Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘health’ Category

It strikes me that the practice of Medicine (I’m specifically referring to the world of Medicine for humans here), begins and ends with a relationship between human beings.

I’ll just focus on the doctor-patient relationship here, because that’s how I spent my working life. But I suspect that much of what is relevant to this relationship is also true for other health care workers, and perhaps even in other areas of human life.

When I say the practice of Medicine begins and ends with a relationship between human beings, I mean that the whole, unique person who is the patient has to be understood, cared about and attended to, by the whole unique person who is the doctor. Both individuals are important. I think this is partly why there are no doctors who are the best doctors for everyone, and I think it explains how in a group General Practice, each of the doctors in the partnership will have a specific loyal cohort of patients who always seek a consultation with that one particular doctor.

I also think this means that the whole person must always be considered. Anything less is reduced, and anything reduced is less than human.

In this context, I recently read “A General Theory of Love”, by Drs Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini and Richard Lannon. [ISBN 978-0-375-70922-7]. This book describes the model of the triune brain, which you might have come across elsewhere. (My introduction to that model was Dan Seigel, and later, Rick Hanson). It’s the observation that we have three brain regions – the brain stem, which is responsible for survival, and is found even in reptiles (henceforth to be known as the “reptilian brain”), the limbic system, which is responsible for memory processing and emotions (called the “mammalian brain”, because all mammals have this part), and the neocortex, which is massively developed in humans and seems to give us the capacities for abstract thought, conscious decision making and rational analysis.

In “A General Theory of Love”, Thomas Lewis and his colleagues focus on the limbic system – they describe in detail how this part of the brain helps us to “feel” other people’s feelings. It’s the kind of phenomenon that others call “heart feelings”. Without this part we’d have the reptilian survival strategies or the cold, analytic distancing of the neocortex. Let me be really clear here – this is a simplification and human beings are a lot more complicated than that. But this is a useful simplification which clarifies certain truths about what it is to be a human being.

In this post, I want to just bring to your attention some of the points the authors make when taking this perspective on the practice of Medicine, because I think health care is in a dire and degenerating situation in the world.

The last century saw a two-part transformation in the practice of medicine. First, an illness beset the relationship between doctor and patient, then radical restructuring attached the residual integrity of that attenuated tie.

I think the illness and the radical restructuring they refer to developed from a general reductive de-humanising of health care. Iain McGilchrist has shown how a “left hemisphere approach” has come to dominate society and I find that explanation helpful. Lewis says

American medicine has come to rely on intellect as the agency of cure. The neocortical brain has enjoyed a meteoric ascendancy within medicine even as the limbic star has fallen into disfavour.

Whilst this focus is a little different, the basic point is actually the same. By coming to rely on data, figures, statistics and techniques, we have reduced the human-ness of medicine. We’ve increasingly denigrated the patient’s narrative, the individual’s subjective experience, and the place of heart felt caring.

The limbic brain has a crucial role to play in attachment, and Lewis describes attachment theory along with the physical and social consequences of disordered attachment incredibly clearly. And here’s one of the most important points in this book – the physical reality and hence importance of relationships, emotions and attachment –

Medicine has lost sight of this truth: attachment is physiology

The radical restructuring they refer to is seen throughout Western Medicine – its the rise of bureaucracy. We see it in the proliferation of protocols and guidelines, of the prioritisation of measurement – what others have referred to as “Taylorism 2.0” (the modern equivalent of Taylor’s “scientific management”) – at the expense of what cannot be measured – the lived experiences of the patients and the health care workers.

Good physicians have always known that the relationship heals. Indeed good doctors existed before any modern therapeutic instruments did…

For many years, the medical community hasn’t believed that anything substantive travels between doctor and patient unless it goes down a tube or through a syringe.

They neatly sum up their thesis with

medicine was once mammalian and is now reptilian

Corporations and organisations have taken the high ground imposing their limits, their rules and regulations on those who try to care.

A corporation has customers, not patients; it has fiscal relationships not limbic ones.

The use of terms “customers”, “clients” and “consumers” in the area of health care has always disturbed me. Now I think I understand more clearly why!

I concur with this conclusion –

Before it is safe to go back to the doctor, a mammal will have to be in charge. And before that can happen, our physicians will have to recapture their belief in the substantive nature of emotional life and the determination to fight for it.

I’m not sure I’ve heard any politician, manager or profession leader say this so clearly – the problems facing health care are not ones of efficiency, targets and “better” guidelines. The problem is we need to make health care more human.

We need Medicine based on love, care and attention….where the heart is the keystone.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Swans

I bet there’s a good chance you will look at this photo and it will touch your heart.

Looking after wee ones is SO important.

I wonder if we really honour and respect that enough?

Are our societies structured in the way which allows the wee ones to grow and thrive, to reach their full potential?

I think the solutions will lie in developing our heart intelligence, but we need our brain intelligence too.

For a data-driven, brain-focused approach, here’s a video of a presentation by Sir Harry Burns who was Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer until last year. It’s almost half an hour long, and some of it is pretty technical, but Harry Burns is expert at delivering the messages in clear, simple ways. I think the first twenty minutes or so of this presentation will startle you if you haven’t seen this kind of analysis before. The takeaway message is that the way we structure our society, in particular in the physical, emotional and social environments we create, powerfully influences the health and illness paths of individuals right from conception (or earlier?) and the first few months of life. (The last ten minutes or so of this particular presentation goes off into the “patient safety programme” – which is a different issue – in my opinion)

Read Full Post »

Ducks!

For the best part of a century now there has been a huge emphasis on competitiveness in Nature. The story we have been sold is “survival of the fittest”, which some authors have taken to a whole new level – not just survival of the fittest organs but survival of the fittest DNA (see “The Selfish Gene”).

But my lifetime experience as a doctor has led me to see more clearly the importance of co-operation.

If a person’s cells or organs are all fighting each other for resources and energy then I’m not sure they’d be feeling that healthy.

Bodies work best when everything works together.

When our cells and our organs each do what they do best, and work in harmony with each other, then we have a healthy body. It’s a principle which, in recent years, has been called “integration” – where well differentiated parts build mutually enhancing bonds.

Same thing applies for a whole person (and by that I mean more than just the body) – where the different parts of a being hang together well, the person is healthy. Think of your personality for example. It’s likely you will be aware of having many different strands, facets or “modes” – how you are with your parents, how you are with friends, how you are at work and so on, are likely to be distinctly different. If each of those aspects of your personality are at war with each other you’re likely to feel disturbed. However, if there are mutually beneficial links between those parts of you, you’ll feel “whole”, “integrated” or “in harmony”.

Same thing applies for groups of us. Maybe what has made human beings so successful on this planet is not that we can compete against other creatures so successfully, but that we can co-operate so well.

I think that’s true of all of Nature. These little ducks heading off on an adventure down the Charente, seem a pretty well integrated little group to me!

I’m not saying competition doesn’t exist. Of course it does. I’m just wondering if we’ve over-blown its importance, and in the process, forgotten what might be more important – hanging together!

 

Read Full Post »

There’s an excellent collection of articles about health in this month’s “Philosophie” magazine in France.

The cover instantly reminded me of the great quote by the American physician, Oliver Wendell Holmes –

Throw out opium, which the Creator himself seems to prescribe, for we often see the scarlet poppy growing in the cornfields, as if it were foreseen that wherever there is hunger to be fed there must also be a pain to be soothed; throw out a few specifics which our art did not discover, and it is hardly needed to apply; throw out wine, which is a food, and the vapors which produce the miracle of anaesthesia, and I firmly believe that if the whole materia medica [medical drugs], as now used, could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind,—and all the worse for the fishes

Health is a much more complex and nuanced phenomenon than the simplistic ideas we are offered by the current dominant model of health care – that of Big Pharma and statistical medicine (drugs for every problem, protocols for every health care professional).

One of the central themes explored in this issue is summarised by the lead title of “Health, is it in your head?” There are those who promote the idea that all illness begins in the psyche and expresses itself in the body (Freud?), and others who promote the idea that all illness is physical, material change in the body whilst the psyche remains separate (Descartes?). There is a third option discussed, whose roots are traced to the philosophy of Spinoza – that the psyche and the body just express the same underlying disturbance, but each in their own language.

I like that third idea – it seems totally congruent with the core value of my lifetime of medical practice. I refused to divide a person into two parts – a mind and a body, and I used the philosophy that there is a system or a force within all life forms which produces growth, maintains health and repairs the organism when it is damaged. It’s interesting to see how the more recent discoveries of neurobiology are showing us more and more interconnectedness within a person – with amazing multitudes of connections and pathways between the different organs and tissues. It’s becoming increasingly untenable to hold one of the divided views.

One of the articles mentions an old essay by Kant, written in 1798 “Du pouvoir du mental d’être maître de ses sentimentsmaladifs par sa seule résolution”. In that essay he distinguishes between “la sensation” and “le savoir” of health – in English, perhaps, something like the difference between what health feels like and the knowledge of health. This strikes me as close to the nub of the issue.

We experience health. It’s something we can all assess and comment on. We can say when we feel well and when we feel ill. But we have also developed ways of knowing about organ or cellular functions, so we can discover what our blood pressure is, or what level of haemoglobin exists in our red blood cells (two things we could not know by “sensation”). The point is, both of these perspectives are real. We do not have the kind of nervous system which can make us aware of the moment to moment functions of the organs of our bodies at a conscious level. Indeed, how could any of us live that way? But the connections exist. A certain level of heart cell dysfunction may be experienced as palpitations, pain or breathlessness. However, the heart can malfunction without us being aware of it at all – the investigation known as an “ECG” (a cardiogram) can reveal a “silent infarct” – damage which occurred to the heart from a clot without the person having experienced any pain or breathlessness.

The connections which exist between “sensation” and “consciousness” are complex but clearly non-linear – in other words, a small change in one area can have either a large, or a negligible, effect on another.

Isn’t this why we can encounter a person who feels very ill, but whose investigations are all “normal”, and why we find people who have “abnormal” results in investigations, but who feel completely well?

Where modern medical practice goes wrong, I believe, is by attributing truth to “knowledge” whilst dismissing “experience” as unreliable and so, not useful. This has come about from our obsession with measurement. We can measure physical changes, but we can’t measure pain, breathless, dizziness, nausea, or any of the other “sensations” of illness.

But to attribute symptoms (sensations) to mental disorders when physical test results are all within the normal range is neither rational, nor clever.

I think we need, in every case, a person-specific synthesis of what the tests tell us and what the person is experiencing. A person’s experience can be communicated to us by their telling of their story – which has the additional benefit of allowing us, together, to make sense of what is happening – by which I mean to explore the meaning of the illness.

Keeping focused on the narrative which includes this synthesis also enables us to explore the individual’s values, hopes and fears, allowing us to make more relevant, more holistic, diagnoses and so, hopefully, to offer more appropriate choices for each patient.

Read Full Post »

heart felt

In the A to Z of Becoming, T stands for Thanks.

I’ve written about the value of gratitude journals before (here it is if you want to click through)

It’s strange but I think the things we value most in life are not easy to have if we set off to go and get them.

I’m thinking of happiness, health and love for example.

If you decide to go and find any of those things today I suspect you might do a lot of looking but they aren’t so easy to find. You can’t go and buy them in a shop. And you can’t go and ask someone else for them.

What you can do is create the conditions which makes it more likely they will turn up in your life. I think there’s a number of things we can do to create such conditions – certain choices we can make, certain actions we can take, certain thoughts we can think.

But one of the ways is through gratitude.

I’m saying thank you to YOU today.

Thank you for stopping by.

Thank you for reading these words I write.

Thank you for looking at these photos I take.

Thank you, most of all, for being the unique you that you are, and for embracing this journey of “becoming not being”.

There.

Already I feel happy, healthy, and loving.

Your turn.

 

 

Read Full Post »

ava charlie

I was recently sent a copy of an article published in Norway back in 2011. The article’s title is “The human biology – saturated with experience“. Here’s the summary –

SUMMARY

BackgroundHuman beings are reflective, meaning-seeking, relational and purposeful organisms. Although experiences associated with such traits are of paramount importance for the development of health and disease, medical science has so far failed to integrate these phenomena into a coherent theoretical framework.

Material and methodWe present a theory-driven synthesis of new scientific knowledge from a number of disciplines, including epigenetics, psycho-neuro-endocrino-immunology, stress research and systems biology, based on articles in recognised scientific journals and other academic works. The scientific sources have been deliberately chosen to provide insight into the interaction between existential conditions in the widest sense (biography) and biomolecular processes in the body (biology).

Results. The human organism literally incorporates biographical information which includes experienced meaning and relations. Knowledge from epigenetics illustrates the fundamental biological potential for contextual adaptation. Intriguingly, different types of existential stresses can enhance disease susceptibility through disturbances to human physiological adaptation systems, mediated in part through structural influences on the brain. Experiences of support, recognition and belonging, on the other hand, can help to strengthen or restore a state of health.

It’s a fascinating review of research literature on the links between “biography” – an individual’s unique story, and “biology” – the biomolecular processes of the body. It seems clearer to me than ever that talk of “mind and body” as if these are two separate entities is both unhelpful and misguided.

We are certainly “reflective, meaning-seeking, relational and purposeful organisms” and it’s long seemed to me that to practice medicine without that understanding demeans both patients and practitioners. Human beings are not objects which can be reduced to genes, molecules or cells. We are complex adaptive organisms with consciousness. As these authors say, we have  –

a capacity for self-reflection, for designing sophisticated symbolic structures, for attaching metaphorical concepts to experiences and for building models and categories with the aid of the imagination.

We create art, music, poetry and stories. We play. We make sense of our daily lives. (See my recent series of posts on re-enchanting life for more about these very human activities) We connect. We live embedded in a mesh of relationships. We use language, myths and symbols to interpret and experience the world.

Unfortunately, such experience does not lend itself easily to standardised interpretation; it is always an experience of something for someone, in a unique context

All of our experiences are personal and unique. To be fully human, to really understand another person, we must consider the personal and unique. My contention is that we must not only consider it, but must hold that focus as central come what may.

Yet, as these authors point out, contemporary “evidence based” approaches to medicine have failed to include the subjective –

Human subjectivity is not only absent from contemporary evidence-based medicine, it is in fact explicitly eliminated by the mathematical analyses performed during assembly of evidence.

Should we allow statistics and “controlled” de-humanised research (with the experiences of the human beings who are the subjects of the research removed) be our “gold standard”? We need the research which incorporates the subjective and the personal if we want the findings to be relevant to the real, everyday lives of human beings.

Right up in the “Results” section of this paper the authors say “Experiences of support, recognition and belonging, on the other hand, can help to strengthen or restore a state of health”. That is completely congruent with the clinical experience of my lifetime’s work as a doctor. The essential elements of healing are based on the relationship – as a doctor it is my role to recognise each patient – to see each one as a unique individual with a particular issue or problem to discuss – and to be able to say “I see you”, “I hear you” and “I understand what you are experiencing” (and that includes making a diagnosis and being aware of the natural history of diseases). It is also my role to support, not judge. To provide what help and care I can. And finally, at the base of it all, it is my role to create a relationship with each patient, a meaningful connection which reduces the feelings of isolation or alienation a person who is suffering can experience.

It is heartening to see the beginnings of a scientific method which will help us all in the future to create the conditions for health. And if the start of that is to create “Experiences of support, recognition and belonging”, then we will be starting from a good place.

Read Full Post »

Twins dandelions

What might health care look like if we base it on the values which emerge out of a prioritisation of difference?

Uniqueness.

Whilst a knowledge of pathology and the natural history of diseases aid a good diagnosis, a focus on disease is not a focus on a person, or on health. Even when running a specialist clinic, such as an Asthma Clinic, every single patient who attends is unique. Their asthma symptoms will be specific to them – the circumstances where their asthma is most troublesome will be specific to them – the strategies they have found bring greatest ease will be specific to them – and, crucially, their narrative will be unique. Where asthma appeared in their lives, and when, will be part of that narrative. What impact it has made and how they have responded to that impact will be part of that narrative. How the asthma will progress will also be part of that narrative. This latter part is unknowable, as the future is always an emergent phenomenon in a complex living organism. It cannot be accurately predicted. Last, but not least, each individual has a personal world view created by their genes, their nurturing, their life experience, their connections to others and so on – everything which influences values, beliefs and attitudes. Understanding that world view will help the patient to make sense of the asthma in their life, and understanding that world view is essential in helping them to choose therapeutic interventions as well as adaptive strategies. Whatever the general, the shared, or the common, all the findings, test results and so on, need to be re-integrated into the context of this unique human being’s life.

Diversity

Because every patient is unique, the interventions which a particular patient finds beneficial will be specific to them. One-size-fits-all is a terrible approach to health care. Every single treatment protocol has an end point, and none of those end points can encompass benefit and a good outcome for each individual patient who goes through that protocol. So, what happens to the patients who make it all the way to the end of the protocol and are still suffering just as much? What does the doctor do with them? If we make only certain treatments available then there will always be patients who get no relief from their suffering. We need a diversity of treatment options, approaches and techniques available if we are to find the best, most effective treatment for every single patient.

Are protocols compatible with uniqueness and diversity? Can truly individualised health care be delivered by protocol? Can health care which actually relieves the suffering of every single patient be delivered by protocol? This might be extreme, but I’ve a feeling we should trash the protocols. Let’s get back to sound, clinical judgement which is flexible and focused ultimately on the needs of the individual who is in the consulting room here and now.

Tolerance

This goes with diversity. If there are a plurality of needs, and a plurality of solutions, with both being deeply affected by the world view of the individual, then we need to genuinely tolerate, in a non-judgemental way, those differences. There is no place in health care for rubbishing a patient’s experience and world view. Whose life is it anyway? Who is a professional to say that they know what the best life choices are for a patient? A professional should be caring, empathic, compassionate and supportive. Not judgemental, superior or authoritarian.

Integration

There is no such thing as a cure. Other than the cures which the body achieves. Human beings have the most incredible bodies. One way to think of a human body is to see it as a complex adaptive system. Complex adaptive systems have a number of characteristics but one of them is a self-healing capacity. The only healing which occurs in the natural repair, defence and growth of the living organism. It does this not least through integration – through the creation of mutually beneficial relationships between highly differentiated parts. All health care should be directed towards an increase in integration. Any treatment which impedes integration, impedes healing.

Flourishing

A lot of health care seems limited and disappointing to me. Sure, nobody wants to suffer, and a doctor’s duty is to relieve suffering. If we can do that by enabling a patient to get a handle on what’s happening, supporting them in the creation of a more meaningful narrative, whilst easing suffering and reducing difficult and limiting symptoms, then we are doing a good job. But is it enough? Is it enough to reduce the symptoms and stop there? Is it enough to support a patient through an acute illness but then stop when it comes to an end? Or if we really want HEALTH care, don’t we need to think beyond disease? Don’t we need to think about flourishing? About assisting an individual to grow, and, yes, to flourish – to feel well, to feel able to become whatever it is they have the potential to become?

If we begin to think about health in its fullest sense and in its greatest diversity, then we need to think beyond institutionalised health care systems. We need to think about what we can do to maximise the chances of people experiencing the best health they can – and that will take us into thinking about society, the environment, the economy, and indeed everything which is involved in creating the conditions for the health of human beings.

Read Full Post »

strawberry

With the current dominant world view, there is an enormous tendency to focus on “mass” – mass production, mass consumption – and to focus on quantities – GDP, profit, numbers “in work” etc. This all seems to drive core values of conformity and uniformity. We have ever more protocols and algorithms which are supposed to deliver “evidence based outcomes”. We find one-size-fits-all policies in health care, education, economics and politics. Difference is described as “variation” to be eliminated and “integration” is about forcing people with different values and beliefs to conform.

What values and what kind of world view might develop from a positive prioritisation of difference?

A shift from the general to the particular. 

Human beings are brilliant at spotting patterns, classifying them and naming them. We categorise by moving quickly from specific instances to general characteristics. We do that by stripping away the context and homing in on one or a few characteristics. By doing so we quickly lose sight of the individual, of the reality of the uniqueness of every person, every experience, every organism. And we quickly lose sight of the whole.

If we keep our eyes and ears open for the differences, then we take these generalised patterns which we spot and then consider how this particular instance fits, or doesn’t fit into those generalities. In other words we do what Iain McGilchrist describes in his “Divided Brain” – we perceive with the right cerebral hemisphere, analyse and classify a part of that with the left, then hand that analysis back to the right for further integration.

A shift from quantities to qualities.

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics”? Does the total number of people with jobs mean very much? Or is the nature and content of those jobs important? Does it matter if the jobs are zero-hour contracts, or full-time, more than minimum wage contracts? Does it matter if the jobs are to manufacture chemical weapons, or chemotherapy?

In health care, in education, in politics or society, because these are human institutions, its the quality which matters, not just the numbers.

A shift from seeing the world as composed of fixed objects, to seeing the world as a complex system which is continuously growing and evolving.

A shift from conformity to diversity.

Should we all have the same beliefs, the same values and make the same choices? If I choose one modality of health care when I am ill, and you choose another, is that a good thing? Or is it better that we both receive the authorised treatment which the protocol demands? Nature thrives on diversity. Monocultures are not natural.

A shift from a focus on parts to a focus on connections.

When we focus on parts, we tend to reduce what we are considering to objects. But no object exists in isolation. Everybody, every creature and every “thing” on our planet has a history. We all emerge out of what already exists. In the here and now we are inextricably linked to who and what is around us. Our left cerebral hemisphere is great at focusing on the parts. Our right is fabulous at focusing on the connections – the “between-ness” (to use Iain McGilchrist’s term)

A shift to integration.

Integration is the creation of mutually beneficial relationships between well-differentiated parts.

Think of the human body. A heart is distinctly different from a liver. To be healthy we need both, and we need both to be working in ways which maximise the health of the other. Our heart and liver are not in competition. They are not fighting it out to see who survives – only the strongest? Instead, they function best by integrating. I think we can see the same principle at work everywhere – or at least in all complex systems, from living organisms, to families, societies, cultures and environments.

A shift to seeing the flow of change

Nothing stays the same. We have cycles of growth and cycles of destruction. We see change which describe as growth and maturation, from (in the case of human beings) single cells, a spermatozoon and an ovum, to a fertilised egg, which grows into a foetus, a child, and then a fully grown adult. to And from the first moments of the Universe until now we see not just change in terms of growth and maturation, but a direction of change which we call evolution – we see an increase in complexity from the first hydrogen based stars to human beings with consciousness.

Whether in terms of maturation, or evolution, what we see is flourishing – the coming to fullness of all a being can be.

So, here’s my starting list of values

  1. Uniqueness
  2. Diversity
  3. Tolerance
  4. Integration
  5. Flourishing

What might the world become if we prioritised these values?

Read Full Post »

Redstart

For many weeks I’ve noticed a Robin in my garden, but recently this little guy has turned up.

At first I thought he was maybe a different Robin, or maybe a Bullfinch (I’m not an expert in birds!) but I’ve just discovered he is a “Redstart” with his red breast, black mask and white skull cap. I’d never even heard of a “Redstart” before but apparently they are from the Robin family – you can see similarities with the more common Robin, but he is clearly different.

We live in a society which prioritises sameness. Mass production, mass consumption, standardisation, health care by protocol, science based on abstraction and categorisation.

We do have a lot in common, and that’s partly how we connect to others – shared interests, preferences, values and so on.

I was aware throughout my practice as a doctor that every single person I saw had some things in common with others who I had seen, but who also was unique – different from every other person I had seen. I’d make a diagnosis – chest infection, diabetes, asthma, psoriasis etc by prioritising the signs and symptoms which I had learned were associated with those diseases, but then I had to pay attention to the person and ask who this was who had this disease, ask how it appeared in their particular life, how it affected them in their unique way.

What I’m wondering just now is what might the world be like if we prioritised difference instead of sameness?

What would health care look like if we prioritised the uniqueness of every patient AND every practitioner?

What would the economy be like if we prioritised the uniqueness of each member of the population?

What would education be like?

What would society be like?

Are there certain underlying principles which would come to the fore if we prioritised difference?

I’m going to explore those questions here over the next few days.

Read Full Post »

The “N” in my A to Z of Becoming, can stand for “nourish”, so here’s my focus for this week – what nourishes my heart, feeds my soul?

Looking back over the series on re-enchanting life which I posted over the last couple of weeks (scroll down to read them, if you haven’t seen them already), I realise that everything which I find enchanting, stirs my blood, sets my heart beating stronger or faster, and touches me right down to the core of my soul.

Beauty is one of the common factors. Difficult to define but don’t we sure know it when we see it, hear it, touch it?

Love is one of the common factors. Wherever love stirs, the heart leaps and the soul expands.

You’ll have some of your own, I’m sure, but here’s just a few photographs I’ve taken recently which nourish me –

…the first “gariguettes” of the season – wow! what a taste!

The love locks in Paris – it’s as if they exude love into the air, surrounding you, filling you, gladening your heart.

Relaxing by a pool at lunch time, seeing the simple pleasures of sharing a bite to eat, of chatting with friends, of reading, sailing a boat, or simply snoozing..

Cheers! Here’s to whatever nourishes your heart, your soul, your body and your mind. May you taste it, feel it, hear it, see it, know it, be amazed by it, every single day.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »