The Daily Mail (not my favourite source of healthcare/science, or indeed any other kind of news, but anyway) reports a worrying trend in the number of women taking stimulants in order to cope with life.
Aside from the fact that Ritalin and friends are not licensed for the treatment of ADHD in adults (ie their safety and efficacy in this group of patients is not proven) and that buying medicines on the internet is a stupidly dangerous thing to do there are some other concerning aspects.
The women taking these drugs are obviously experiencing extreme pressure to perform and conform, but more seriously still we can see a tendency to measure people by what they do. We are not ourselves, or what we eat, but what we do. This is massive problem because if you cease to "do" then you also cease to "be". In the case of the students using these drugs, their measure of themselves is how well they perform in exams: I am only as good as my exam results. Others struggle with the demands of juggling work and family life, or long hours and pressure to meet targets. But where is the weakness in admitting that something is hard? There is also, as so often with mental health, a reduction of the human person to the merely biological.
According to the article, women aged 25 to 34 are the most stressed demographic group in the country. No surprises there: we are the group who first experienced student loans, SATs at 7, 11 and 14 years, league tables, contraceptives for all, abortion virtually on demand... We have grown up being encouraged to turn down children in favour of career success, with the advice that giving up work for motherhood makes you a failure, that instant gratification is our right and we are also the generation whose parents lapsed in their religious pratices meaning that many of us have never stepped foot inside a church. We started life with the understanding that, as women, we would have to fight tooth and nail to be recognised as good enough and we have arrived at adulthood finding that most of the work has been done.We have moved on from the time where everything was blamed on our parents not giving us enough attention. Now we are our bodies. We have been formed by secularism and individualism and taught that an expensive pair of shoes can solve all our probelms.
We were promised the world, and the world turned out to not be worth the paper it was written on. Only God's promises are worth trusting, and the majority of this group have no idea what they are.
Showing posts with label anthropology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anthropology. Show all posts
Monday, 7 January 2013
Wednesday, 5 December 2012
It's not my fault!
I was somewhat bemused to read yesterday morning that there is a gene for binge drinking. Further inspection suggests that this gene predisposes some people to experience a stronger physiological response than others when drinking alcohol.
Personally, I would say that binge drinking has more to do with sin, freedom and the perennial search for happiness than genetics. Obviously binge drinking can't make us happy, any more than sleeping around can (and there does seem to be a strong correlation between the two). But whether they know God or not, everyone has a hunger for him, a longing for the infinite, and without knowledge of God this leads us to look for happiness in many places where it isn't to be found. Furthermore, I would say that not finding this happiness, not being able to satiate this desire we have (because for so many people they haven't chosen to reject God, it's just that faith has never been suggested to them as an option) we end up trying to fill up our lives with <i>anything</i> that might make us feel something, be it sex, drugs or rock n roll. Of course this self-destructive behaviour leads us into a downward spiral of increasing unhappiness: only in God and his loving Plan can we find happiness. He has made us for Himself and our hearts are restless until they rest in Him, to paraphrase St Augustine.
I am not some sort of neo-luddite who wishes to exclude science and technology from every facet of life. If people have genetic tendencies towards certain behaviours or illnesses then of course identifying that and seeking solutions can be a good thing. But the increasing tendency to identify genes is part of both the "loss of the sense of sin" bemoaned by Pope Pius XII (once we blamed "the system", now we blame our genes) and also constant reduction of the human person to the merely biological. Yes, I have a body, but I am not my body. Neither am I my DNA. And while we continue to place all our hopes on genetics we will never find the answer to those situations which many would agree are a problem.
Personally, I would say that binge drinking has more to do with sin, freedom and the perennial search for happiness than genetics. Obviously binge drinking can't make us happy, any more than sleeping around can (and there does seem to be a strong correlation between the two). But whether they know God or not, everyone has a hunger for him, a longing for the infinite, and without knowledge of God this leads us to look for happiness in many places where it isn't to be found. Furthermore, I would say that not finding this happiness, not being able to satiate this desire we have (because for so many people they haven't chosen to reject God, it's just that faith has never been suggested to them as an option) we end up trying to fill up our lives with <i>anything</i> that might make us feel something, be it sex, drugs or rock n roll. Of course this self-destructive behaviour leads us into a downward spiral of increasing unhappiness: only in God and his loving Plan can we find happiness. He has made us for Himself and our hearts are restless until they rest in Him, to paraphrase St Augustine.
I am not some sort of neo-luddite who wishes to exclude science and technology from every facet of life. If people have genetic tendencies towards certain behaviours or illnesses then of course identifying that and seeking solutions can be a good thing. But the increasing tendency to identify genes is part of both the "loss of the sense of sin" bemoaned by Pope Pius XII (once we blamed "the system", now we blame our genes) and also constant reduction of the human person to the merely biological. Yes, I have a body, but I am not my body. Neither am I my DNA. And while we continue to place all our hopes on genetics we will never find the answer to those situations which many would agree are a problem.
Friday, 2 November 2012
Sterilizing our children
This week there have been two articles worth mentioning in the news about contraception and teenagers.
The first is from the Telegraph and gives the details of girls as young as 13 being given contraceptive implants (effective for 3 years) and injections (3 months) at school, or in clinics, without parental knowledge or consent. First of all, I believe that patient confidentiality is essential, regardless of the age of the patient. However, confidentiality is intrinsically tied to consent: the person consenting is entitled to confidentiality. All medical treatment (legally this includes contraception - Medicines Act 1968) requires informed consent, and those under 16 can only give informed consent if they are deemed to be Gillick competent. Competence varies with every individual and intervention and I do not believe that any teenager, however smart can be deemed to be competent where a long-acting contraceptive is concerned. We see enough adults who struggle to conceive after years on the Pill; I cannot see that a teenager, who is unlikely to be considering the probability that they will one day want to have a family, would be able to give informed consent. Actually, come to think of it, there probably aren't many adults capable of giving fully informed consent to such an intervention, but unfortunately we aren't subject to the same criteria. If you are consenting to contraception, that assumes that you are consenting to sex, and that requires a level of psychological and spiritual maturity, not just intelligence. As such, not being competent, they cannot consent and therefore they are not entitled to confidentiality.
Secondly, we have an age of consent in this country which is 16. Why do we bother if promiscuity is going to be encouraged in this manner? Who are these 13 year olds sleeping with? Granted, there may be a small proportion who seek contraception as a badge of honour (a GP I knew who also worked in a Family Planning Clinic told me that she was somewhat plagued by teenagers who wanted contraceptives for the purpose of having them rather than using them), a rite of passage if you will. But given all the concerns over internet grooming and child abuse should we not be asking more questions? Teenage girls are not usually interested in boys their own age; even if a girl is 15 and her boyfriend is 16 that is still illegal.
This strategy is derived from the desire to decrease the incidence of teenage pregancy (I get it) at all costs (I don't). Given the current rates of STDs, especially the chlamydia epidemic, why aren't we thinking outside the box? What we need is a culture of openess: parents should not be their childrens' best friends or their worst enemies, but children should be able to talk to their parents. And the only guarenteed way to prevent pregnancy and STDs is through abstinece and I do not think we can promote abstinence without teaching young people about their own intrinsic dignity. Of course we have a problem in that we are now in the 2nd generation of permissive behaviour, the belief that freedom is all about doing what you want when you want, and the total absence of God which leads to seeking value in pleasure.
The other article states that girls are choosing the pill over condoms. Around 2006, the student newspaper in Manchester published the results of a survey which found that female students didn't want to go on the pill because they didn't want to be considered "easy". (It also discovered that a significant proportion of students believed that it was not possible to conceive whilst standing up, which says something about the level of education they had received, but I digress.) This suggests that they were not considering the pill because they were already in a sexual relationship but because they were expecting to have what I think could be termed 'random' sexual encounters. Someone who knows you is not likely to be judging you on being easy.
What am I bothered about? Well, firstly, these articles are about girls. No-one is talking about boys. Granted there are not so many contraceptive options available to them, but it appears that the current strategy is completely targeted at young women, and comes from an anti-life basis rather than the promotion of health and well-being. There was recent outcry when it was proposed that girls be taught abstinence. I agree that it is rather ridiculous, because boys also need to know about their dignity and worth (and sadly, teaching only one half of the population about abstinence would likely lead to an increase in the use of prostitutes). It could be argued that girls choosing these longer-acting forms of contraception are sleeping with their long-term boyfriends. But I think it could equally be argued that actually what is happening, extrapolating from the prevailing attitude of Manchester undergraduates, is that at least some girls are effectively sterilizing themselves in the expectation of casual sex. It is time that sex education was based on something real (anything! but preferably good anthropology) rather being completely out of context and taking sex out of context. Bring on existential sex education.
The first is from the Telegraph and gives the details of girls as young as 13 being given contraceptive implants (effective for 3 years) and injections (3 months) at school, or in clinics, without parental knowledge or consent. First of all, I believe that patient confidentiality is essential, regardless of the age of the patient. However, confidentiality is intrinsically tied to consent: the person consenting is entitled to confidentiality. All medical treatment (legally this includes contraception - Medicines Act 1968) requires informed consent, and those under 16 can only give informed consent if they are deemed to be Gillick competent. Competence varies with every individual and intervention and I do not believe that any teenager, however smart can be deemed to be competent where a long-acting contraceptive is concerned. We see enough adults who struggle to conceive after years on the Pill; I cannot see that a teenager, who is unlikely to be considering the probability that they will one day want to have a family, would be able to give informed consent. Actually, come to think of it, there probably aren't many adults capable of giving fully informed consent to such an intervention, but unfortunately we aren't subject to the same criteria. If you are consenting to contraception, that assumes that you are consenting to sex, and that requires a level of psychological and spiritual maturity, not just intelligence. As such, not being competent, they cannot consent and therefore they are not entitled to confidentiality.
Secondly, we have an age of consent in this country which is 16. Why do we bother if promiscuity is going to be encouraged in this manner? Who are these 13 year olds sleeping with? Granted, there may be a small proportion who seek contraception as a badge of honour (a GP I knew who also worked in a Family Planning Clinic told me that she was somewhat plagued by teenagers who wanted contraceptives for the purpose of having them rather than using them), a rite of passage if you will. But given all the concerns over internet grooming and child abuse should we not be asking more questions? Teenage girls are not usually interested in boys their own age; even if a girl is 15 and her boyfriend is 16 that is still illegal.
This strategy is derived from the desire to decrease the incidence of teenage pregancy (I get it) at all costs (I don't). Given the current rates of STDs, especially the chlamydia epidemic, why aren't we thinking outside the box? What we need is a culture of openess: parents should not be their childrens' best friends or their worst enemies, but children should be able to talk to their parents. And the only guarenteed way to prevent pregnancy and STDs is through abstinece and I do not think we can promote abstinence without teaching young people about their own intrinsic dignity. Of course we have a problem in that we are now in the 2nd generation of permissive behaviour, the belief that freedom is all about doing what you want when you want, and the total absence of God which leads to seeking value in pleasure.
The other article states that girls are choosing the pill over condoms. Around 2006, the student newspaper in Manchester published the results of a survey which found that female students didn't want to go on the pill because they didn't want to be considered "easy". (It also discovered that a significant proportion of students believed that it was not possible to conceive whilst standing up, which says something about the level of education they had received, but I digress.) This suggests that they were not considering the pill because they were already in a sexual relationship but because they were expecting to have what I think could be termed 'random' sexual encounters. Someone who knows you is not likely to be judging you on being easy.
What am I bothered about? Well, firstly, these articles are about girls. No-one is talking about boys. Granted there are not so many contraceptive options available to them, but it appears that the current strategy is completely targeted at young women, and comes from an anti-life basis rather than the promotion of health and well-being. There was recent outcry when it was proposed that girls be taught abstinence. I agree that it is rather ridiculous, because boys also need to know about their dignity and worth (and sadly, teaching only one half of the population about abstinence would likely lead to an increase in the use of prostitutes). It could be argued that girls choosing these longer-acting forms of contraception are sleeping with their long-term boyfriends. But I think it could equally be argued that actually what is happening, extrapolating from the prevailing attitude of Manchester undergraduates, is that at least some girls are effectively sterilizing themselves in the expectation of casual sex. It is time that sex education was based on something real (anything! but preferably good anthropology) rather being completely out of context and taking sex out of context. Bring on existential sex education.
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
Harm reduction: Relativism in action?
Many of our healthcare strategies are based on harm reduction. We use methadone to treat drug addiction, substituting long-acting methadone for short-acting heroin. Many people live stable lives on methadone, but very few of them manage to get off the methadone. We have simply substituted one addiction for another, but we accept this because it reduces crime and anti-social behaviour. It does have some benefit for the individual as well, they are not committing crime or anti-social behaviour, but the benefit to society as a whole is much greater than the benefit to the person in question. They are still an addict; their dealer is now the government.
Pharmacies provide needle exchange services. Clean needles and sharps bins are given to drug users and dirty needles can be exposed of. Users do not need to share or reuse needles and therefore they have a reduced risk of contracting blood-borne diseases and other infections, using drugs is made safer. The NHS spends less money treating them and there is a clear public health benefit. But the individual is still an addict.
These strategies are not a total waste of time, and do bring some other benefits to users in terms of physical health. They are brought into contact with a health care professional whom they see regularly and/or frequently, and thus are enabled them to access other medical services. The problem is that that both these strategies are based on the premise that people will always take drugs (being intrinsically bad), an assumption that the person will not and is not able to change, and the reduction of the person to their body. We think we are choosing a lesser evil, but actually we are settling for a lesser good.
We were created good, and whilst are capable of misusing our freedom and choosing the bad, we are also capable of exercising that freedom in the way that it was intended and choosing the good. Choosing between good and bad is not the best use of our freedom: even a lab rat is capable of doing the same. The proper use of our freedom is choosing between good and better. Obviously our ability to exercise our freedom is serverely impaired by behaviour such as drug misuse and abuse, but it is not gone.
Reduction of the person to the physical is also seen in the way we attempt to address the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy: again, on the basis of harm reduction we throw contraceptives at the problem. Once again it fails to address the root of the problem which is a lack of understanding of what a person really is. Made in the image and likeness of God, we have an inherent dignity, a dignity further raised by the incarnation: God became man. The Lord Jesus worked with human hands, thought with a human mind, acted by human choice and loved with a human heart (GS 22).
We have a body but we are not our bodies. We also have a soul and a spirit, and in the hierarchy of body, soul and spirit, the body is the least. We are capable of entering into relationships on more than a merely physical level. Understanding of this dignity leads to respect of self and others, a better basis for decision making and surely a change in the way we choose to behave. Quick-fix solutions of short-term harm-reduction are not the answer to problems which come from a disordered desire for instant gratification on a physical (and psychological) level and a wrong undestanding of the human person. They are much easier to measure which is good for government statisticians, but that is a topic for another day.
Pharmacies provide needle exchange services. Clean needles and sharps bins are given to drug users and dirty needles can be exposed of. Users do not need to share or reuse needles and therefore they have a reduced risk of contracting blood-borne diseases and other infections, using drugs is made safer. The NHS spends less money treating them and there is a clear public health benefit. But the individual is still an addict.
These strategies are not a total waste of time, and do bring some other benefits to users in terms of physical health. They are brought into contact with a health care professional whom they see regularly and/or frequently, and thus are enabled them to access other medical services. The problem is that that both these strategies are based on the premise that people will always take drugs (being intrinsically bad), an assumption that the person will not and is not able to change, and the reduction of the person to their body. We think we are choosing a lesser evil, but actually we are settling for a lesser good.
We were created good, and whilst are capable of misusing our freedom and choosing the bad, we are also capable of exercising that freedom in the way that it was intended and choosing the good. Choosing between good and bad is not the best use of our freedom: even a lab rat is capable of doing the same. The proper use of our freedom is choosing between good and better. Obviously our ability to exercise our freedom is serverely impaired by behaviour such as drug misuse and abuse, but it is not gone.
Reduction of the person to the physical is also seen in the way we attempt to address the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy: again, on the basis of harm reduction we throw contraceptives at the problem. Once again it fails to address the root of the problem which is a lack of understanding of what a person really is. Made in the image and likeness of God, we have an inherent dignity, a dignity further raised by the incarnation: God became man. The Lord Jesus worked with human hands, thought with a human mind, acted by human choice and loved with a human heart (GS 22).
We have a body but we are not our bodies. We also have a soul and a spirit, and in the hierarchy of body, soul and spirit, the body is the least. We are capable of entering into relationships on more than a merely physical level. Understanding of this dignity leads to respect of self and others, a better basis for decision making and surely a change in the way we choose to behave. Quick-fix solutions of short-term harm-reduction are not the answer to problems which come from a disordered desire for instant gratification on a physical (and psychological) level and a wrong undestanding of the human person. They are much easier to measure which is good for government statisticians, but that is a topic for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)