Monday, May 11, 2015
Private and public medical practice - any potential differences?
The term "fiduciary" accurately describes the type of relationship that I would promote both in public
and in private practice. Under the ethical principle of beneficence, it is a doctor's duty to promote the important and legitimate interests of the patient. A fiduciary relationship best describes this important concept.
Illness potentially interferes with a person's ability to cater for their own self interests. In spite of the ubiquity of medical information it is the role of the doctor to interpret this information in a fashion that is individualised for that particular patient. The patient needs to be able to trust the doctor.
The term "fiduciary" is derived from the Latin "fidere" to trust. The word fiduciary is now often used in a more legal sense but I think it should be utilised in the medical context because our professional relationship truly reflects the original definition of the term; namely "to hold someting in trust for another"
In the complex milieu of financial arrangements that now characterise medical practice; ranging from incentives under managed care to fee for service, such arrangements increasingly have the potential to limit a doctor's freedom to act on behalf of their patients.
In essence; the more distant the financial arrangement in the patient /doctor relationship, the more likely will that professional relationship be reflected in the prevailing codes of ethics which universally direct doctors to use their skills to heal and comfort the sick. In doing so they will be likely to approach the ideal of a fiduciary relationship
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
civility and ethics
Clinical ethics is everyone's business
“[Civility] makes us enter deeply into each other’s sentiments, and causes like passions and inclinations to run, as it were, by contagion”
David Hume, 18th century philosopher
I've been a doctor for over 45 years. I now work as a clinical ethics advisor. Last year I was unlucky enough to be hospitalised on two occasions. When you’re lying around feeling sorry for yourself in bed, there's plenty of time for reflection. Let me share a few thoughts with you. I like the word “civility”. This term describes an often unspoken language or set of gestures for interaction which provides the basis for achieving a “good society”.
If you’re driving to work, why not let that driver on your left into the line of traffic? If you do; they are more likely to give way to someone else in the next thirty seconds. When you’re climbing the stairs in the hospital, you actually feel better if you say “gidday” to the person with a mop helping to keep the hospital looking good. These small gestures help to make the world a better place for all of us.
Trust is a useful proxy for measuring civility. In 2007, the Pew Global Attitudes Survey highlighted the degree of trust in different countries. When presented with the statement “Most people in society are trustworthy,” 65 per cent of British people agreed. This was lower than Sweden (where 78 per cent agreed) and Canada (71 per cent), but significantly ahead of all other Western European countries, the US, South Korea and Japan (in the latter two fewer than half agreed with the statement).
Civility may exercise its positive influence through an emphasis on qualities such as respect, empathy and compassion. It is a form of behaviour through which people express their own, and recognise other people’s humanity.
When I was in hospital I experienced civility from a variety of staff beyond the nurses and doctors caring for me. Orderlies, cleaners, the newspaper seller and kitchen staff; treated me with gestures of kindness, politeness, humour and respect. Civility makes us feel better, it fosters hope.
Civility engenders reciprocity, we are hard wired for the feeling of empathy that is evoked by gestures of civility. In his book, The Age of Empathy, Frans de Waal argues that society depends on our innate instinct to reach out to others, a type of herd instinct that pre-disposes us to read others’ feelings and pursue the common good because we are all better for it; what he calls the “invisible helping hand”. Behaving in an uncivil manner is likely to have reciprocal powerful effects which can have very negative consequences.
Civil behaviour therefore seems to be a good thing. It should come naturally to us all in the hospital environment. It also seems to be the right thing to do. A “sense of the other” is a powerful expression and is more likely to result in patients feeling that they have not been ignored; rather that they have been respected.
In my job as a renal physician I had to know such things as how to interpret a kidney biopsy, to be aware of drug interactions and how to assess someone’s fluid balance. These are the “tools of the trade”. However there is an equally important part of my job which is to go beyond civility and explore the concept of civility’s near cousin - “compassion”. For some this is a path less travelled. For others it can be a challenge to venture in this direction. However the career rewards can be well worth the challenge. Becoming adept at practising in this domain is to explore the deeply satisfying concept of “the art of medicine”
I know of no better description of “compassion” than Ian McEwan’s quote:
“Imagining what it is like to be someone other than yourself is at the core of our
humanity. It is the essence of compassion and the beginning of morality”(1)
Doing the right thing, respecting the whole person, the patient’s voice, attempting to establish societal ethical norms, autonomy, beneficence, non - maleficence, fidelity, veracity and justice and most of the ethical principles are implicit in this simple; but profound statement.
These words provide an inspiration for me in the context of working to try to increase the profile of clinical ethics locally and nationally in New Zealand. On June 25th 2015 we are hosting the Clinical Ethics Advisory Groups' National Meeting in Wellington, New Zealand. David Hume, 18th century philosopher
I've been a doctor for over 45 years. I now work as a clinical ethics advisor. Last year I was unlucky enough to be hospitalised on two occasions. When you’re lying around feeling sorry for yourself in bed, there's plenty of time for reflection. Let me share a few thoughts with you. I like the word “civility”. This term describes an often unspoken language or set of gestures for interaction which provides the basis for achieving a “good society”.
If you’re driving to work, why not let that driver on your left into the line of traffic? If you do; they are more likely to give way to someone else in the next thirty seconds. When you’re climbing the stairs in the hospital, you actually feel better if you say “gidday” to the person with a mop helping to keep the hospital looking good. These small gestures help to make the world a better place for all of us.
Trust is a useful proxy for measuring civility. In 2007, the Pew Global Attitudes Survey highlighted the degree of trust in different countries. When presented with the statement “Most people in society are trustworthy,” 65 per cent of British people agreed. This was lower than Sweden (where 78 per cent agreed) and Canada (71 per cent), but significantly ahead of all other Western European countries, the US, South Korea and Japan (in the latter two fewer than half agreed with the statement).
Civility may exercise its positive influence through an emphasis on qualities such as respect, empathy and compassion. It is a form of behaviour through which people express their own, and recognise other people’s humanity.
When I was in hospital I experienced civility from a variety of staff beyond the nurses and doctors caring for me. Orderlies, cleaners, the newspaper seller and kitchen staff; treated me with gestures of kindness, politeness, humour and respect. Civility makes us feel better, it fosters hope.
Civility engenders reciprocity, we are hard wired for the feeling of empathy that is evoked by gestures of civility. In his book, The Age of Empathy, Frans de Waal argues that society depends on our innate instinct to reach out to others, a type of herd instinct that pre-disposes us to read others’ feelings and pursue the common good because we are all better for it; what he calls the “invisible helping hand”. Behaving in an uncivil manner is likely to have reciprocal powerful effects which can have very negative consequences.
Civil behaviour therefore seems to be a good thing. It should come naturally to us all in the hospital environment. It also seems to be the right thing to do. A “sense of the other” is a powerful expression and is more likely to result in patients feeling that they have not been ignored; rather that they have been respected.
In my job as a renal physician I had to know such things as how to interpret a kidney biopsy, to be aware of drug interactions and how to assess someone’s fluid balance. These are the “tools of the trade”. However there is an equally important part of my job which is to go beyond civility and explore the concept of civility’s near cousin - “compassion”. For some this is a path less travelled. For others it can be a challenge to venture in this direction. However the career rewards can be well worth the challenge. Becoming adept at practising in this domain is to explore the deeply satisfying concept of “the art of medicine”
I know of no better description of “compassion” than Ian McEwan’s quote:
“Imagining what it is like to be someone other than yourself is at the core of our
humanity. It is the essence of compassion and the beginning of morality”(1)
Doing the right thing, respecting the whole person, the patient’s voice, attempting to establish societal ethical norms, autonomy, beneficence, non - maleficence, fidelity, veracity and justice and most of the ethical principles are implicit in this simple; but profound statement.
We will explore how CEAGs function in the different DHBs throughout New Zealand. We need to learn from each other’s similarities and differences. It may be that the conference provides a catalyst for the formation of a national clinical ethics network.
This brings me back to civility and its relevance to ethics. In the same way that civility can be seen as an inherently positive human attribute, clinical ethics must become an integral part of our work in health care.
In the future delivery of healthcare there will be increasingly difficult decision making in the context of changing and more challenging demographics, tight budgets, health technology innovation, appropriate staffing levels, and people’s expectations of what health care they should receive. A commitment to the principles and the practice of clinical ethics needs to be viewed as vital component in the collective decision in this complex matrix.
Clinical ethics should not be viewed as being a rarefied set of abstract principles, rather as a sound basis for good practice. You do not have to search too deeply to find examples of ethical issues and dilemmas in your everyday work.
Just try thinking ethically and you will be well down the path to ensuring that:
“Clinical ethics is everyone’s business”
This brings me back to civility and its relevance to ethics. In the same way that civility can be seen as an inherently positive human attribute, clinical ethics must become an integral part of our work in health care.
In the future delivery of healthcare there will be increasingly difficult decision making in the context of changing and more challenging demographics, tight budgets, health technology innovation, appropriate staffing levels, and people’s expectations of what health care they should receive. A commitment to the principles and the practice of clinical ethics needs to be viewed as vital component in the collective decision in this complex matrix.
Clinical ethics should not be viewed as being a rarefied set of abstract principles, rather as a sound basis for good practice. You do not have to search too deeply to find examples of ethical issues and dilemmas in your everyday work.
Just try thinking ethically and you will be well down the path to ensuring that:
“Clinical ethics is everyone’s business”
Sunday, January 6, 2008
"Do not resuscitate" a medical viewpoint
"Do not resuscitate"..... a medical viewpoint
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was first used in 1960. It was immediately seen to be beneficial in cases of cardiac arrest where this had occurred suddenly and unpredictably. It was so successful in fact that it began to be used in situations where the outcome was less predictable. The use of CPR has become so widespread that in the USA it has almost become part of the dying process. There is a place for CPR as a treatment option, but like any treatment option there should be guidelines about when it should be attempted.
If you want to assess the appropriateness of a treatment you have to have some idea about the success rate.
1) In the setting of a coronary care unit if a patient has a cardiac arrest , the chances of a successful CPR is very high. CPR is therefore an appropriate and life saving procedure.
2) An elderly patient who is confined to a wheelchair is admitted to hospital because of a pneumonia, if that person has a cardiac arrest, then the chances of a successful outcome of CPR is minimal. In a number of studies in the medical literature the probability of that person being restored to their previous level of health is of the order of 1% or less.
Although there is active debate as to the exact definition of futile treatment, this would suffice as a benchmark for me. In this case CPR is not indicated, certainly not on medical grounds. Whether the recommendation that a no CPR order should be discussed with the patient is a very contentious area. Personally I do not feel compelled to do so because logically it is futile to discuss a treatment that is highly unlikely to benefit that patient A number of times that I have discussed the subject under these circumstances there has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding, patients may feel that I am suggesting withdrawing all treatment.
On other occasions when I have discussed CPR (when I actually think that CPR is highly unlikely to be successful) the patient has opted for CPR. Should I respect that patient’s autonomy and order CPR, should I hand over the care of that patient to a colleague because I should not be involved in a treatment which I believe is against my moral and medical judgement. What happens if that patient becomes severely depressed as a result of what I discussed. There are many who would argue that it is a patient’s right to know, there are still many people who say “ it’s up to you doc “
3) Somewhere in between these two extremes there exist a large number of patients with chronic disease in whom it would be very important to know whether they would want CPR. In fact we fall well short of this ideal. There are many reasons why this knowledge is not gained.
a)There is a degree of reluctance amongst doctors to discuss such matters of life and death. It is sometimes not the easiest thing to do.
b)There is a matter of timing, should you discuss the matter of CPR at the same time as you have just diagnosed their leukaemia. You run a major risk of sending a rather confused message to the patient.
c) In a sense it is easier to delay any discussion until the subject of CPR is more relevant such as when that patient actually becomes ill. The risk you run here is that the patient may for various reasons be less able to make an informed decision, they may be in a coma, they may have many medical and nursing interventions going on so that their ability to process the information is severely impaired even though they are actually competent in terms of making a decision.
d) The concept of an advanced directive is gaining ground, you say what you do and do not want in terms of medical intervention, by discussing CPR ahead of needs in a sense is getting a very limited advance directive. Unfortunately in many situations the instructions are very vague, also the practice of having advanced directives is pretty uncommon in my experience.
e) An important barrier to discussion I am sure is lack of time. When you discuss end of life matters, you cannot do it in a perfunctory way. In a recent study from Dunedin half of the time that DNR orders were in place, the patient did not die.
f) You could give all the information about CPR in an admission information booklet. Patients would then be encouraged to ask about the policy on CPR. This approach will eventually serve to contribute to the education of the public.
On which subject I would like to briefly discuss an interesting paper which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. Almost without exception when surveys are done on the perception of the success rates of CPR, the estimates are very optimistic. It is important when one is discussing the issue of CPR that the information known by both the patient and the doctor is accurate. Patients learn from many sources including friends, other medical and nursing professionals and the media. If you just watched E.R.,Rescue 911 or Chicago Hope your chances of getting out of hospital alive and back to normal are 67%. The majority of arrests were in younger people and due to dramatic problems like near drowning or major trauma. This is wildly different from the reality of hospital where the majority of patients having a cardiac arrest are elderly and suffering from multiple pathology.
There is a long way to go in terms of education of all those involved in CPR and no CPR. We have to give the public a more accurate picture of the success of CPR, not as an isolated treatment, rather it needs to be seen in the context of an illness and in terms of the likelihood of success. As medical and nursing professional we need to improve our knowledge about patients wishes ahead of time, this is not an easy task. Finally in an era of informed consent, I think it would be a shame if we were compelled to discuss all aspects of CPR with patients in what are deemed to be medically futile situations. All patients do not necessarily want to be involved in such discussions. Surely an element of trust should remain that enables us to make a decision as to how we approach this delicate matter. We are after all trusted as professionals in making other important decisions that sometimes involve life and death, why should this subject be any different.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was first used in 1960. It was immediately seen to be beneficial in cases of cardiac arrest where this had occurred suddenly and unpredictably. It was so successful in fact that it began to be used in situations where the outcome was less predictable. The use of CPR has become so widespread that in the USA it has almost become part of the dying process. There is a place for CPR as a treatment option, but like any treatment option there should be guidelines about when it should be attempted.
If you want to assess the appropriateness of a treatment you have to have some idea about the success rate.
1) In the setting of a coronary care unit if a patient has a cardiac arrest , the chances of a successful CPR is very high. CPR is therefore an appropriate and life saving procedure.
2) An elderly patient who is confined to a wheelchair is admitted to hospital because of a pneumonia, if that person has a cardiac arrest, then the chances of a successful outcome of CPR is minimal. In a number of studies in the medical literature the probability of that person being restored to their previous level of health is of the order of 1% or less.
Although there is active debate as to the exact definition of futile treatment, this would suffice as a benchmark for me. In this case CPR is not indicated, certainly not on medical grounds. Whether the recommendation that a no CPR order should be discussed with the patient is a very contentious area. Personally I do not feel compelled to do so because logically it is futile to discuss a treatment that is highly unlikely to benefit that patient A number of times that I have discussed the subject under these circumstances there has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding, patients may feel that I am suggesting withdrawing all treatment.
On other occasions when I have discussed CPR (when I actually think that CPR is highly unlikely to be successful) the patient has opted for CPR. Should I respect that patient’s autonomy and order CPR, should I hand over the care of that patient to a colleague because I should not be involved in a treatment which I believe is against my moral and medical judgement. What happens if that patient becomes severely depressed as a result of what I discussed. There are many who would argue that it is a patient’s right to know, there are still many people who say “ it’s up to you doc “
3) Somewhere in between these two extremes there exist a large number of patients with chronic disease in whom it would be very important to know whether they would want CPR. In fact we fall well short of this ideal. There are many reasons why this knowledge is not gained.
a)There is a degree of reluctance amongst doctors to discuss such matters of life and death. It is sometimes not the easiest thing to do.
b)There is a matter of timing, should you discuss the matter of CPR at the same time as you have just diagnosed their leukaemia. You run a major risk of sending a rather confused message to the patient.
c) In a sense it is easier to delay any discussion until the subject of CPR is more relevant such as when that patient actually becomes ill. The risk you run here is that the patient may for various reasons be less able to make an informed decision, they may be in a coma, they may have many medical and nursing interventions going on so that their ability to process the information is severely impaired even though they are actually competent in terms of making a decision.
d) The concept of an advanced directive is gaining ground, you say what you do and do not want in terms of medical intervention, by discussing CPR ahead of needs in a sense is getting a very limited advance directive. Unfortunately in many situations the instructions are very vague, also the practice of having advanced directives is pretty uncommon in my experience.
e) An important barrier to discussion I am sure is lack of time. When you discuss end of life matters, you cannot do it in a perfunctory way. In a recent study from Dunedin half of the time that DNR orders were in place, the patient did not die.
f) You could give all the information about CPR in an admission information booklet. Patients would then be encouraged to ask about the policy on CPR. This approach will eventually serve to contribute to the education of the public.
On which subject I would like to briefly discuss an interesting paper which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. Almost without exception when surveys are done on the perception of the success rates of CPR, the estimates are very optimistic. It is important when one is discussing the issue of CPR that the information known by both the patient and the doctor is accurate. Patients learn from many sources including friends, other medical and nursing professionals and the media. If you just watched E.R.,Rescue 911 or Chicago Hope your chances of getting out of hospital alive and back to normal are 67%. The majority of arrests were in younger people and due to dramatic problems like near drowning or major trauma. This is wildly different from the reality of hospital where the majority of patients having a cardiac arrest are elderly and suffering from multiple pathology.
There is a long way to go in terms of education of all those involved in CPR and no CPR. We have to give the public a more accurate picture of the success of CPR, not as an isolated treatment, rather it needs to be seen in the context of an illness and in terms of the likelihood of success. As medical and nursing professional we need to improve our knowledge about patients wishes ahead of time, this is not an easy task. Finally in an era of informed consent, I think it would be a shame if we were compelled to discuss all aspects of CPR with patients in what are deemed to be medically futile situations. All patients do not necessarily want to be involved in such discussions. Surely an element of trust should remain that enables us to make a decision as to how we approach this delicate matter. We are after all trusted as professionals in making other important decisions that sometimes involve life and death, why should this subject be any different.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
On Pessimism and New Zealand
“This country is going to the dogs” What does this actually mean? Statements about dogs are usually negative, …you know ….things like dog tucker and dogs breath. On the contrary philosophers are usually positive. The glaring exception is that Prince of pessimism, Schopenhauer. He was best known for his pessimistic philosophy that human beings are simply manifestations of their own egotistical wills. He spent most of his life not getting on with other people. The ultimate irony was that his best friend was his dog. Pessimism and dogs are therefore philosophically inseparable.
A couple of years ago it was the year of the dog for the Chinese, and in deference to them
I mention Sirius or “The Dog Star” the brightest star in the constellation Alpha Canis Major.
This reference to stars brings me in a rather shaggy dog fashion to another star Ed Murrow.
In quoting Shakespeare he said “The fault dear Brutus does not lie in our stars, but is in ourselves.” Now that’s a remarkable insight. This is the real truth about the proposition under debate.
So Will was saying that the problem is not out there……………It’s in here!!
My latest book is about pessimists. It’s entitled “Is it just me or has everything turned to shit”
You can see that I lack Shakespeare’s eloquence
When we look at pessimists there is a toxic brew of passivity and victimhood. There’s a fear of the future and the unknown. A comfort in the past. Pessimists crave security.
Security and dynamism are polar opposites. To achieve a dynamic future you have to surrender some of your security. For success you have to take risks and accept some failures. You hear pessimists saying "Life isn’t fair." "I don’t deserve this." "Why me?" They want to blame something or someone. When the pessimist complains of unfairness, they reveal an underlying irrational belief that life has to be fair.
The optimist expects no fairness. Optimists display a creative openness to possibilities. An optimist could never say “this country is going to the dogs” ……..and mean it.
My day job is being a doctor. I’m actually a very contented doctor but I need to declare that I have an incurable problem………….Optimism. I have to be because I see people with major health problems. I make diagnoses I therefore have grave concerns for the health of our opponents in this debate. What bothers me is their pessimism. I need to issue a health warning
This kind of thinking can seriously shorten your life.
How do I know.? I look to a group of Kentucky nuns for my evidence. Back in the 1930s a group young nuns was asked to write short biographies. These essays were archived and forgotten about. 60 years later researchers analysed the essays in terms of emotional content. Things like hope, love, happiness and general enthusiasm were consiodered markers for optimism.
The results of the research were absolutely staggering. Optimists outlived pessimists by ten years!!
Bertrand Russell summed it all up by saying "Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do."
Statements like “this country is going to the dogs” are likely to have a negative impact on our health irrespective of whether the statement is true or not. By the way it’s not true
Did you know that there are three times the number of words for negative emotions as there are for the positives? Negative emotions are associated with an urge to act in a specific way.
If you have anger you are more likely to attack. If you are unlucky enough to come across a sabre toothed tiger, you’d better get out of Dodge pretty damned quickly. This situation engenders the appropriate reaction of fear and the repertoire of thoughts that you have is very narrow. These are basic survival responses.
Positive emotions can’t be explained in such an easy way. From an evolutionary perspective joy, gratitude, serenity and optimism don’t seem to be as necessary for survival as the negative emotions. It’s no use thinking about a cheeky Pinot or a beautiful sunset if there’s a bloody great bear eying you up as an entrée. However there’s lots of evidence that people experiencing positive emotions have a wider repertoire of thoughts. Joy makes you want to play, love encourages close relationships.
If you are married you live four years longer than if you’re not. If you have a pet, your waist size is smaller, your cholesterol is lower and you’re less likely to be depressed. If people deem that this country is going to the dogs then the proposition implies an inevitable drift towards some kind of doom laden destiny.
Our best shot at survival requires two things, the first is that human constructive tendencies can counter human destructive tendencies and secondly that human beings can act on the basis of long-term considerations, rather than short-term needs and desires.
A dear friend of mine had cancer of the bowel. He needed to have half his bowel out to cure the problem. His response? “Better a semi-colon than a full stop”
John Milton told us “The mind is its own place and in itself can make a heaven of hell and a hell of heaven”
So is this country going to the dogs, like all clichés there is a mathematical possibility that it could be true? BUT if life is indeed a pile of shit, then we will be putting a damn good shine on that particular turd.
“This country is going to the dogs” What does this actually mean? Statements about dogs are usually negative, …you know ….things like dog tucker and dogs breath. On the contrary philosophers are usually positive. The glaring exception is that Prince of pessimism, Schopenhauer. He was best known for his pessimistic philosophy that human beings are simply manifestations of their own egotistical wills. He spent most of his life not getting on with other people. The ultimate irony was that his best friend was his dog. Pessimism and dogs are therefore philosophically inseparable.
A couple of years ago it was the year of the dog for the Chinese, and in deference to them
I mention Sirius or “The Dog Star” the brightest star in the constellation Alpha Canis Major.
This reference to stars brings me in a rather shaggy dog fashion to another star Ed Murrow.
In quoting Shakespeare he said “The fault dear Brutus does not lie in our stars, but is in ourselves.” Now that’s a remarkable insight. This is the real truth about the proposition under debate.
So Will was saying that the problem is not out there……………It’s in here!!
My latest book is about pessimists. It’s entitled “Is it just me or has everything turned to shit”
You can see that I lack Shakespeare’s eloquence
When we look at pessimists there is a toxic brew of passivity and victimhood. There’s a fear of the future and the unknown. A comfort in the past. Pessimists crave security.
Security and dynamism are polar opposites. To achieve a dynamic future you have to surrender some of your security. For success you have to take risks and accept some failures. You hear pessimists saying "Life isn’t fair." "I don’t deserve this." "Why me?" They want to blame something or someone. When the pessimist complains of unfairness, they reveal an underlying irrational belief that life has to be fair.
The optimist expects no fairness. Optimists display a creative openness to possibilities. An optimist could never say “this country is going to the dogs” ……..and mean it.
My day job is being a doctor. I’m actually a very contented doctor but I need to declare that I have an incurable problem………….Optimism. I have to be because I see people with major health problems. I make diagnoses I therefore have grave concerns for the health of our opponents in this debate. What bothers me is their pessimism. I need to issue a health warning
This kind of thinking can seriously shorten your life.
How do I know.? I look to a group of Kentucky nuns for my evidence. Back in the 1930s a group young nuns was asked to write short biographies. These essays were archived and forgotten about. 60 years later researchers analysed the essays in terms of emotional content. Things like hope, love, happiness and general enthusiasm were consiodered markers for optimism.
The results of the research were absolutely staggering. Optimists outlived pessimists by ten years!!
Bertrand Russell summed it all up by saying "Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do."
Statements like “this country is going to the dogs” are likely to have a negative impact on our health irrespective of whether the statement is true or not. By the way it’s not true
Did you know that there are three times the number of words for negative emotions as there are for the positives? Negative emotions are associated with an urge to act in a specific way.
If you have anger you are more likely to attack. If you are unlucky enough to come across a sabre toothed tiger, you’d better get out of Dodge pretty damned quickly. This situation engenders the appropriate reaction of fear and the repertoire of thoughts that you have is very narrow. These are basic survival responses.
Positive emotions can’t be explained in such an easy way. From an evolutionary perspective joy, gratitude, serenity and optimism don’t seem to be as necessary for survival as the negative emotions. It’s no use thinking about a cheeky Pinot or a beautiful sunset if there’s a bloody great bear eying you up as an entrée. However there’s lots of evidence that people experiencing positive emotions have a wider repertoire of thoughts. Joy makes you want to play, love encourages close relationships.
If you are married you live four years longer than if you’re not. If you have a pet, your waist size is smaller, your cholesterol is lower and you’re less likely to be depressed. If people deem that this country is going to the dogs then the proposition implies an inevitable drift towards some kind of doom laden destiny.
Our best shot at survival requires two things, the first is that human constructive tendencies can counter human destructive tendencies and secondly that human beings can act on the basis of long-term considerations, rather than short-term needs and desires.
A dear friend of mine had cancer of the bowel. He needed to have half his bowel out to cure the problem. His response? “Better a semi-colon than a full stop”
John Milton told us “The mind is its own place and in itself can make a heaven of hell and a hell of heaven”
So is this country going to the dogs, like all clichés there is a mathematical possibility that it could be true? BUT if life is indeed a pile of shit, then we will be putting a damn good shine on that particular turd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
