This caught my eye in the lane at the end of my street the other morning.
As I look at it again now, I love the pattern of the leaves, and how the foreground frames the background, and it makes me aware how multi-layered our reality is, and how nice it is to slide your awareness from the leaves, to the light, to the trees in the distance, to the colours and the shadows, and the plants behind the plants, and it just stops me again and I breathe out a long, slow breath and I think “how absolutely amazing it is to be alive”
Archive for May, 2012
This caught my eye in the lane at the end of my street the other morning.
I’m always struck by comments from researchers about how many lives may be “saved” if only we would take their recommended drugs. Trouble is, you see, the total number of lives “saved” will always be zero. Drugs might alter your experience of life, but they won’t make you immortal.
As the Onion once famously proclaimed “WHO announce – Human mortality remains stubbornly at 100%!”
We are creatures. Like other creatures on this planet. But we have evolved something special. Consciousness. With this consciousness comes both self-awareness and imagination, both of which allow us to know that we are mortal. We know we are going to die. We can imagine it. Our problem is…..how do we live with that?
I’ve just finished reading Ernest Becker’s “Denial of Death“. It’s probably one of the most challenging books I’ve ever read. He argues powerfully and convincingly that human beings have both qualities of “creatureliness” (by dint of having a body), and of “godliness” (by dint of our ability to handle symbols and to be able to imagine not just the here and now, but other times, other places and the lives of other people. In essence, we are both biological and symbolic organisms. He lays out the case that the fear of dying is at the heart of what it is to be human, that unlike other creatures which are driven by instinct, we are, instead, driven by this fear. I won’t go into detail in this post, but if you check out the link at the start of the paragraph you can read an excellent wikipedia summary of the book.
Every Saturday it seems there are people in the High Street collecting money for a charity for some disease or other – fight cervical cancer, fight breast cancer, fight diabetes, fight heart disease, fight some other disease. And what if we could for a moment conceive of a world where each, and all, of these diseases were eliminated? Would we still die?
I don’t think a fear of dying is a good basis for a life. I don’t like all the scaremongering of the “Well of Light Brotherhood” types who know with such certainty how the rest of us should be living our lives to reduce our chances of dying.
What do I believe instead?
That we should have a passion for living.
We all die. That’s a fact. It can’t be avoided but it shouldn’t be the one fact which determines how we are to live. Let’s accept our reality and do what we are here to do – live.
How passionate are you about living? What will you do TODAY to live fully and passionately?
Sometimes you find a video which is astonishing in its clarity and impact. Here’s what might be THE best health video I’ve seen so far.
I urge you – take 10 minutes and watch this. I really believe it could change your life.
Just read Leonora Carrington’s novel, The Hearing Trumpet and was stopped in my tracks by the following passage –
What is the Well of Light Brotherhood? That sounds more terrifying than death itself, a Brotherhood with the grim knowledge of what is better for other people and the iron determination to better them whether they like it or not.
The novel tells the story of an elderly woman put away in a “home” by her son and his wife when her behaviour becomes difficult for them. The home is run by the “Well of Light Brotherhood”.
You know, it seems to me that health care these days is probably run by the same people!!
Two papers published in the Lancet recently present contrasting views of the future of health care. Researchers in Scotland highlighted the fact that many people with chronic conditions suffer from more than one disease at a time.
The study looked for 40 chronic conditions among the participants’ data. Researchers found that 42% of patients had one or more conditions and 23% had two or more. It also found that only 9% of those with coronary heart disease, had that one disease alone. Similarly, only 23% of those with cancer, had only cancer and no other long-term disease
Why is this such an important point? Well, as the authors of the paper say
“Any country with an ageing population is heading in this direction. All these countries are waking up to the problem. “The status quo isn’t an option because it leads in the wrong direction.” Prof Watt said that rather than more specialists, patients with multiple conditions “need someone who can oversee all the problems of a patient”. “These patients need continuity, and we need ways of measuring how well care is joined-up.”
They highlight the need for more generalist approaches where the patient is seen in the context of their whole life, and that in particular people need continuity of care, co-ordination of care, and individualised care.
we’ve actually learned is that, whatever your level of cholesterol, reducing it further is beneficial.
“If we are going to prevent that half of cardiac or stroke deaths, then we’ve got to consider treating healthy people. “It can’t be done any other way.”
Well, that’s a phrase that raises my “aye, that’ll be right!” antennae – anyone who claims “there is no alternative” is pushing their personal view of the correctness of their own opinions too far! We see that with economists, politicians, and scientists. But we live in a complex world and we cannot reduce human life to such simplistic analyses and expect the predictions to work out. The claim of these latter researchers that putting all 50 year olds onto statins for the rest of their lives would “save 2000 lives a year” is pure fantasy.
Which vision appeals to you more? Individualised, holistic care, or mass medicating based on age alone?
I use a three phase cycle when teaching medical students and doctors.
Phase one is the story.
Phase two, making sense of the story.
Phase three, a therapeutic action.
All doctors have been trained to start with the patient’s story. Sounds simple, and at one level it is, but what makes it complicated is that in every story there is an author and a reader. The patient is the author, and the doctor is a reader. But neither of these roles exist in isolation and the consultation in this phase is a process of co-creation. Both the patient and the doctor bring their stories into the room and, together, they co-author a new story.
Most of these narratives are very, very short stories. Typically less than ten minutes. I remember being very struck by a study which measured how long into a consultation before the doctor first interrupts the patient’s story – 18 seconds. In such short consultations the doctor is seeking to focus and direct the story right from the outset. He or she will decide which story lines to close off, and which to open up. The goal is to quickly move on to phases two and three.
What sense can I make of this patient’s story? Another way to think of this making sense phase is to see that it is about achieving an understanding. The doctor is trying to understand the patient, and the patient is trying to understand their experience. In fact the declared aim of medical undergraduate education is to teach doctors how to make a diagnosis (diagnosis means an understanding). Sadly, the biophysical model and short consultation approach to medicine means that diagnosis is reduced to discovering the presence or absence of a lesion. It’s not about understanding a person in the context of their life, nor about understanding their “illness” in a whole of life context.
The reduction of the understanding phase to the declaration of a clinical label which is then called a diagnosis sets the limits of the third phase – treatment.
The therapeutic interventions are intended to reduce or contain the diagnosed lesions. If no lesions are found, the intention becomes one of reducing the symptoms.
At every stage of this cycle there is a narrowing of vision, which reduces the story to a data set which will be judged as either normal or abnormal. Treatment is then either a surgical procedure or the prescription of drugs to try to alter the data.
What’s the alternative?
Broadening the focus at all stages.
Expand the story from a biophysical one to at least a biopsychosocial one and a story of a person replaces the story of a disorder.
Expand understanding from diagnosis of a lesion to understanding the emergence of an illness in the context of an individual’s life and a person can make sense of their experience.
Expand the interventions on offer beyond surgery and drugs to methods which increase vitality and resilience and a person can experience greater health.
Recommended reading –
Read Arthur Frank’s The Wounded Healer, Kleinman’s Illness Narratives or Cassell’s The Healer’s Art, to better understand the importance of narrative in the shift from biophysical to biopsychosocial.
Read Balint’s The Doctor, the patient and his Illness, Leader and Corfield’s Why do People Get Ill? Or Broom’s Meaning-full Disease to better understand the shift from a disease to an illness agenda.
Read Dan Siegel’s Mindsight, Doc Childre’s The Heartmath Solution or David Servan-Schreiber’s Healing without Freud or Prozac to understand the potential for interventions which don’t involve surgery or drugs.