tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971136449486939872024-03-14T05:55:36.670+00:00RecusancyA refusal to submit to the authority of the dictatorship of relativismRecusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-86979474994152345152016-03-16T20:16:00.002+00:002016-03-16T20:16:55.859+00:00Life, death and perfectionism<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lately, for various reasons, I've been thinking a lot about mistakes. I've always been a perfectionist, I don't think I know any pharmacists who aren't. But in recent years I have been trying to move towards a healthier form of attention to detail, which is tricky because a step away from perfectionism tends to swerve into embracing mediocrity (of the 'oh **** it I can't be bothered' variety). This healthy version is about recognising and accepting that there are limits to what I can do (such as the time available) and that if and when I make a mistake, I do my best to learn from it. That's how I explain it to colleagues at the beginning of their careers awho are struggling with their mental health in the face of all-consuming perfectionism. For myself I understand these as practical steps on the path of growing in humility.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
So what happens when you've made a mistake that has serious consequences (or has contributed to serious harm, because these things are never straighforward) but by the time you find out about it, the consequences have already happened, there is nothing you can do about them, and your learning is limited because you don't know how or why the error occurred. How do you move away from perfectionism when you know that your work can have life and death consequences? How do you learn from a mistake when you know nothing about it except that it happened? When you don't even know what the consequences were because it was part of a chain of errors? How do you not veer off into finding a job with no direct impact on real people (or possibly, retiring to a remote cave)? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On one level, the answer to these and many other questions is that I have no idea: I don't know how to live with this, I don't know how to move on from this. On the other hand, humility (I am fragile, limited and human and will make mistakes) and the knowledge that the truth undoubtedly does set us free, is absolutely what makes this possible. Loving truth means co-operating with an investigation. It means knowing that the truth is not just important for me but for those of my colleagues who were involved in the same chain of events and for our patients, past, present and future and their families. Embracing humility means not just the part about making mistakes, it may also mean recognising that I am good at what I do and therefore hiding in a cave is not the answer to one mistake. It means accepting that I may never know exactly what happened. And this faith perspective also involves trust and patience and generosity and forgiveness and prayer and no doubt a lot more. Maybe there will be no work-related learning point. Maybe my learning point is: grow in virtue</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-35282998529706429582015-11-04T20:23:00.000+00:002015-11-04T20:23:11.643+00:00The very easy road to heaven. Oh, wait...So...there's this massive humanitarian crisis in Syria and this is leading to a refugee crisis that no-one wants to deal with. Let's build fences. Let's share them out. Let's take people who really deserve help but not those who don't (laying aside the fact that anyone who views crossing the sea in a tiny boat as better than what they're going through right now is presumably in the middle of a pretty awful state of right now). Then we have the added complications of politics and political ramifications which mean that the response to such suffering isn't based just on the person in front of us and their need. This doesn't just happen at government level, but also on a personal one.<br />
<br />
But I was thinking that welcoming the stranger is a corporal work of mercy, up there with feeding the hungry etc, so it's pretty clear that that's what we ought to be doing. Jesus was pretty unequivocal ergo let's get on with it. But perhaps the reason that we aren't getting on with it is the same reason Jesus had to be so specific is: these things are really, really hard work. I happen to know a bit more about one of these than the others: caring for the sick. This is my job. I get paid for it, and I really like it, but when I'm on call and I'm at home tucked up in bed and I get a call at midnight with a question from a doctor or a need for medication in an emergency, caring for the sick is not fun. I think it's hard and in these circumstances I might not even need to leave my home to do it. Having said that, it is a strangely priviledged experience to go to work at midnight because someone needs my help, even while I complain. But if the additional reimbursement I receive for on call work still leaves it challenging, how much more so doing these things without obvious compensation.<br />
<br />
I am not sharing my house with a refugee right now. And while I don't claim to know what the answer is, I think we also need to recognise that it's not just the fact of refugees and migrants and human suffering which is hard, but also responding to that. Obvious, but hard.Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-55569084629294037322015-10-26T20:49:00.000+00:002015-10-26T20:49:30.583+00:00Recognising I can't solve the worldI currently work on an acute medical ward. Our patients are poorly, but mostly in the short term we can diagnose and solve their problems so that they can be followed up as outpatients or by their GPs. Their medical problems, that is. We have limited success with their social problems, and as for their spiritual problems... <br />
<br />
My patients are challenging, even when medically they are straight forward. What do I saw to the young woman who has overdosed three times this week but says she isn't trying to kill herself. Can I ethically give her any medication at all to take home, even though she's in pain? Actually I would rather sit down and explain to her that she is loved and has incredible dignity and that even though life has treated her badly, it doesn't have to be this way, but I can't do that because I don't have time and I don't have any kind of relationship with her, she won't even make eye contact. <br />
<br />
How do we deal with the patients with serious mental health issues? If I have 3 hours to review 25 patients, I can't really deal with the one agitated patient who wants to ask me a lot of (possibly irrelevant) questions, who is never there when the doctor comes to see her because she keeps going out to smoke, and who is only in hospital because their persistant self-harm makes a not very serious problem much, much worse.<br />
<br />
And then there's our favourite frequent flyer who is frankly, bonkers, (psych assessment pending) and also seems to think that every single member of staff on the ward is there only for him. He needs a pen, he needs the phone, he just wants to talk and medically speaking, he doesn't really need to be in hospital. He's also either seriously confused, in denial or compulsive liar. As my technician said to me this morning, his readmission has ruined the whole week. <br />
<br />
As a Christian, I know I am supposed to love these people. What I am learning though, is that the best way to love them is to do my job. So I might want to sit down with them, and their families, and their neighbours, and work out how best to look after them (because their non-medical problems are so much worse than their medical problems) and solve everything, but that's not what I'm there for, nor any of my colleagues, and their problems are the problems of the world and will definitely take more than three hours to fix, but I increasingly doubt whether anyone outside the hospital has realised this.Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-88532712623845053792014-09-13T23:13:00.000+01:002014-09-13T23:13:28.084+01:00Unplanned and therefore unwanted?<div style="text-align: justify;">
This week in our staff meeting, we had a brief talk from a local charity which provides counselling for women in crisis pregnancies. Our patient population has a very high number of women who have had abortions, and many of these have had more than one abortion (this, despite the fact that of the 7 doctors I work with, only 2 will refer for terminations). This charity is, I would say, pro-choice but their approach to choice is that it should be a considered choice, and they do play an important role locally in identifying women who are being coerced into abortion (at the point where the woman has already checked into hospital for the termination) and supporting them in keeping the baby should they decide to do so. They also provide counselling to those suffering the consequences of abortion: women, men and family members. One of the reasons I do not mention their name here is that I do not wish to endorse them - yes, some of the work they do leads women to choose not to have an abortion, and too often the long-term consequences of abortion are ignored or denied - but the fact is that they support a 'woman's right to choose' rather than recognising the evil of abortion for what it really is.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, something very interesting (or possibly horrifying) which was mentioned during the presentation, were some statistics around abortion, namely:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- 34% of women under 30 have had an abortion</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- 10% have had more than one</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- one third of pregnancies end in abortion</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
and then the one which struck me as most interesting</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- 50% of pregnancies are unplanned.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It wasn't so much that the proportion is fairly high (given our contraceptive mentality in this country) but that the person giving the presentation felt that this was a surprise, as she said, 'given everything we know'. Well, the fact is, that we surely must know by now that babies never come when they are planned. I don't know anyone who can say, yes, our baby arrived exactly when we wanted it to. I know couples who have waited years (regardless of whether they had previously used hormonal contraceptives or NFP and really wanted children), I know couples who decided not to and then went through IVF and still didn't end up with children, I know a couple who got pregnant having slept together only once, the fact is that what we actually should know is that the contraceptive mentality is not working. If it was, then there wouldn't be so many abortions and so many unplanned pregnancies. And the fact that whilst 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, only (God help us, it's still horrific) 34% are terminated means that an unplanned baby is not necessarily and unwanted baby, therefore why this conviction that planning is everything, that we must be in control of absolutely everything? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I generally think that abortion debate comes down to the fact that people don't recognise that the unborn child is a person. But from these figures, and the accompanying attitude, it is presumably about our desperate desire to be in charge of the universe.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-9335541474324773082014-08-22T19:29:00.002+01:002014-08-22T22:47:45.777+01:00Professor Dawkins and the increase of the sum total of happiness<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18.987144470214844px;">Poor Professor Dawkins has apparently <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-apologises-downs-syndrome-tweet" target="_blank">caused a furore on twitter</a> after tweeting, to a woman who said that she would face a serious ethical dilemma if she found she was pregnant with a baby who had Down's Syndrome, that she should abort it. He seems suprised by this. His apology, as reported by the Guardian, seems to be an apology for causing a riot rather than for what he actually said, claiming that those who objected did so from an emotional point of view, that twitter did not give him enough space to put his whole argument across and that because of this he left himself vulnerable to wilful misinterpretation.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18.987144470214844px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18.987144470214844px;">However, the thing that really bugs me about this is that Dawkins claims that his response is totally down to logic. According to the Guardian, he wrote: "If your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down's baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare." I take issue with this, and in fact, I am frequently irritated by people who claim that anyone who disagrees with them is arguing emotionally, and that they themselves are basing their argument purely on logic. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18.987144470214844px;">If your morality is based, as Professor Dawkins' is, on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering you should presumably never say anything that might offend anyone because offense generates suffering, even if this is a subjective response. </span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18.987144470214844px;">If you believe that this life is all there is, that there is no life after or other than this one, then the abortion of an unborn child would presumably decrease the sum total of happiness, seeing that without life there cannot be happiness.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18.987144470214844px;">If your aim is to increase the sum total of happiness rather than the happiness of the individual, and given the amount of great joy which those families express regarding their children with Down's Syndrome (and indeed their children without Down's) then presumably the termination of a child would not increase happiness and the reduction in suffering (given the absence of the child and the effects on the family) could well outweigh the non-increase in happiness.</span></span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18.987144470214844px;">Given that people who are objectively suffering can experience happiness, and that people who are happy can suffer, suffering and happiness are not necessarily opposed and therefore the aims to decrease the former and increase the latter may, in fact, be conflicting.</span></span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18.987144470214844px;">By extension of his argument that it is immoral to maintain life where there is suffering, all those who suffer from any illness, or indeed with the potential to suffer from any illness, however short or long term, should be exterminated because their existence may lead to their own suffering or the suffering of others.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18.987144470214844px;">Given the logical outcome of his moral framework, perhaps it is time to reconsider the starting point. If the outcome is outrageous and not what he intends at all, perhaps that is because some of his reasoning is based on an emotional understanding of happiness and suffering. </span></span></div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-85727096308316864802014-08-06T19:18:00.000+01:002014-08-06T19:18:09.537+01:00Eugenics, ante-natal testing and choice<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some time ago I blogged about <a href="http://iwillnothidemyfaith.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/nothing-short-of-genocide.html" target="_blank">testing for Down's Syndrome</a>. Now, there is news about some other genetic disorders: namely <a href="http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/pataus-syndrome-trisomy-13" target="_blank">Patau</a> and <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/edwards-syndrome/Pages/Introduction.aspx" target="_blank">Edward</a>'s sydromes. Like Down's Syndrome they are due to trisomy - where a person has three copies of one of their chromosomes instead of the usual two - caused by random genetic mutations. Like Down's Syndrome their risk increases with maternal age. And like Down's Syndrome they can both be detected by amniocentesis. Now, according to to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28640873?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Royal+Pharmaceutical+Society&utm_campaign=4526293_Today%27s+Headlines+Tuesday+5+August&dm_i=EQ,2P0ID,706SC1,9U4LN,1" target="_blank">this article</a>, earlier testing will become available.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, women will be able to make important decisions earlier on, says the article. There is only one important choice that we are allowed to make, as women. Everyone tells us so. When we talk about women and choice we are talking about the choice not to. The choice not to have a child who is less than perfect, the choice not to have a child with less than perfect timing, the choice not to have a child who doesn't fit into our plans, our budget, our lifestyle. We are not allowed be radical, or make sacrifices (except of our fertility). Whilst screening for such conditions could allow a family to prepare for a disabled child, perhaps learn more about what their condition entails and engage with support services available before the baby is born, this is not what is implied. The fact that many unborn children with these conditions will not survive to full-term is a tragedy and I do not wish to negate the suffering caused by such events. But abortion is not the solution. It will not mean the baby does not suffer and it will not mean the parents do not suffer. Earlier testing will not lead to better choosing or better preparation or more research about why such things happen, it will only lead to more deaths as we gradually seek to eliminate every single inconvenience (and especially inconvenient people) from our world.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-41386038697543009472014-08-02T21:09:00.005+01:002014-08-02T21:09:49.853+01:00We're all going on a summer holiday<div style="text-align: justify;">
...no more mass for a week or two.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have noticed, in recent years, a sharp decline in the number of families at mass during the school holidays. (This is anecdotal evidence: I have not conducted actual research.) Now, I realise that people go away during the holidays, but given the amount of elderly people in my parish, and the lack of Catholic churches in the area, there should presumably also be a counter-balancing influx of families visiting grandparents. What seems to be happening is that people don't go to mass in the holidays and certainly don't bring their children along.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I find this a bit odd.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I know people who struggle to get their teenage children to go to mass, especially with the competing demands of weekend sporting activities, but there does seem to be a prevailing idea that children (and adults) can be let off from mass attendance during the holidays. The problem with this (and I don't have children, so if you do and think I'm completely wide of the mark, ought to shut up etc etc) (aside from the whole of missing mass), is that this forms a link between school and church as concepts, presumably generating similar associations when the end of the holidays come and one has to go back to both of these ie school and church are both boring, we need breaks from both, they aren't necessary all year round and so on. Two of the three longer school holidays are based around Christian holidays, so it also seems slightly ridiculous to not go to mass at these times.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are no holidays in the adventure that is Christian Life. There may be times when things are perhaps easier or harder, but we cannot, should not, do not get breaks from being Christians, whether from Monday to Saturday or during the school holidays. Being a Christian is not a job, or an activity, it is an identity: it is about being, not doing.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-88171345969504884722014-07-15T20:16:00.001+01:002014-07-15T20:17:13.591+01:00Blogging without a cause<div style="text-align: justify;">
Aside from being very angry and a bit spiritually lost when I decided to take a break from blogging, I was also unsure about<i> why</i> I was blogging (apart from wanting a sympathetic space in which to complain about terrible hymns). However after some time away from the blogosphere (including not reading other blogs), a holiday, a retreat and going back to work I think I am in more of a position to take up my keyboard again. In the midst of this I went to a talk by <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2dd0f0de-ab70-11e2-8c63-00144feabdc0.html#axzz313w2idvK" target="_blank">Paul Moore</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The combination of these last two made me think about what I am doing in life. As a lay person in the world I do not have the experience of obedience and mission which I did in community life, and yet God does still have a plan for me. Back in the world of work, and on the front line of healthcare, I am starting to realise that this plan includes a mission.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Whilst letting off steam about hymns is fun and probably necessary (and since I realised that <i>Colours of Day</i> has multiple authors ('written by a committee' as one of my friends put it) I've been wondering if perhaps that wrote one verse each and that is why there is a total lack of continuity) I recognise that what I am really interested in blogging about is the role and mission of the laity (transforming the temporal sphere), and specifically in the sphere of health care.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think this means that Recusancy is back.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-37931954555973148872014-07-14T15:54:00.000+01:002014-07-14T15:54:05.167+01:00Carey and Tutu should really know better<div style="text-align: justify;">
Over the weekend I found myself astonished by the comments of Lord Carey and Archbishop Tutu on assisted dying. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As the Lords prefer to debate Lord Falconer's proposed assisted dying bill, these two prominent Anglicans have chosen to speak in favour of such a law, and have been widely reported as doing so. Unfortunately few people will read the actual statements which were made, and these certainly deserve further examination.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Carey started the ball rolling with his article in the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2689295/Carey-Ive-changed-mind-right-die-On-eve-Lords-debate-ex-Archbishop-dramatically-backs-assisted-death-law.html" target="_blank">Daily Mail</a> (his original article is at the end, the first section is a review both of his comments and the Bill). He makes several points:</div>
<br />
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Modern medicine is capable of ending life as well as prolonging it.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">The law (and the Church) need to catch up with reality.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Arguments of the slippery slope type 'lack power and authority'.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Benevolence and compassion are more important than doctrine: Christian theology needs reinterpreting. </li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The ability to cause death is not new (see history). Carey claims that the fact that drugs such as morphine, given to ease pain, may hasten a person's death and argues that given that this may happen, we could and should use them to cause the patient's death. This is merely an extension. In fact 'modern medicine', as lauded by the former Archbishop of Canterbury himself, is capable of controlling doses so carefully that such a 'double-effect' is now negligible. He also fails to recognise that as it is the primary intention which has changed (causing death vs analgesia) this is not a mere extension of an unavoidable effect but a completely different action. <i>First, do no harm.</i> The former 'first' is the alleviation of pain. The latter is to actively seek to end the patient's life. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then we have the reflecting reality/moving with the times argument. There is only one thing to say about this: Dictatorship of Relativism. In this country we seem to like this argument. People are having abortions, let's legalise them. People want to marry others of them same sex, go for it. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As to the lack of authority in the slippery slope argument, I present for his Lordship's inspection the same cases I cited in the previous paragraph (in reverse order). Repeal of section 28, civil partnerships, assurances of no change to marriage, change to marriage law. Slippery slope or what? The <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1" target="_blank">Abortion Act 1967</a> allowed for pregnancy to be terminated if the pregnancy presented greater risk to the mother's mental or physical health than its continuation (as judged by two medical practitioners). And yet, and yet we have doctors who were prepared to carry out sex selective abortions<a href="http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_statement_abortion_related_case/" target="_blank"> not being prosecuted</a>. Clearly this is beyond the original intention of the 1967 Act.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As to the last point, I think this has already been covered by the mention of the dictatorship of relativism and the Hippocratic Oath. The ethical principle of beneficence has to go hand in hand with non-maleficence. Jesus did indeed show compassion to lepers (as Carey points out) but he did not say 'well, Mr Leper, you are clearly going to die and slow and painful death, so allow me to put you out of your misery right now'. He also didn't always do exactly what people asked him to. Neither did God decide to end Job's misery by ending his life.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Carey's article is appears full of inconsistencies and contradictions: on the one hand he commends the work of hospices, on the other he uses the lack of hospice care as further reason to support the Bill. He reviews reports of the effect of similar bill in Holland, and then casually dismisses them. And given that his change of heart was prompted by the case of Tony Nicklinson, he presumably thinks that the proposed bill doesn't go far enough, given that Nicklinson suffered locked-in syndrome for years and Lord Falconer's Bill only applies to those with less than 6 months to live. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Archbishop Tutu, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/12/desmond-tutu-in-favour-of-assisted-dying" target="_blank">writing in the Observer</a>, points out that 'the words euthanasia and suicide carry negative connotations'. Well yes, they do. But when we talk about 'assisted suicide' or 'assisted dying' we are still discussing the same concept. Lay off the doublespeak, and tell it like it is: we are talking about killing people! However, his main issue (although it is not clear if he himself has realised this) seems to be with the artificial prolongation of life, rather than advocating its premature end (indeed, he states that dying in old age is a privilege in Africa). He criticises the lack of dignity granted his friend Mandela in the last days of his life. And I agree with him. Political opportunism in the form of photoshoots with a man kept alive by machines have nothing to do with dignity. In his own advancing years Archbishop Emeritus Tutu does not want to be treated thus. At this point we can all, fortunately, reach for the Catechism and find that, unsurprisingly, the Church in her wisdom has already considered this point:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of 'over-zealous' treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And then we have the Bill itself. On the one hand, in healthcare we seek to prevent suicide, seeing it as something never in a person's best interest. We can even section those who threaten to harm themselves in this way. Now, we propose to legalise it. And I, for one, having been on the other end of mental illness, am glad that we do. I am glad that everyone was clear, myself, the people around me, the healthcare professionals who supported me (psychiatrists, psychologists and GPs), were all clear that a thought of suicide was not a normal or natural thought, a thought that the world would be better without me in it, a thought life was not worth living, that these thoughts were a product of illness, not a fruit of my will. How long will it be before those who have seven months to live declaim their right to die. What of those frail octa- and nonagenarians who might be expected to just drift off in their sleep at any time, simply from having been alive for so many years, without being acutely and specifically dying, are they being denied their rights? How long before those with mental illnesses which cause suffering and anguish and require intensive care decide that they too want the right to die? What of the fact that predicting death is an extremely imprecise science even for experts. And since when was death a private act anyway?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But even this is not the whole of the point. Life is indeed sacred, and that should be enough. But, thought the incarnation, passion, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, suffering and pain have a redemptive quality, uniting us with Christ in his passion, giving us the opportunity draw closer to him and experience his closeness to us. And, furthermore, giving both patient and carers the opportunity to grow in love. Please, don't deny us this opportunity.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-32128626810735497062013-12-12T16:23:00.000+00:002013-12-12T16:23:53.053+00:00Taking a break<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have decided to take a break from blogging.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have been thinking about the direction of this blog for a while: why I am blogging, should I write about everything I think about writing about, should I focus only on healthcare (and bad hymns) (and mental illness) (and books), etc. However, since Advent began (and with the incessant bombardment that is seasonal advertising) I have realised that whilst I am not annoyed that I am a Christian, I am annoyed that everyone else isn't. I am angry that other people don't love and respect God: they forget his birthday, they cut him out of everything, they sleep around, they lie and cheat and start wars and kill babies, they ignore him at mass, they don't make a place for him in their hearts...and neither do I. There is nothing righteous or motivating about this anger. It is just anger. And impatience. And, let's face it, pride. Blogging involves looking at what's going on and passing comment. There is much more to say when what's going on is wrong or bad or silly. Right now, this means that I get more angry and impatient.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is all bound up with recovering from depression. With depression, the world is the inside of your head in any given moment. As you get better, it expands to the size of the room you're in, the people who are in it, maybe the building, perhaps the street, perhaps for this hour, this morning, today, this week. I feel like I am waking up after spending 2 years as a zombie and I have all these new criteria for seeing, for understanding, for loving, but mostly I am just really angry. It is possible, I know, to be angry about something in a more detached way. It is possible for anger to be channelled against what is wrong in a useful way. I am not up to it. I need to calm down a bit first.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I enjoy blogging, and I like to think that I have got something to offer in the blogosphere, but right now it's not helping me grow in holiness. But I will be back because, apart from anything else, there is nothing edifying about this nativity set whatsoever - </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img height="290" src="http://img0.etsystatic.com/020/0/8024272/il_570xN.496954710_s4d7.jpg" width="570" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- and I am sufficiently opinionated to tell the world. Possibly the fact that I have always disliked Jenga isn't helping.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the mean time, I wish you all a blessed Advent.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-39126613604511122432013-11-25T14:15:00.001+00:002013-11-25T14:15:04.934+00:00Craving Catholic blogsI have just discovered (and added to my blogroll) <a href="http://en.catholic-link.com/2013/11/07/3814/" target="_blank">Catholic Cravings</a> which I would say has something for everyone, although not cat posts but that's OK because <a href="http://mulier-fortis.blogspot.co.uk/" target="_blank">Mulier Fortis</a> has them nicely covered.Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-23636422662517698612013-11-18T21:46:00.000+00:002013-11-18T21:46:19.519+00:00Social healthcare and the A & E thing<div style="text-align: justify;">
I should make it clear from the start that while I don't think the NHS is perfect (not to mention the recent shambolic develpments across the Pond) I am absolutely in favour of social healthcare. I have seen children in shanty towns in Peru with no teeth, where those living in poverty will walk out of a hospital and die two days later from appendicitis because they can't afford to pay for the surgery. But I also know a man in the USA who had a kidney transplant but is no longer in work and can't afford health insurance which means he can't afford the medication he needs to prevent his transplant being rejected. Fortunately, the local transplant patients basically pool their meds so that if one month someone can't afford their tablets, then they will be supplied by someone else; a situation which strikes me as no less tragic (although on the other side, also restores one's faith in humanity). However, one of the biggest problems with free medicine (and the Welfare State in general) is what happens on the receiving end.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Research shows that people who get free prescriptions visit their GP when they are suffering from a minor ailment in order to obtain over the counter remedies on prescription rather than paying. This has led to the establishment of <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Pharmacy/Pages/Commonconditions.aspx" target="_blank">minor ailment schemes</a>, whereby those people who are exempt from prescription charges can obtain such remedies free of charge. This frees up GP time and resources for people who have more serious problems.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Recently there has been a lot in the news about the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347363/Most-stupid-999-calls-Can-bring-washing-in.html" target="_blank">pressure which A&E departments are facing</a> this winter, with 40% of those patients seen in A&E not needing to be there: they could have been treated earlier and/or in the community. At the weekends, A&E is often full of alcohol-related (alcohol-fueled) injuries, and sometimes people will end up there because they are seriously ill and it is one of the paths to hospital admission. A while ago I saw an ambulance which bore an explanation of what was meant by a life-threatening emergency. (I was tempted to give my brother a similar list after he woke me up extremely early to ask where Mum was.) Tales of <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347363/Most-stupid-999-calls-Can-bring-washing-in.html" target="_blank">bizarre 999 calls</a>, which often include people who want a lift to a hospital appointment, are frequent and mind-boggling.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Often it is the elderly who suffer, whether because they didn't go to their GP in time (couldn't get an appointment or didn't want to bother them), or because nobody took them or even noticed that they were a bit off colour. The point at which someone realises you have a mild case of cystitis shouldn't be when you're admitted to hospital with a broken hip (more common than you might suspect), because if someone is suddenly acting confused (often the first symptom of cystitis in older people) then your neighbour or your friend or your carer or someone should notice. And if someone is calling the ambulance service because they need help bringing the washing in and the path is icy, or they need a lift to the supermarket, then we should be asking ourselves why. Why is it that this person had to call 999 for help with a simple task? And I fear the answer has a lot more to do with individualism, loss of community and the selfish desire not to be burdened with other people and their problems (which some might call freedom) than the fact that our healthcare is free.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-66524188023391106502013-11-03T18:15:00.000+00:002013-11-03T18:15:14.250+00:00Sex, drugs and rock n roll: my parents think I'm mad<div style="text-align: justify;">
And it's not just me.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Recently I have had a few conversations with friends and acquaintances who suffer from a weird problem. Actually it was a relief to me to find I wasn't alone, because after yet another conversation with my Mum which involved her threatening to throw a book which I was reading in the bin because it had the word 'Catholic' in the title I was starting to get a bit stressed out. The only reason that book didn't end up in the bin (or the recycling, at any rate) was because I pointed out that it was borrowed. Others have had similar conversations with their parents about books written by saints or popes. We are Generation Y: hiding our spiritual reading under the bed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The strange thing is that we were all baptised and brought up Catholic by our Catholic parents and now they don't like it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I admit that when I discerned my vocation and then entered community I didn't hand it as well as I could have done. Announcing my decision in the car as we were driving along a dual carriageway might have had a very different ending and comments such as 'over my dead body' were perhaps only to be expected. But it started long before that. When I first went to university, there was mild concern over my regular attendance at daily mass. Attending social events at the chaplaincy was also considered worrying. It was the first time in my life I had the opportunity to have friends who were also Catholic, friends who, whatever else they were getting up to at the weekend, would make sure they went to mass on Sunday. The people who thought this was odd were the same people who insisted I came home at 9am after a Saturday sleepover when I was a teenager, so that I could go to mass.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have a crucifix on the wall and a statue of Our Lady in my bedroom which is considered excessively pious of me, and yet there is a crucifix on the kitchen windowsill (in fact, now I come to think of it, there are two). We each own a copy of the Catechism, but knowing what is written inside it is over the top. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I know that it is traditional and expected for each generation to view the other with mild irritation and bewilderment (music isn't what it was, after all) but praying the rosary, going to confession, not talking in church; these are things our parents taught us which they now hope that we don't do. And then there are the things they hoped we would do, these being 'normal', but we choose not to because we are Catholic: things like sleeping with people we aren't married to, using contraception and talking openly about the fact that we are against abortion rather than just thinking about it. We try to keep up to date with Church news, keep an eye on what the Pope is saying in his weekly audiences, and pray for episcopal appointments. We don't eat meat on Fridays, wish the clergy would dress like clergy and also hold dangerous views about such controversial things as...guitars. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Our parents brought us up to be Catholics, and now that we are, they find it worrying.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-18559556038899888172013-10-21T10:41:00.001+01:002013-10-21T10:43:21.916+01:00Whose conscience is it anyway?<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was browsing my September issue of Regula+e, published by the General Pharmaceutical Council, which is the regulatory body for pharmacies, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, when I came across this article about a pharmacist who had had conditions placed on his practice, by the Fitness to Practise (FtP) committee, for <a href="http://www.pharmacyregulation.org/sites/default/files/Regulate%20Issue%2012%20September%202013.pdf" target="_blank">'imposing his beliefs on patients'</a> (pp24-25).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The pharmacist, during the course of supplying the morning after pill (EHC), told a patient that it was "a chemical abortion, was ending a life, and that this would be on her conscience". The patient was shocked and felt "rotten and horrible". He did not give her the option to go to another pharmacy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Recently I blogged, among other things, about the weirdness of the fact that while pharmacists do not have to supply EHC, <a href="http://iwillnothidemyfaith.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/in-co-operating-with-evil-where-is-line.html" target="_blank">they do have to tell the patient where they can obtain it</a>. This pharmacist didn't tell his patient where they could get EHC, because he did not decline the supply. Yes, apparently he was in the habit of giving what the FtP committee deem 'an embarrassing and distressing lecture' and then giving the patient the morning after pill anyway.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There seems to be a whole lot of weird stuff going on here. The FtP committee, for their part, merely have to judge whether a pharmacist has breached the code of ethics and, if so, whether conditions should be imposed or the individual removed from the register, so I'm going to ignore them. It's the behaviour of the pharmacist in question which puzzles me. If it was for moral or religious reasons that the pharmacist gave these speeches to his patients, why did he then supply EHC? What was he hoping to achieve? Was he trying to absolutely prevent evil (ie the patient does not terminate her pregnancy) or just avoid co-operating (the patient gets upset and goes to another pharmacy instead). But if the latter, why did he then supply? It is a mystery to me (although I recogise that I don't have all of the information about the case). And then there is the patient, who reported the pharmacist because he made her feel "rotten and horrible". I'm not saying the pharmacist shouldn't have been investigated, as his actions come across as a bit odd, to say the least: was this his usual manner of advising patients? But as taking the morning after pill <a href="http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/16887/SPC/Levonelle+1500+microgram+tablet/#UNDESIRABLE_EFFECTS" target="_blank">causes side effects</a> of headache, nausea, abdominal pain, bleeding and fatigue (very commonly), and dizziness, diarrhoea and vomiting (commonly), the 'rotten and horrible' feeling was somewhat inevitable, if only on a physical level.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Whether you, healthcare professional, go with a straight refusal to supply or a slightly more in depth explanation as to why not, or an attempt to engage the patient in discussion as to the rights or wrongs of EHC (or whatever other substance), do so with charity and professionalism! Haranguing the inidividual is unlikely to achieve anything, and following the harangue with supply even less.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Interestingly, one of the conditions imposed is that the pharmacist is not to supply EHC in the future. Sounds like good news all round.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
PS My viewing stats passed the 10,000 mark this week. The list of referring sites may suggest to me that a lot of these views are not real people, but to those actual people who are reading: thank you :-)</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-87488419658191870912013-10-15T19:01:00.001+01:002013-10-15T19:01:06.436+01:00Is grief a mental illness (and has anyone even said so)?<div style="text-align: justify;">
The American Psychiatric Association have published their new diagnostic guide (DSM 5) and according to quite a lot of people (just google it) they have classed grief as a type of depression. As far as I can tell (without actually buying a copy) this isn't actually true. What has happened is that they have removed the so-called 'bereavement exclusion' which said that major depressive disorder (aka depression) should not be diagnosed following a significant bereavement. They have also listed something called 'Persistent Complex Bereavement Disorder' as requiring further study.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why does it make sense to remove this bereavement exclusion clause? Well, suppose you had got depression already and then a loved one died and you then sought medical help for your depression. You might not be able to get the treatment you needed because DSM-IV said you shouldn't be diagnosed with it and therefore your insurance company would not pay for your treatment. Maybe you didn't have depression before this event. Maybe you just had a tendency, or a past episode, or were just starting mild depression. Given that the causes of depression are not well understood, maybe you didn't have depression at all. The result would be the same. No DSM number, no drugs. As there don't seem to have been any other exclusions (such as job loss, divorce, or other severe stress) it makes sense (to me, at least) to remove this exclusion which might be preventing people who really need help from getting that help.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the other hand, as there does seem to be a trend for doctors to overprescribe anti-depressants anyway, it does mean that there is now further potential to misdiagnose depressive disorders. Furthermore, evidence shows that many doctors end up prescribing as a way of ending consultations. Also, as all of this is taking place in the USA where prescription medicines can be advertised to the public (not allowed in the UK), there is a possibility that drug companies could target the recently bereaved, who will then go to their doctors demanding anti-depressants which they will be prescribed and which will not help them because they do not have depression, they are grieving. Due to the stigma attached to mental illness it might also mean that some people don't seek the support (by which I don't mean treatment) they need in their grief because they're afraid of the potential diagnosis. All of which begs the question: <em>when did it stop being OK to be sad?</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em></em> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Or perhaps we are sadder than we used to be. With the loss of God from our culture, we have also lost the resurrection and life after death. Funerals are now termed 'celebrations of life' and even mentioning the deceased can be something of a taboo. Deciding whether to tell a friend or acquaintance that you are praying for them and their loved one presents itself as a dilemma (even if praying for them is the first thing you would do). A friend of mine told me recently that after agonising for some time, she decided to offer her condolences (and prayers) to a colleague whose father had died, with the awkwardness of trying to broach the subject with someone she didn't know that well compounded by the fact that everyone else in the department would fall silent as soon as he came into the room. Some time afterwards, he told her that she was the only person at work who had said anything at all to him. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We no longer seem to know that it's OK to be sad. It is wrong, and therefore pathological, an illness. And in a way, there is something 'wrong' in that sadness wasn't part of the original plan: sadness and grief, like death, are a consequence of moral and physical evil. We have no idea how to talk about death. We worry about exacerbating grief, making someone sadder, or causing offence or embarrassment (as if brief embarrassment on either side could really be worse than the death of a loved one?!). So here it is (for what it's worth), my opinion about being sad: it's OK to be sad. And this may be the key to telling the difference between grief and depression. Grief is not an illness, it is part of life, just as death is. </div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-21563836126059063512013-10-07T12:33:00.002+01:002013-10-07T12:33:55.422+01:00Wombs to let: £28,000<div style="text-align: justify;">
I suppose a baby factory is the obvious successor to the <a href="http://iwillnothidemyfaith.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/a-trip-to-egg-bank.html" target="_blank">egg bank</a>, but it wasn't something I was expecting to come across in last week's <a href="http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/01/worlds-first-baby-factory-inside-indias-home-for-surrogate-mothers-4130692/" target="_blank">Metro</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The most ridiculous aspect (and now I've said that I am torn as to which bit is actually the most ridiculous) of this article is Dr Patel's claim that she is carrying out a feminist mission. As the Anscombe Bioethics Centre wrote in their <a href="http://www.bioethics.org.uk/view_article.php?view=View&type=0&article_title=Review%252Bof%252Bthe%252BHFE%252BAct%252B%25282005%2529" target="_blank">review</a> of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Surrogate motherhood involves a further fragmentation and trivialisation of parenthood, in that a woman deliberately becomes a gestational mother with no intention of committing herself to caring for the child she gestates. This practice is exploitative of both the woman and the child, and damages the way conception and gestation are regarded in society as a whole. If surrogacy cannot be prohibited altogether (the option we would prefer), commercial surrogacy, at very least, should continue to be prohibited. We do not believe that agencies should be registered with the Department of Health, as the Brazier Committee recommends, as this would constitute official endorsement of such agencies. (An analogy might be with the case of prostitution: those opposed to prostitution are rightly unwilling to accept the official registering of brothels, as this effectively legitimises their existence.)</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dr Patel is clearly exploiting women; of the £28,000 a couple pay for a surrogate mother, the surrogate receives less than £5,000. For 9 months manual labour (a 'physical job') the mother earns approximately 73p an hour (based on a 40 week pregnancy). And paying a woman for the use of her body is definitely analagous to prostitution. But hey, at least facilities are sterile!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And then we have the desperate couples who choose this option and are willing and able to pay. Are they not also being exploited to a certain extent (albeit in a design of their own making)? This is not a good way to have a family: I know of one woman who regularly tells people how much her IVF twins cost her, apparently believing that their grades should be better than those of other children because they cost more. As they get older, will she dictate to them on the basis that she paid for them? Isn't that a form of slavery? As always it is the child who loses: exploited by both genetic and surrogate parents.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We are now way beyond the start of the slippery slope: there are those who are 'too posh to push', those who choose the gender or disability status of their children. It would not surprise me if there were also designer pregnancies, where the pregnancy happens to another person, whether a woman is fertile or not. Is this the new feminist ideal: the exploitation of one woman to spare another some nine months of inconvenience? Even organs are not commodities to be traded, selected, bought, sold or even rented, so why do we seem to think that children are?</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-23300199149032652492013-09-30T16:42:00.001+01:002013-09-30T16:42:22.397+01:00In co-operating with evil, where is the line between reality and paranoia? <div style="text-align: justify;">
Yesterday, my brother Andy* and his girlfriend sat down and filled out a mortgage application. Every so often I was asked my opinion about what I thought certain questions were getting at. I did my best to answer them but mostly, given my total ignorance of mortgages, credit cards and money in general, I pointed them in the direction of more reliable answers. I found myself wondering whether I should refuse outright, be rather more non-comittal or launch into a lecture on how co-habitation is not in God's Plan for them, despite the fact that my big-sisterly-omniscience apparently doesn't extend to morals. Andy and Gertrude** plan never to marry (G wouldn't mind if A insisted, I am told, but A is against it) or have children (A would secretly like to but G is vehemently against) and wish to buy a house together so that they can live happily ever after. My other brother, Chris, married Adele*** earlier this year, and prior to this they had been cohabiting for two years in the house they bought together. Now, when Chris told me the two of them were moving in together I expressed my concern and talked about it with him. He was unreceptive, but there was no animosity. Chris and Andy are extremely different in their openness to different ideas, and Chris at least has some basic appreciation for Christian morals. It was worth a try. With Andy there would be no point. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This issue of what counts as co-operation has been on my mind for some time, and I have a tentative plan to follow up my post on healthcare professionals and the law with one on conscience. Here's the deal: Pharmacists have a conscience clause in our <a href="http://www.pharmacyregulation.org/sites/default/files/Standards%20of%20conduct,%20ethics%20and%20performance.pdf" target="_blank">Code of Ethics</a>. We can refuse to do something if it is against our moral or religious beliefs. However we must "make sure that if your religious or moral beliefs prevent you from providing a service, you tell the relevant people or authorities and refer patients and the public to other providers".
In general, among pharmacists, it is agreed that a conscience clause is a good idea because healthcare professionals constantly have to make difficult decisions about what the best course of action may be. However, the fact that we have to refer the patient to another provider rather makes a nonsense of it: I won't give you the morning after pill but my colleague here/over the road will. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I often have conversations with people about how we should handle these ethical dilemmas. For practical purposes I think it is virtually impossible for a Catholic pharmacist to work in community pharmacy (ie a shop) because although 'Emergency Hormonal Contraception' is not an essential service under the <a href="http://www.elmmb.nhs.uk/community-pharmacy-main/community-pharmacy/" target="_blank">NHS community pharmacy contract</a>, it is locally commissioned by PCTs and unless you have the luxury of owning your own pharmacy its unlikely that you would be in a position to say that the pharmacy won't have anything to do with it, and in any case you would still have to tell the person where to access said service. In hospital pharmacy it is a bit easier to pick and choose what field you work in. Most hospitals do not supply contraceptives to in-patients (for obvious reasons), but if a patient is usually takes hormonal contraceptives, you still need to clinically check that prescription. So then what? Is clinically checking when you aren't going to supply a problem? Even if you work in geriatric medicine there is still the dispensary slot, the on-call time when you can't hand over to a colleague. Leaving scripts to one side for other pharmacists to handle is practically a hanging offence. One friend and I were shocked to hear that a consultant simply passes over the ethically problematic patients. For us, that is not how it works. Some people would say they wouldn't dispense Viagra, in case the person was not married, or having an affair, or other immoral behaviour...but surely there comes a point when you have to give someone the benefit of the doubt. What if the person is married and erectile dysfunction is placing a huge strain on their relationship? How far can we go down this line of thought: should we even be working in the NHS?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What should we be doing as Catholic pharmacists or other healthcare professionals? Where should we go and work? I don't think the answer is for us to seek out fields of healthcare without ethical dilemmas, because that would also limit our opportunity to transform all of the temporal order which is in contrast to the Gospel (always supposing such fields exist). And I think we definitely need Catholic healthcare professionals. Must we just accept that our career options will be limited, our colleagues will mistrust or despise us and that we end up doing an unfulfilling job because we need to provide for a family? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Answers on postcard, please.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">*Not his real name; if I use a psuedonym myself I'm hardly going to reveal his identity.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">**Obviously not her real name, but follows a pleasing pattern known only to myself.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">***Likewise.</span></div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-26076811484485236042013-09-27T14:45:00.000+01:002013-09-27T14:47:59.188+01:00Exciting happenings in Manchester this weekThe first ordinations at the <a href="https://sites.google.com/a/manchesteroratory.org/manchester-oratory/" target="_blank">Manchester Oratory</a> will take place on Wednesday at 5:30pm, with two men being ordained to the diaconate. <br />
<br />
And the now annual Marian Procession through Rusholme and Fallowfield starts at 10.30am on Saturday 5th October. There have been about 1,000 people present at each of the last 2 years. Check out their video to find out more and if you live anywhere in the North West then go along and participate.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="281" mozallowfullscreen="" src="//player.vimeo.com/video/72187352" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="500"></iframe> <br />
<br />
Please pray for all those involved in these two events (and for good weather on Saturday!).Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-23119585984941466542013-09-20T15:05:00.000+01:002013-09-20T15:07:18.349+01:00Trivial problems with having 3 parents<div style="text-align: justify;">
One group of scientists have raised concerns that the three-parent IVF technique may lead to problems with fertility, learning and behaviour, the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24158049?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Royal+Pharmaceutical+Society&utm_campaign=3103482_Today%27s+Headlines+Friday+20+September&dm_i=EQ,1UINU,706SC1,6M5S1,1" target="_blank">BBC reports</a>. Other scientists say that the effects of a mismatch between mitochondrial and nuclear DNA must be trvial because otherwise we'd have noticed already. Aside from the fact that biologically we have two parents, and therefore I can't see why we would already have noticed, and the ethical minefiel (OK, so it's not a minefield because there isn't a way through, it's just a bomb shaped like a field) the political problems of having 3 parents should not be ignored. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My parents are divorced, my father is remarried. A lot of people are in this position. I get on fairly well with my dad's wife these days, but I rarely refer to her even as my stepmother, although she has referred to herself as a parent in relation to me. My poor sister-in-law has two women who consider themselves to be her mother-in-law (fortunately she is a keen cook and my brother is keen on eating so there is no danger of accusations of underfeeding). Between 6 step-siblings, we only have 4 names, which is a bit confusing at times. Birthdays, Christmas, funerals and now weddings require hours of discussion and planning dedicated to the 3 parent issue. These problems are time consuming, upsetting, complicated but esentially trivial: they do not touch on our identity. At least we are clear on who exactly our parents are, who we are and where we come from. To those who still struggle with these questions, and to those who are and will in the future be born as a result of 3 parent IVF and other bizarre human interventions, I offer the answer a friend of mine discovered as a teenager (very complicated remarriage situation): first and foremost, we are God's children.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-71492913845921748952013-09-20T14:38:00.000+01:002013-09-20T14:38:04.314+01:00A trip to the egg bank<div style="text-align: justify;">
On Tuesday the <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/britains-first-egg-donor-bank-2278162" target="_blank">Mirror</a> reported that an egg donor bank had opened in London; it has been operating on a trial basis since the beginning of the year. In my health news email digest, it stated that women would be able to choose characteristics of the baby, such as eye colour. (It has got a little more difficult to review these stories since the newspapers realised that people were accessing their articles free online and that they were clearly missing out and should start charging.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Choosing eye colour might seem harmless enough, and I understand that a woman might well want a baby to bear some slight resemblence to her, but we have already seen the tragic consequences of sex-selection of babies, and allowing and encouraging any sort of picking and choosing definitely sets us on the path to designer babies. Having children is not a right, it is a privilege. Babies are not convenient: they do not sleep or smile or eat when we want them to, they are hungry and tired when we don't want them to be. They are people, and like all people they are creatures. We are created. We are fragile. We are dependent. There are some things that we don't get to choose because we are not in charge.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This was as far as I got when I actually went and read the Mirror's article. I was struck by the fact that the director talked about the 'needs' of people 'needing' donor eggs. Need is not the right word - children are a privilege, not a necessity. It would be more accurate to talk about desire and want. I also took note of the 53 year-old woman who said that she'd always wanted to have children but had never met the right person. There is in that statement a clear understanding that the 'right person' is a necessary part of the process of having children. There is no mention that she has now met that person, but she's decided to have a child anyway. In the same way that we have separated sexuality and procreation (see <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html" target="_blank"><em>Humanae vitae</em></a> and if you haven't read it, then read it) we have also separated the concepts of children and family. Sometimes there are ways of doing things which are just different. Other times there are right ways and wrong ways, and being created and finite we also don't get to choose what is right and what is wrong. We can choose whether to do right or wrong, between good and bad and frankly that is a complete misuse of the precious gift of our freedom. Right use of our freedom is using it to choose between good and better, not between good and bad.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was at this point that I discovered the Telegraph's <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10313483/Egg-bank-opens-in-London.html" target="_blank">article</a> on the same subject and realised how incredibly naive I am. It may be couched in terms of altruism, but this is not some benvolent institution, set up because of tragic needs which we cannot ignore (like, say, a food bank). The donors (something of a misnomer) will receive £750 for providing eggs. How long before we see young women funding their way thorough university by selling their eggs? And the profit margin is presumably quite high, as treatment (purchase of eggs) costs £10,000. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Whilst I have thrown words like right and wrong around, and asserted that children are a privilege and not a right, I do empathise with older women. And I do not wish to generalise or assume that it is only single women who seek IVF in later life, I know women who did not meet and marry their husbands until they were in their 50s and 60s and therefore never had children. My great uncle's second wife told me cheerfully that she had no regrets over not having met her husband sooner as he, a widower, had been married to someone else. There are also couples who are sadly, persistently infertile. Women are called to be mothers, whether biologically or spiritually, and the inability to answer that call for whatever reason must bring heartache. But we also need to remember that our actions always have consequences. The consequences of delaying children by prolonged, repeated use of contraceptives in order to advance a career, go on holiday more often and generally 'enjoy life' might be infertility. We are not in charge and we cannot have it all.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-11304496194224156032013-09-15T13:16:00.001+01:002013-09-15T13:16:55.017+01:00From bad to worse: politically correcting the hymbook<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have been promising myself this little <strike>rant</strike> project for some time and so this morning I borrowed a hymn book from (I did ask) and now I am sitting down to enjoy an objective moan (OK, maybe I will allow some subjective whining to creep in) about what they have done with the hymns. Our parish rejoices in <em>Liturgical Hymns Old and New</em>, the sequel to <em>Hymns Old and New with Supplement</em> which continued the trilogy begun with <em>Hymns Old and New</em>. The title is blatantly a rip off of the classic <em>Hymns Ancient and Modern</em> with monosyllables in order to make it easier for the people to understand. You see, I am getting annoyed already. Apparently (I quote from the foreword) 'the significant adjective "<em>Liturgical</em>"' is to do with 'the people...reclaiming the parts of the mass and the celebration of the sacraments that belong to them by wanting - as they should - to sing them'. Wow, I'm really starting to regret reading that page. Anyway, what I am about to say could probably be equally applied to most of the hymnbooks in current circulation. I should add at this point that <a href="http://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.co.uk/" target="_blank">Bruvver Eccles</a> is doing sterling work on the subject of bad hymns, and today's rant is more about the updating of both bad and good.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first section is <strong>Music for the Mass</strong>. This is now all completely out of date because we have a new, improved translation, although this isn't quite true as they do get credit for including the Missa de Angelis, Mass XVIII and Credo 3. However, they lose points for grouping together all the Kyries, all the Glorias etc which does lead to random picking and choosing of mass parts resulting in a lack of musical cohesion. Further points must be subtracted for including Agnus Deis with made up verses. What is it with making up words to the Agnus Dei? I know better than the Church and I don't think they've really got it covered with the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This wasn't quite how I saw this post going. The next section is <strong>Hymns and Songs</strong>. I don't know if I know what the difference is, and I'm not sure they do either because there isn't a helpful little heading next to each composition saying which it is. Out of curiosity I've just looked these words up on dictionary.com (I have got an OED on the shelf but it's heavy) and apparently a song is 'a short metrical composition intended or adapted for singing, especially one in rhymed stanzas' and a hymn is 'a song or ode in praise or honour of God' which begs the question what are 'songs' doing in a book with the word 'liturgical' in the title?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What I was really going to look at was the way in which a lot of the hymns have been adapted, presumably to make them more 'inclusive', especially for people who can't pronounce their 'th's yet, for women, and because we are all one people and God can't show favoritism by conferring grace or blessings on any one individual over any other. There are problems with this, many of which can be illustrated using the updated version of <em>My God loves me</em>. This was not a great hymn to start with. It is never a good idea to set hymns to popular tunes (see the Hey Jude Kyrie). Maybe I am doing the editors a disservice. Perhaps their efforts on this hymn are to discourage the singing thereof. In this case, changing the first line to <em>Our God loves us</em> was a stroke of genius, making it tricky to locate if you rely on the alphabetical order of the hymnbook (although the inclusion of both options in the index makes me question their motives). Basically what they have done is replace all the singular pronouns with plural pronouns, hence my God becomes our God and he loves us not me. And here are the problems:</div>
<ol>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Musically speaking, 'us' is not a great word to have on the end of a line. We can sing my God loves meeeeeeeeeeee with no problem. My God loves uuuuuuuusssssssss is difficult on two counts. The u-as-in-us does not lend itself to long notes, and where to put the s is a challenge even for experienced choirs, who annotate their scores to show where exactly it should be places. Our God does not, in fact, love us, he loves hissing.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
In terms of the rhyme we come to grief in verse 2, which once proclaimed that 'though storm-clouds threaten the day, he will set me free' which rhymed with the first half in which 'His gentle hand he stretches over me'. Me rhymes with free. Yr 1 phonics. Free does not rhyme with us. This is almost the only rhyme the writer managed to get right (wine/time and endures/secure featuring in verses 3 and 4 respectively) and it seems a shame to take that away from her.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
I admit to grammatical pedantry. It annoys me that while they have made the pronouns plural, they have not adjusted the nouns accordingly. Verse 4, therefore, irritates me profoundly, as it contains the immortal line 'and we will live like his child' whereas if we are going to live like anything, presumably it should be his <em>children</em>. Two many syllables.</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thou, thy, thee and thine are perfectly good words. They are not hard to understand. Except, apparently, in the hymn 'Breathe on me, breath of God' where they have been replaced throughout with you and yours.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I personally (subjectivism may creep in) have no objection to the use of man or men to mean all of us 'ere human beings. I do not feel threatened by the word 'mankind'. We have already seen that replacing a monosyllabic word with one of 2 syllables would upset the meter and so there is this rettible tendency to replace 'men' with 'ones' and so the verses of <em>I'll sing a hymn to Mary now end with</em> '... when wicked <strike>men</strike> ones blaspheme thee, <strike>I'll</strike> to love and bless thy name'. 'Ones' sounds completely ridiculous. (It is good to note though, that women are being given their credit for wickedness, blasphemey and other wrongdoing as well as the chance to receive peace, grace and love etc.) This is better than the version in <em>Celebrational Hymnal for Everyone </em>in which the end of this verse has been completed altered to remove all mention of wickedness and blasphemy, changing the words to 'O may I imitate thee and magnify thy name'. The same hymnbook also contains an astonishing song which begins 'Oh the Lord looked down from his house up in the sky and said, "I created man but I can't remember why"' which is, at best, anthropologically unsound and at worst, heretical. It's about Noah's Ark. Maybe I should be grateful that it's <em>not</em> in LH&N. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After <strong>Hymns and Songs</strong> comes <strong>Children's Hymns and Songs</strong>. I daren't look through this section. There is a lot about butterflies. Then I was excited to see a bit called <strong>Chants</strong>. DisappointingL it's mostly Taize. Then come the responsorial psalms. I have to say that at least this section should go some way to discouraging people from substituting random songs based on a psalm for the responsorial psalm.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since the translation of the mass was improved, there have been a lot of complaints centred around the fact that 'we knew the old words and its too hard to change'. Apparently the same complaint doesn't apply to hymns which are to be changed and updated as much as possible. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now I've got that off my chest, here's some serious advice for anyone planning to write a hymn or song:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/GhYuA0Cz8ls?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-89449804397173486412013-09-11T10:46:00.001+01:002013-09-11T10:46:45.203+01:00In the public interest: Law and the healthcare professional<div style="text-align: justify;">
As I understand it from a quick look at the coverage of the CPS's seemingly (wait for it) bizarre decision not to prosecute doctors involved in sex-selective abortions, apparently this relates to two doctors (abortionists) who were asked to carry out terminations on the grounds of the child's sex, but did not do so and were not planning to do so. Prosecution is deemed to be not in the public interest, and better dealt with by the GMC. My Hunt has apparently referred the case to the attorney general. Leaving aside the matter of whether doctors who have not and do not intend to carry out illegal activities need to be disciplined by their regulating body I have been thinking about law, what it is for, and how healthcare professionals should and do see it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I may be naive, but I have come to the conclusion that any laws we have should, at root, be in the public interest. Whether they protect or promote the rights of a minority, the majority; or regulate the workings of organisations; or stipulate the responsibilities of groups and individuals, all laws serve the public interest. This is not to say that I think all of our laws are right merely because they are laws, but our elected officials have made these laws on our behalf, and therefore they (the laws) presumably exist because of a belief that they are needed and are in the public interest. Therefore it is no great leap to conclude that those who break laws are not acting in the public interest. And, because of the way that the law operates, those who break laws receive some form of punishment, and perhaps the opportunity for public atonement (damages) or rehabilitation depending on the circumstances. (These consequences are, in theory, also in the public interest.) A quick flick through 1897-1927 of the Catechism reassures me that I'm working along the right lines here. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It would seem, then, that prosecuting those who break laws is in the public interest, by virtue of what law itself is. I removed the word 'always' from that sentence because I can see that spending a large amount of public money prosecuting a child who stole a bag of sweets from a supermarket would not be, and there is such a thing as legitimate protest which often necesitates a certain amount of disruption. Of course, in this case the Abortion Act, which permits abortion, is an unjust law and therefore not binding in conscience as authority has broken down (cf. CCC 1903), but I don't think that this immorality clause applies to the parts of the Act which are morally right (that is, abortion is basically illegal, according to the rule of law). I am not a lawyer or a theologian and if anyone would like to expand upon, clarify, or correct any part of this they should do so and welcome.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As an undergraduate I sat through a lot of lectures on <em>Law relating to Pharmacy</em>. Pharmacists are the 'guardians of medicines' and therefore at undergraduate and registration level we are required to pass exams which require intimate knowledge and understanding of the law (it should be noted that while the university standard is 40% for a pass, for the pharmacy law exams it is higher - I think 70% but I can't actually remember). The Medicines Act 1968 arose following the scandal and tragedy of thalidomide; along with the four other Acts we studied, the majority of this law is about making sure that only the people who need and/or are entitled to possess lethal, or potentially lethal, substances are able to do so. For pharmacists, and by extension for other health professionals, the law is important. And not just the law directly relating to our work: last month a pharmacist was struck off for stealing controlled drugs (codeine, morphine) to feed his own addiction, but a pharmacy technician was also suspended from the register for benefit fraud.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Healthcare professionals make life and death decisions on an hourly basis. Sometimes we pharmacists may not even realise the import of our actions, as we re-write the scrawled prescription, annotate the dose, check the patient's allergy status, cross off the duplicated items and manage the drug interactions (collectively known as 'supporting safe and effective prescribing'), but they really are that serious. We need laws which help us in and underpin those decisions because of the magnitude of those decision and the power we derive from our ability to make them. If laws are, in themselves, in the public interest then flagrant disregard of those laws by the very people who should be serving the public, in their capacity as healthcare professionals, is a grave matter indeed. Given that it is held that such people must respect the rule of law outside their professional field in order to function with integrity within their field, then surely a breach of law which impacts directly on their practice must be prosecuted in the public interest and for the public good.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-7387832804123800162013-09-03T22:06:00.000+01:002013-09-03T22:06:04.027+01:00Dating after discernment: teenage angst revisited after consecrated life<div style="text-align: justify;">
Over at yesimcatholic, the Skinny Walrus has followed up her post on <a href="http://yesimcatholic.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/what-catholic-women-want/" target="_blank">What (Catholic) Women Want</a> with one on <a href="http://yesimcatholic.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/what-catholic-men-want/" target="_blank">What (Catholic) Men Want</a>. The former made me laugh quite a lot, especially the part about seminarians. And I agree with her seminarian friend who said that all Catholic men should go to seminary. For some time I have been of the opinion that at the very least all Catholics should set aside some serious time for discernment and also a good couple of years of solid Catholic formation, intellectual, psychological, physical and spiritual. (I not sure if I know what I mean by physical Catholic formation (Catholic physical formation) but we can't ignore the fact that we do have bodies so there should definitely be something.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When I was discerning my vocation (the first time) I made friends with another girl who was likewise discerning. She had discerned with various communities on and off for years and told me that in between times she had dated quite a few ex-seminarians. There had been, she informed me, quite a lot of theology and not much romance (in case you're wondering, she's now married). I totally get it. If you have been seriously discerning your vocation, have been in community, have been in the seminary, you are bound to be drawn to others who have had similar experiences and have then discerned for marriage because you have been living the same kind of life, but there is bound to be a lot of theology/spiritual talk because you have a common frame of reference. You are going to have a lot to talk about, you are probably going to understand one another quite well, and very possibly you are going to be a little bit better at talking about what's going on inside because you've spent some time (a) working it out and (b) putting it into words. Having said that, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to be suited to marriage with each other. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Personally speaking (and given that the whole depression and anxiety thing doesn't really help) I find it much harder (not impossible) to talk about much beyond the superficial with people who don't have those experiences. I'm not just talking about men, I mean everyone. I don't think one has to necessarily marry a Catholic to have a successful marriage (whoever you marry you should think about it carefully beforehand and the posts above do cover this topic fairly comprehensively) but when you are formerly consecrated it can be difficult to even have a conversation with a non-Catholic because you have to spend so much time explaining yourself and your life. My government-issue employment advisor is very happy and excited about the "unique selling point" on my CV (yes, the 3 most important years of my life come down to that: something more likely to get me a job interview). Some people think I went through a phase. My extended family don't talk about it. Other people say 'oh that's nice' and see it like some sort of gap year experience (everyone who has been to university in the last 15 years or so has met someone whose been to India/Bolivia/Thailand and found that it was a very spiritual place, who now sports hippy trousers and likes to eat rice and beans more often than perhaps is good for them). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But even among the Catholics it's hard work. If I say 'I've discerned for marriage' the majority assume I've met someone and walked out of my community and away from my commitments in order to get married/move in with someone (when did I have time for that?!). So now I say 'I discerned that God wasn't calling me to community life'. However, there are quite a lot of reasons I don't think that's a good way to put it. Firstly, God doesn't call us not to be something. He calls us to something. 'Not community life' isn't a vocation, although it might be a step on the path to finding your vocation. The other reason I don't like it is that a frankly astonishing number of Catholics assume that 'not community life' is some kind of code for 'I want to be a priest'. These are good people, practicing Catholics, many of them living comitted Catholic lives...apart from the part where they hope that maybe I'll be the Church's first female bishop because really the Church has got it so wrong and behind the times and the nice lady vicar next door at the C of E is definitely proof that women can and should be priests and so and so forth until I want to shout: STOP! and run away screaming. And you know what, I am not the only person who has had this experience. That is why sometimes it's easier to talk to the other formerly consecrated women I know, because it's a relief to be able to share these strange, slightly frustrating experiences with someone who understands where you're coming from. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So yes, the ex-seminarian is probably a good bet. Although he seems to have a lot more options than the ex-consecrated woman, with all the unmarried Catholic women queuing up. As a fellow 30something, formerly consecrated, female friend was saying the other day, aside from the fact that now is possibly not the time to embark on dating, there seem to be very few men of our age who aren't either married, divorced or carrying vast amounts of emotional baggage. But, as I try to remember (and succeed fairly well a lot of the time) getting married is not the ultimate aim in life. That would be holiness.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-40336516128211055262013-07-27T17:03:00.002+01:002013-07-27T17:03:35.457+01:00The Catholic Guide to Depression - Aaron Kheriaty, John Cihak<div style="text-align: justify;">
This book was lent to me by a friend who also suffers from depression and had found it helpful. I was so impressed by the introduction that I almost sat down to blog about it there and then.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dr Aaron Kheriaty, an experienced psychiatrist, with some help from Fr John Cihak, a theologian, has written and excellent, extremely readable book about depression. It is the best thing about depression I have ever read, and it is the only thing about depression I have ever read which I thought I could give someone else to read and it would help them understand my condition. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The approach to mental illness, and specifically depression, is grounded in Catholic anthrolopology and a truly integral vision of the human person: body, soul and spirit. It explains what depression is <em>not</em> and how, given the fact that it is an illness which pervades all aspects of the person, the treatment must be likewise holistic. Brief descriptions of treatment options are covered but the most interesting and best part of the book is that it is so spiritual. As I've given my copy back to the person who lent it to me I can't give a more detailed explanation, but I plan to buy one for myself.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As depression is now the 3rd or 4th leading cause of illness worldwide, you will probably find reason at some point in your life to read this book. In the mean time:</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
If you have depression, you should read this book: it will help you understand yourself, your illness and what you can do about it. I found it both practical and consoling.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
If you are a healthcare professional, you should read this book: medical science, education and practice frequently take a one-dimensional approach to the human person, reducing us to our bodies only. Although specifically about depression, I believe this book goes a long way to addressing that problem, and much of its content is applicable to suffering in general.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
If you have a friend or family member with depression, you should read this book. It puts into words what they may not be able to, with great clarity.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
If you are a priest, religious or consecrated person, if you provide spiritual direction, or do almost any kind of apostolate, you should read this book: it gives practical spiritual advice for the person with depression as well as explaining the biological and psychological aspects of the illness.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
If your parish has a library, you should recommend to whoever is in charge of it that they add this book to it.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
If you have ever thought that a person with depression needs to pull themselves together, or give themselves a good talking to, you should read this book.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
If you don't fall into one of the aforementioned categories, then you might not want to read this book now, but you definitely should make a note of it somewhere, because one day you might need it.</div>
</li>
</ul>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1197113644948693987.post-46482196555884259122013-07-24T08:34:00.002+01:002013-07-24T08:34:44.927+01:00Live from LourdesIn the cafe formerly known as La Terasse and making most of free wifi. Typing with one finger on iPod hence Bridget Jones style of post.<br />
No. Of cappuccinos today 1. With cream. V bad.<br />
Lourdes is v quiet. Fewer pilgrims and volunteers.<br />
Train services disrupted (prob accounts for lack of Italians).<br />
Sanctuaries open and mostly normal.<br />
Underground basilica still closed - no international mass and Eucharistic procession is a non-Procession which takes place near the podium.<br />
St Bernadette's Church open as normal.<br />
Confessions as normal.<br />
Grotto open, some damage to glass around the spring.<br />
Baths open but water change is slower than usual due to damaged filtration system.<br />
Main bridge in sanctuary is damaged but open with temporary railings. Farthest bridge (past the baths) is closed.<br />
Abri St Michel (v important place which feeds volunteers and scouts) v badly damaged and still closed. Restaurant temporarily rehoused in St Frai.<br />
Some hotels still closed - mud reported. Many business owners v demolarised.<br />
All shops appear open.<br />
Best orange juice to be found in the Acceuil Maie St Frai where a glass of the freshly pressed stuff only 2E20. Vg.<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is the Recusant reporting from Lourdes. And now, back to the studio.</div>
Recusanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03770884790171872708noreply@blogger.com2