that have destroyed his system, sometimes severely drug-dependent, family structure totally disorganized and with a list of disorders in his medical history (significant portion of which is iatrogenic or grossly exaggerated in order to obtain accident benefits from third parties).

[3] The use of unnecessary healthcare procedures/practices: The healthcare industry in the wild west is one of the most successful sectors in the economy. It is interesting to note that with the exception of a few other allied sectors such as pharmaceuticals, bioengineering and third-party/insurance services, the healthcare world is by-and-large supported in one form or the other by public funds. Yet, once again, individual members of the public such as the sick and the disabled play a relatively minor role in how goods and services in this industry is provided. This industry includes in broad terms other aspects of this economy such as training/education, research and development.

There is really no end to the degree of precaution that one can take in order to ensure safety and well-being and to prevent disorder or worsening of a current condition. Much of this is subject to one's own worries and uncertainties associated with one's own health condition and societal/cultural norms at any given time in history. The complex health promotion sector of this industry can be seen to utilize sophisticated marketing and advertising strategies to capitalize on this opportunity to sell healthcare goods and services. They will use fear tactics, celebrities, social embarassment, glossy literature and other techniques to sell healthcare goods and services in the name of public safety and well-being. If all else fails, then they are willing to push members of the public to engage in gambling activities for their own private enterprise and a yet misunderstood, public need. Unfortunately, all this may be totally unnecessary to an individual.

My grand uncle (a saintly man) for instance, who passed wind as easily as we blink or swallow, never to my knowledge visited a physician for his bowel functions thinking it to be quite normal to do so in public. Was this a health problem? Not for him! Not for us - his family! For Canadian society? Maybe. If it was left up to the health promoters, my lovable grand-uncle would have had to undergo extensive medical procedures...(Note: Disability is defined first by society and then later, if society has been successful, by the individual)

The travelling flim-flam, "elixir" salesman of the nineteenth century has now been replaced by so-called "ambulance chasers" and other para-medical professionals who literally "recruit" patients and usher them into a world of so-called managed care where the patient is often placed into a "sick" role where s/he is seen to need further healthcare goods and services that can cure them of their so-called illness or pain. I have seen cases where the purchase of an orthopaedic mattress was billed under psychotherapy by a rehabilitation centre! From sedatives to magnetic resonance imaging and CAT scan procedures, the literature is replete with examples of unnecessary healthcare goods and services provided by healthcare professionals in the name of public health and not individual health.

It has been said that when Pope John Paul was in his last days, he was advised by his medical caretakers to go to the hospital. He simply asked them about whether or not there was anything the hospital could do that the Vatican could not do. Their response to him was that there was nothing that the hospital could do although they would recommend it. The Pope decided to remain in his room during his last moments.

[4] Hidden costs of healthcare services: Perhaps the greatest cost that one can think of in healthcare terms, comes in the form of human life or should I say "death". While we have been debating over the vice and virtue of chocolates and coffee and the latest make-over techniques, free thinkers have been busy unearthing important information about costs due to healthcare services. According to recent researches carried out by Dr. Richard Besser at the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) and others elsewhere, economic costs for unnecessary medical events amount to approximately US$282 billion annually. Deaths due to medical interventions amount to over 783,000 annually. This places deaths due to iatrogenic factors as the biggest killer in the US only to be followed by cancer and heart disease (Canadian Stats are difficult to retrieve - cf. study by Karey Iron and her associates at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 2003). Detailed information about these and other costs can be retrieved from the following websites

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

http://www.niausa.org/research/

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-164/issue-5/pdf/pg680.pdf

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/06/01/antibiotic.overuse/index.html

[5] Health issues not addressed, lack of closure & follow-up:

[6] Diagnostic chaos:

[7] Increased adversarial relationships between patients and healthcare professionals:

[8] Conflict of interest:

Healthcare Policy: A self-handicapping strategy?

We, members of a caring and democratically-geared system, are constantly vigilant of new ways of making healthcare services more economical and accessible to everyone. Yet, in spite of advanced techniques in research, treatment and increased funding, we are faced with higher morbidity and moratility rates, increased cost and reduced resources. In spite of our good intentions, each time we generate a new healthcare policy, it is accompanied by new ways of taking advantage of it. This occurs not only in our local community but indeed, in our efforts to improve international healthcare resources and services as well. The outcome invariably amounts to reduced healthcare goods and services to those who really need it. In addition, those who are able to provide the goods and services that are needed by the people are excluded by the healthcare system. There are essentially three general drawbacks at the policy and programming level that seem to be leading to this constant battle between those good intentions and our seemingly uncontrollable urges to take advantage of them: (1) lack of an effective follow-up and monitoring system that will report, enforce and implement policies and changes as required; (2) lack of knowledge about healthcare sciences and research that can help to formulate practical, realistic guidelines; (3) insufficient participation by healthcare scientists and practioners and too much participation by politicians (i.e., business, legal and labour personalities). Public debates and discussions held (and often televised as well) remind me of our grade nine science class trying to come to grips with nuclear physics. Why isn't the system allowing the "right" people to "do well" ? The answer is not a simple one! A good start would be to observe cases in point - to troubleshoot so-to-speak. There are far too many at all levels - government, frontline practice and end-user, who are taking advantage of healthcare regulations and too many to mention here. We can start by discussing a few here... (to be cont'd)

Gay Marriage: Does That Mean a Happy Marriage Anymore ?

A lot is being written about gay marriages in Canadian newspapers and countless other periodicals - both scholarly and otherwise ! The issue is currently being dealt with in the Canadian Parliament once again - i.e., a simple series of deep knee bends that MPs make to show their current position on the issue (and also to get the blood circulating again after those long hours of sitting in the same position). It is interesting that when it comes to healthcare and education policy and legal decision-making, concerned citizens and organizations are allowed to participate and are heard throughout the country. When it comes to the issue of gay marriages, they want a select few who are supposed to represent the whole country of 30 million people to vote on something that has the potential to destabilize the whole institution of marriage in the years to come. The system took "homosexuality" out of the DSM a few years ago and it is therefore, no longer viewed by clinicians as a mental disorder and is now considered "normal". The system has now seen it fit to bend religious and moral rules and indeed, in some scriptures our cosmology and the concept of the divine. Given our persistent culture of deference to authority (which is probably why we want to legitimize gay marriages in the first place), we are left to accept whatever law parliament passes without question or full debate. I wrote a few of these words in response to an article earlier this morning and the short mesage which comprised of barely thirty to forty words was not allowed to be published under their comments section. It seems that the whole network of those in authority have placed a wall between the public and those institutions that structure our everyday lives in this system.

The issue of economics however, still remains. Canada lives in a global community. It has dual citizenship agreements with several nations - most of whom do not legally accept gay marriages. How will this impact on issues of inheritence of estate or passing down of wealth when a last will and testament is unavailable? For example, if you have a gay marital partner here in Canada and have property in India, then: who should get the property after your death - your gay partner here or your next of kin living elsewhere, in India or perhaps the USA ?

Is psychological diagnosis in a strictly "medical" sense, possible?
It should be noted at the outset that current statutes that help to regulate professional practice in this area do use the term "diagnosis" in the medical sense of the term - i.e., identifying the cause of a disorder or disease by observing a patient's symptomatology. It seems clear from this that the cause is separate from its effects. It is however, not clear how a psychological condition can be both a symptom as well as a disorder. As it stands now, according to current accepted nosology(ies) in psychological practice there are numerous examples of psychological conditions that are both symptoms as well as disorders. It is important to note that there are altogether four separate classification systems used to "psycho-diagnose" a person in Canada. Added to this confusion is the fact that different schools in psychology have different and often conflicting explanations for disorders. Humanistically-oriented practitioners will often refrain from diagnosing a patient in the medical sense of the term. It is therefore, small wonder that differences of opinion should arise quite frequently in the mental health field making it vulnerable to ethical violations and legal uprisings. All this has surprisingly, not deterred the crown from implementing Acts and statutes that are apparantly meant to regulate the practice of diagnosis by mental health professionals. It is equally surprising that in spite of psychological science's infancy (only 100 years or so of experiments) and that prognosis and etiological factors are frequently fuzzy at best, it has not stopped therapists from designing such severe treatments as electro-shock, long-term use of neuroleptics and anti-depressants, aversive conditioning and so on. A related feature of this scenario is that there are physical conditions that are not yet understood by the medical community and are therefore, often being delegated to mental health professionals by other healthcare professionals (e.g., certain forms of chronic pain and fatigue). Nothing could be more dangerous!

Self-fulfilling polls - prophecies or what? (From Canada Eh...)

The other day I read on the Globe http://www.globeandmail.com, that some of the behind-the-scenes campaign workers in the Liberal party were disheartened about the latest polls suggesting that the Conservatives were "gaining ground" quite rapidly. Some have apparantly begun seeking other political and vocational paths and opportunities should the Liberals lose the election. If this is how the insiders close to the candidates feel in response to the polls, then how should the voters feel...? Are these polls meant to inform voting trends and aid further critical analysis or are they actually influencing voting behavior? There is some empirical evidence to suggest the latter. In a world overloaded with complex arguements and issues, voters (especially those who are yet uncertain about the candidate, party or the colour of tie they like best) often look to these numbers on day-to-day polls taken by research houses. These research institutes who are often affiliated to media organizations or atleast trying to be affiliated with them, are sensitive to the fact that many of the major media corporations have strong political leanings. In the Great White North here, there are news-media personalities who have gone beyond political analysis to actually running for election or taking on powerful portfolios in government. It seems to me that in their attempts to seek greater market presence and profit, sensitivity to media politics may exceed the margin of error reported in these polls by these research groups. Members of the news-media should realize that they are playing a similar role that popular entertainers play when they affiliate themselves with political candidates. Members of the press should realize that they are no longer depicting natural variation in voting behavior but are actually reducing political freedom in this country by presenting these statistics without responsible analysis (e.g., discussing historical and psychological factors that affect the numbers).