Australian Government spends big on Mental Health reforms - but not on any true healing services

 

The new (Liberal) Australian Government's Health Minister, Peter Conlan, has just announced a $500m spending package on mental health reforms. The reforms are said to make it easier for sufferers to better manage their lives, such as by reducing the steps needed in seeking adequate accommodation. One immediately has to ask, though, what happened to the then record $1.8b that the previous Liberal Government spent on Mental Health in the early 2000s? And, further still, what happened to the later record of $2.2b spent on mental health by the previous Labor Government? Were those funds useful? Did they produce any new forms of mental health healing? Did they reduce the number of mental health sufferers? The only conclusion one can reach in all cases is a resounding "no". Hence the need for another round of funding "reforms".

About a quarter of the Federal Government's mental health funding goes to the "Headstart" facilities and their operations, which has become the forefront of treatment service. It's chief lobbiest is Patrick McGorry (professor of psychiatry), who champions it as being a "21st-century system". And its supporters want to sell the model to several other countries, including the UK, Canada, and the US.

So what is Headstart all about? it is a model of mental health treatment designed to address the high rate of youth suicide and psychotic symptoms. It strongly advocates early intervention - treating 12-25-year-olds for general mental stresses, and 15-24-year-olds for early psychotic symptoms. Additionally, the provided centres are a brightly coloured, funky, drop-in-style that is attractive to youth. And there is no need for a referral or any psychological analysis - just easily-obtainable assistance. And the general feedback from the participants is favourable.

Headstart critics, though, have noted that there are no follow-up studies on patients, so it is not possible to determine how effective the treatment is - or, indeed, if it may be doing harm. But there are other problems with Headstart. It is claimed to be a non-medical model. Yet, underlying the service is the same old medically-based theories and practices. It's claim for efficacy - that being "early intervention" - is the same as the current trend in medical science. This is the theory that if you can get in early you can curtail a health problem before it festers. But early intervention - as some scientists have openly stated - is not a cure. It is really only just the next best thing to a cure. So when practitioners tout "early intervention" as being the pinnacle of treatment, they are really hiding the fact that they do not have a definitive cure for a problem. Another Headstart issue is that of following "evidence-based" science. This practice is essential in most areas of science - but when it comes to psychology, evidence-based research is often shallow, flimsy, and not very useful. And, yet another problem area is the non-unified science behind it all. One of Headstart's chief proponents, Simon Stafrace (an Associate Professor of Psychiatry), states that, "Part of the problem in finding an approach that works is the nature of mental illness itself. Unlike other areas of health, making a diagnosis is not an exact science. One person's 'unwell' is another's 'unconventional'". In other words, Headstart's practitioners are still searching for an effective treatment approach - which they haven't found yet. Meanwhile, the default treatment in the background is "cognitive-behaviour" therapy. This is a medically-backed therapy based on the false belief that changing your thinking patterns can change distorted behaviours. Like the evidence-based researh that it is based upon, it is a shallow and weak therapy that doesn't work very well.

Headstart is a hodge-podge of thinking. Its sole driving force - to be youthful and funky - is a novelty that would indeed probably work well initially. But its claim to be non-medically-based is clearly confused. And even more confusingly, it even borrows elements from pain-resolving psychotherapy - a treatment that is normally considered to be too radical. For example, from Primal Therapy it borrows the concept of getting away from the stuffy medically-based offices, and talk of unmet needs; while from the laws of pain it borrows the concepts of the social application of mental health treatment, and a "21st Century system". But - unlike those two psychotherapies - there is no new science, no new theories, no new treatment practices. It is a case of the old mental health system trying to update itself to be more like the newly-emerging mental health system. Given this, one can see what is going to happen to Headstart over time. As its practitioners gradually come to realise that people are not really being healed of their mental health problems, the youthful enthusiasm will die down. And the program will gradually be reabsorbed into stock-standard psychology and psychiatry - with out-of-date theories and practices, and prescription drugs to keep mental health problems under control.  

By now, Australia should be THE world leader in healing mental health problems - by utilising the laws of pain system. But it is being held back by health experts and politicians who do not fully understand what causes mental health problems or how best to heal them. And the losers in all of this will be the babies of tomorrow - some of whom will unnecessarily have to endure lives full of debilitating psychoemotional pain - for no other reason than our social leaders are too stubborn to accept the inevitability of a new mental health science.  

 Referemce:

Jill Stark, "Debate surrounds the headspace model of mental health services", The Sydney Morning Herald, (online), Fairfax Media, November 10, 2013,
http://www.smh.com.au/national/debate-surrounds-the-headspace-model-of-mental-health-services-20131109-2x8lf.html

Thanksgiving and Obesity: Governments cannot heal obesity when Industry fattens-up our foods

 

What do the following scenes have in common: a turkey that is so fat that it has difficulty standing up; a pumpkin that is so fat that it needs a tractor to lift it off the ground; a pet dog that is so fat that it can only waddle instead of walk; and a human that is so fat that it needs a crane to lift them out of bed to have them taken to hospital? The obvious difference is that the first two are food items (normally associated with the Thanksgiving celebration), while the latter two are food consumers (of sorts for the pet). But what they all have in common is that they are exibiting - in one way or another - a form of obesity. And this is where there is a recognition problem in our society: only the latter two are recognised as being related to obesity; while the former two (turkey and pumpkin) are championed as being a product of advanced agribusiness and food science.  

In fact, it is that very Thanksgiving celebration that provides a good insight into the social aspect of obesity. Thanksgiving is a historical feast meant to give thanks (to God) for the abundance of food that people enjoy. It is practised in several regions, like the US, Canada, and parts of Europe and Africa. While the ceremony itself only goes back a century or two, the feasts that it is based on go way back to the Stone Age. Back then tribes had huge feasts of meat and alcohol - to appease the gods and/or to celebrate successful harvests. At such feasts, a symbolically important type of animal - such as the pig or bovine - was the subject of slaughter and consumption.  
 
In the modern world it is the US Thanksgiving ceremony that has garnered worldwide attention via television. It involves the President giving thanks for food abundance, and then pardoning a bird (AKA "saving" it from the pot). That saved bird is then taken to a farm to live out the rest of its life in freedom. But critics of the ceremony have questioned the fate of this turkey. And they have found that since the birds are so fervently fattened-up for the annual celebration, they can begin to suffer obesity-related health problems. As a result, the supposed "freedom" of the saved bird is destined to be shortlived, as it succombs to difficulties like standing, walking, breathing, arthritis, and/or circulation/heart problems.  

The laws of pain can add a further dimension to the understanding of this ceremony - as well as to the nature of the obesity epidemic. The modern-day Thanksgiving feast is a relic from the past that is out of tune with modern-day society. The US population, for example, is now huge, so 46 million or so of one type of bird has to be slaughtered to cater for the demand. In this respect the feasting has reached ridiculous proportions. Additional to this, there is no further need to give thanks for the food that people have, since nowadays food is abundant and there is little malnutrition and starvation (in the West at least).  

When it comes to the part where the President publically "saves" a turkey, it has a deep unconscious component. Because in reality, society is killing 46 million turkeys - so to counter this unfeeling act they need an "humane ceremony" to make them feel more comfortable with themselves for doing this. So they require society's leader to show some "feeling" by saving a bird, and thus allowing it to live a free life. So the ceremony is really a barometer of the level of feeling capacity in the US society. Effectively, by only being concerned about the welfare of one bird - and seeing the rest as slaughterable food - the society is showing that it has a reduced feeling capacity and an elevated level of unconsciousness. (Although, of course, there are some feeling and humane activities at this time - such as food drives for the needy, family gatherings, and holiday time off work. But in this case I am specifically addressing healthcare.)
 
In the modern (Western) world, obesity and anorexia/bulimea are the current food-related health problems - rather than malnutrition and starvation. And the US has about 35% adult obese, and 17% juvenile obese. (In Australia, with a revised measure, it is now estimated that 49% of people are in the obese category; while over 60% of pets are considered obese.) So in actual fact, the Thanksgiving ceremony would present an ideal opportunity to update the feasting message to improve the health of the US nation. Instead of a Stone Age-related message, the message could be changed to promote healthy eating generally, like consuming a range of foods rather than concentrating on just one artificially fattened-up bird and vegetable. The ceremony could also include apt parenting advice, such as to provide adequate meals for children (many children miss out on breakfast for example), and to make sure no trauma is associated with mealtimes - as both can distort children's views of food and lead to later onset eating disorders.  
 
The out-of-date Thanksgiving ceremony perfectly illustrates a problem with business, food science, medical science, and politics. These social sectors are all working against each other - in terms of aiding psychoemotional healthcare initiatives. Industry and science are always striving to invent new and improved ways of doing things - like improving the yield of food items (in other words, fattening-up our foods); while medical science and government are always wanting to stop health problems from reaching epidemic proportions. Even the President's wife, Michelle Obama, is involved in the campaign to fight obesity. But while they are all working against each other, no matter what health care policies and programs governments come up with to fight obesity and anorexia/bulimea, they are all doomed to failure. The obesity epidemic has a bigger breadth and depth than these sector workers understand.

Julia Gillard describes the psychoemotional pain of losing Prime Ministership; but she never supported a cure for such pain

Just a couple of months out from this year's political election, Prime Minister Julia Gillard was drawn into a leadership challenge from Kevin Rudd. She had replaced Rudd in similar fashion several years earlier, and Rudd had been pining for his old job ever since. The condition this time though - set by Gillard herself - was that whoever lost the caucus vote should retire from politics to end the Labor bickering. She subsequently lost, went to the backbench, and then did not contest the political election. After a couple of months in the wilderness, she has now described the psychoemotional pain of losing the Prime Ministership as feeling like being hit with a fist. This pain was later exacerbated by watching, alone, the Labor Party lose the September 7 Election to the Liberal National Party (under its leader, Tony Abbott).

Gillard's revelation has been picked up by the media as an example of psychological health issues related to emotional pain feeling like physical pain. Channel 7's Weekend Sunrise, for example, asked their science expert, Dr Karl, to explain this phenomenon - and referred to recent research that showed that people can literally die from a (emotionally) broken heart. Dr Karl said that the experience of emotional and physical pain share the same neurological pathways in the brain, and that this is why an emotional pain can feel like a physical pain. But, crucially, he could not offer any medical science-based solution to resolve such pain - only describe the research "evidence" for it's existence. He also stated that when he himself once suffered from the emotional pain from a broken heart, he lessened its effect through the physical means of going for a run [but not healing the pain directly].

It is encouraging to hear Gillard - a person who has occupied high office - articulating the pain that she felt while enduring a stressful and traumatic event. It will go a long way in helping her to integrate that pain. It also shows that people are becoming more aware of psychological phenomena. And it brings politicians back down to earth, and puts them on an equal footing with everyday human beings, who also struggle with such stresses and pains in life. However, as good as this example is, one aspect still remains perplexing: Gillard and her health ministers never supported a cure for such pain while they were in office. I wrote to her health ministers twice about the laws of pain as an experiential-based science that can heal this type of pain from the past (and, hence, heal numerous health and behavioural problems). I wrote once to Nicola Roxon, and again to Tanya Plibersek after she took over as Health Minister. Neither minister took it any further than to dismiss it with a spiel about the process involved in providing evidence, possessing qualifications, submitting to a committee - in other words, going through the official "scientific channels" (AKA medical science) to gain acceptance. There was no real recognition of human beings suffering from unresolved psychoemotional pain - and needing a cure for it right now. Instead, Gillard's government did what all governments around the world do: just default to medical science as the favoured authority on health matters. Governments have not yet cottoned-on to the fact that most medical research efforts only end with promises of cures 5, 10, or 20 years into the future - and rarely anything for today.

In the meantime, Julia Gillard has accepted an honorary Professorship qualification in History and Politics from Adelaide University. It was given to her on the basis of her "knowledge and experience" in politics - and not for any actual study or research. And here we see an example of a double standard in operation in public life: politicians reject experiential-based science in health care, in favour of research or evidence-based science by qualified scientists - then they turn around and accept "experiential-based" qualifications themselves.

This double standard highlights an alleged increasingly corrupt relationship that exists between government and conventional science - especially medical science. (It is similar to the corrupt relationship that developed between government and religion that it replaced over a century ago.) It is like a cartel - but not a price-fixing cartel that we are used to; rather, a treatment-fixing cartel. It is not a product of deliberately corrupt individuals, but rather the once beneficial arrangement has drifted into an alleged corrupt state due to the march of time and changes in society. Here's how it works. New discoveries related to healing human health and behavioural problems are made with the experiential-based science of pain-resolving psychotherapy. But those discoveries are ignored and even denounced by conventional science, because it likes to promote a genetics-based theory for the cause of health and behavioural problems. However, in the background, scientists take ideas and research leads from those new experiential-based discoveries. They then obtain government or organisational funding for related research projects; their resultant papers are published in prestigious science journals claiming "new discoveries" attributed to genetics-based science; and no credit or mention is given for the original source of the discoveries. Governments then provide funding for treatment programs and drug developments based on that "evidence-based" science. Although this is not strictly copying - as their is original work and novel thinking involved (and all scientists learn from each other) - there is no doubting that the core of this activity is in "rechannelling" experiential-based healing discoveries into conventional medical science (where they do not belong, because they come under a completely different healthcare theory). This is done in order to maintain its favoured position of being sole advisor to government, sole public health treatment provider, and sole recipient of government funding. Examples of this process include the "discovery" that emotional pain of a broken heart can lead to a heart attack; treatments that are claimed to "rewire the brain"; the "discovery" that cancer cells behave like a (bee) colony, and the "radical new view of health" involving the body's cells cooperating like a community. The first claim was discovered decades ago in Primal Therapy, while the latter three were discovered with the laws of pain.

This skewed government-science relationship continues to prevent everyday people from receiving the most up-to-date and effective treatment to resolve psychoemotional pain, and its myriad of eventual physical health problems: such as cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and Alzheimer's Disease.

Government announces $2 million stroke awareness ad campaign - but not to heal the condition's cause
 
Stroke is the second biggest killer of Australians after heart disease. In mid-July the Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, announced a $2 million stroke awareness ad campaign to inform the public of the characteristic warning signs of stroke. This is so that victims can be taken to hospital sooner in order to increase beneficial outcomes of treatment. But there is a better way to treat the stoke problem that escapes the Health Department.  
 
The government funds medical research to find the likely causes for many health and behavioural problems that bedevil human beings - including stroke. There are two types of stroke: haemorrhagic (burst blood vessel) and ischaemic (clogged blood vessel). The common contributing factors to stroke have been found to be as follows:
 
* obesity
* diabetes
* high blood pressure
* high cholesterol
* smoking (cigarettes and/or marijuana)
 
However, researchers have also found that strokes can be accompanied by headaches and/or migraines. And, in fact, that people who suffer from migraines (especially with aura) are at a slightly greater risk of having a stroke compared to those who do not suffer migraines. This finding is particularly relevant to the laws of pain. According to it, due to our evolution - that involves a lot of accumulated unresolved pain - the phoetal skull has become overly large compared to body size. This results in a lot of pressure and pain applied to the head during birth. If this pain goes unresolved it results in rebounding headaches and migraines throughout one's life. So in laws of pain terms, a stroke is just a case of unresolved birth pain rebounding as headaches/migraines for many years, then when the body ages to a certain degree one headache/migraine too many results in a stroke. Some young people can also suffer strokes - probably due to a more concentrated pressure to the head at birth. The other contributing factors - listed above - are due to various addictions: fatty foods, sugar, and drugs. Addictions, too, are a result of unresolved psychoemotional pain. So the solution to avoiding strokes is to resolve one's history of unresolved psychoemotional pain. This healing activity gradually resolves addictions, and eventually one gets back to birth and can resolve the intense pains to the head that occurred at that time. This is all hard work and takes time, but the end result is worth it - because if you no longer suffer from headaches, migraines, and addictions then you will be unlikely to get a stroke.  
 
In contrast to the above, the government relies on medicine and evidence-based science to treat health problems. The trouble with this approach is that medicine does not have a unified healing science - like the laws of pain. Its genetics-based theory of health and behavioural problems is too loose a concept to make any sense of the research results. For example, there are other risk factors identified as potentially leading to strokes, like oral contraceptives, sleep apnia, brain injury, hip replacement surgery, and heart disease. Overwhelmed by all this research, medicine then has to resort to its usual practice of waiting for people's bodies to break down, then trying to patch them back up.  
 
In this case, the key healing ingredient for strokes is not a science, technique, or a medicinal drug - it is the act of rushing a victim to hospital as quickly as possible - where they can get onto the operating table quicker, and there will be less brain damage, and so the outcome will be more favourable. But for recovery afterwards there will still be the added problem of pharmaceutical medicines and rehabilitation programs that cost many more millions of dollars to finance. (Meanwhile, the headaches, migraines, and various addictions will still not have been healed!)   
 
If you were to apply the medical profession's “wait-then-patch” methodology to other professions you would get outcomes that would be similar to the following:
 
* A national sports team that waits for the other country to score first before it tries to score any points.
* An oil industry that waits for cars, trucks, buses, and planes en masse to run out of fuel before it makes the next oil delivery.
* A police force that waits for car accidents to occur before alcohol-testing the drivers to find the drunk ones.
* Criminals who rob banks and then wait for the cops to arrive before they try to make their escape.  
 
So, if practised on a wider scale, the medical methodology would be considered backward, prohibitively expensive, out-of-date, and unacceptable. It would be compared to a pre-Industrial Revolution service. So why do we have to put up with this outdated approach when there is a more modern and more effective solution available?
 
Reference:
 
"Ad campaign calls for swift action to save stroke victims", Sydney Morning Herald, (online), Fairfax Media, July 15, 2013, (accessed 16 July 2013), 
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ad-campaign-calls-for-swift-action-to-save-stroke-victims-20130714-2py4d.html

Guns and Genomes: How Lobby Groups are preventing Governments from healing society of Killing Sprees and Psychoemotional Suffering

There is an old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is apt when things are running smoothly and there are few problems in an environment. In this case, you want things to stay the same - and even perpetuate tradition; you don't want to meddle and make big changes, and in-so-doing cause unnecessary problems to occur. But modern-day society is not like that - it is not smooth and untroubled. It has at least two major areas of social problems: mass killing sprees, and an epidemic of niggling health and behavioural problems that are psychoemotionally-related (like ADHD, obsessive compulsive disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, obesity, and drug, alcohol, and cigarette addictions). And contrary to medical belief, psychoemotional suffering has also been found to be a major underlying contributer to more serious physical health problems like Alzheimer's, cancer, stroke, and heart disease. These two problem areas could begin to be healed - with the introduction of the new laws of pain science - but are being prevented from being so by two traditionalist lobby groups: the gun and medical lobbies respectively. Government cannot stop shooting sprees largely due to the Gun Lobby (especially in the US); just as Government cannot heal Psychoemotional Suffering largely due to the Medical Lobby.
 
You might say that the gun and medical lobbies are unrelated entities. And in a sense you would be right - in that one kills while the other heals. (But, then, the gun lobby could say that killing animals puts meat on the table, and, so, facilitates health and survival.) Despite their different aims, there are interrelationships between the two in other respects. For example, both gun and medical enthusiasts have historically developed their skills on the battlefield - as a result of our species suffering from endemic warfare (which is a psychoemotional problem). Their technologies are also similar, involving blades, hammers, drills, bullets, and guns of various designs. And their terminology is similar: the former has "targets", ordinances delivering "payloads", machine gun "spray" to destroy cell enclaves, and night goggles to provide "enhanced vision" capabilities; while the latter has "targeted" drugs, drugs delivering "payloads", radiation "spray" to destroy cell growths, and bullet-like cameras that give "enhanced vision" of the body's internals. Gun enthusiasts are weapons technology buffs; while medical enthusiasts are medical technology buffs - with both now rushing to take advantage of new 3D printing technology. One could say that the former group is all about cutting, hammering, and shooting us from the outside, while the latter group is all about cutting, hammering, and shooting us on the inside.  
 
Hasn't the gun association been highlighted in the US news lately as a powerful and belligerent lobby group, capable of interfering with the government's gun laws? While in Australia in the early 2000s, didn't the health minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge, publicly complain about the incessant lobbying of the Australian Medical Association - and, in fact, its interference in one of the government's health recommendations (concerning the value of statin drugs)? The by-laws of these two lobby groups are also similar in their explicit intent of seeking significant government influence:
 
* The National Rifle Association's lobbying aims: http://www.nraila.org/about-nra-ila.aspx
* The American Medical Association's lobbying aims: http://www.ampaconline.org/about-us/
* The Shooters and Fishers Party's lobbying aims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooters_and_Fishers
* The Australian Medical Association's lobbying aims:  https://ama.com.au/ama-mission-statement
 
When it comes to addressing killing sprees and health problems, instead of allowing governments to introduce significant changes to combat these two social problems, the lobby groups vigorously and stubbornly promote their own (similarly-themed) countermeasures:  
 
* To counter shooting and knifing sprees, the gun lobby recommends that the public should arm themselves with guns and bullets to shoot down the problem.  
* To counter health problems, the medical lobby recommends that the public should arm themselves with pharmaceutical (magic bullet) drugs to shoot down the problem.  
 
Unrelated they may be in some respects, but the gun and medical lobbies are more like the flip sides of the same coin - albeit, a battered and bruised coin, crudely minted from unresolved human violence and suffering.  
 
After the Scottish Dunblane school massacre of 1996 (involving 17 deaths) - perpetrated by a psychoemotionally-disturbed man who had a twisted interest in boys - the government, with public support, stood up to the gun lobby and introduced new gun control laws. Similarly, after the Australian Port Arthur mass killing spree of the same year (involving 35 deaths) - again, perpetrated by a psychoemotionally-disturbed person who had a history of being bullied - and who modeled his attack on the Dunblane one - the Australian Government stood up to the gun lobby via a gun buy-back scheme and gun control laws. But the lobby in this case has since clawed back its influence - to the point where they have convinced the NSW government to allow them to hunt in National Parks. This is despite some park visitors' claims of near misses from stray bullets, such bullets slamming into nearby farm houses, and at least one person shot and killed after being mistaken for a deer. [The NSW Government has since suspended the program, as a result of public concerns, such as those raised on the "Four Corners" TV program.] Add to this the fact that gun violence has increased in -particularly in Sydney - with weapon parts obtained on the Internet, home-manufacturing of guns, and theft of registered owners' firearms.  
 
Meanwhile in health care, Australia's two most recent health ministers have not had any relevant qualifications for the top job. Despite this, politicians can get by because their role is largely an administrative one. As the current health minister, Tanya Plibersek, shows, "...but when I've got decisions to make between new drugs to fund, palliative care services to fund, dementia to fund, extra funding for hospitals, extra doctors we want to employ, extra nurses we want to employ then I have to prioritise that spending".

But what happens when you are working in a field that you have little knowledge and experience in? You tend to get exploited by those who have that knowledge and experience - and power. So when asked about the health department's aims, she just parrots a medical lobbyist-type point of view, "I think we've got a lot to be proud of with our health system... Our five-year cancer survival rates are the best in the world. In the last few years since 2007 we've got an extra 7,000 doctors and 16,000 extra nurses in our hospital system...Between now and 2020 an extra $20 billion [is] going into our hospitals and personalised medicines that will cure more people with fewer side effects but we have to understand genomics and all the new technologies that go with them to really benefit from that."
 
In 2010, a Nature magazine survey on genomics found that most scientists agree that after ten years of the program it has proved a failure at its claims of being able to heal health problems - and provides no such expectations for doing so in the future. Nature is recognised by scientists and politicians alike as the world's most prestigious scientific journal. And, yet, here we have the Health Minister stating that we must be supportive of genomics. Clearly, she is not up-to-date with current developments in the health care field.  
 
Weapons manufacturers make different types of bullets that do specific jobs, which can all be helpful in winning a battle. But bullets do not heal the cause of warfare, so more conflicts will arise in the future. Similarly, medicine produces a variety of "magic bullet drugs" that are also helpful in winning a battle against health symptoms like cancer. But drugs do not heal the underlying cause of human suffering, so health problems will arise again in the future. In fact, all that these magic bullet drugs are doing is pushing back the time when health problems like cancer finally bite hard. (Currently, 5 years of being cancer free is the magic target for effectiveness - which is hardly a "cure".) As Plibersek herself states, "We invest tens of thousands of dollars in very late stage cancer medicines that might extend life for six weeks or six months. Tens of thousands of dollars. But we're happy to pay that as Australians because we understand the value of caring for every Australian well." Our Health Minister is happy to care for Australians - but not happy to cure them properly with a more up-to-date and more effective science that heals the underlying (psychoemotional) suffering to many health and behavioural problems.  
 
Claiming to be able to "cure" health problems by poring public funds into genomics and related technologies is akin to saying, "We will end killing sprees by pporingmillions of public dollars into weapons research". Guns have little to do with curbing violence, and genomics has little to do with healing (psychoemotionally-related) health problems. Genomics is primarily a technological pursuit - not a healing service. Any government Home Security Minister who believes that gun ownership can curb killing sprees should be sacked. Similarly, any government Health Minister who believes that genomics can heal health problems should also be sacked.  
 
Clearly, the trouble with following singular lobby groups' interests is that government departments' views become synchronistically narrow, shallow, and ineffective. A government department needs to be more open-minded, more accepting of different interest groups' viewpoints, and have a broader awareness of recent developments and public concerns - not just be a ventriloquist's doll for a lobby group.  
 
The hesitation, and sometimes paralysis, of governments around the world to introduce significant new changes into society, to begin healing these problems of mass killing sprees and psychoemotional suffering is alarming. Although lobby group members are good people - even good people can have excessive self-interests, and be stubborn, obstructive, and resistant to change. Currently, two powerful lobby groups are inadvertently (respectively) allowing innocent people - including children - to be occasionally killed, or some people to continue to suffer and struggle with psychoemotional problems throughout their lives - just because they want their traditional interests to continue to be catered for by government. It is almost a case of powerful lobby groups tugging on the government's ear and urging their own distorted slogan of, "If it's broke, don't fix it!". This raises concerns of just who is running today's societies: the government or the lobby group.  
 
References:
 
"The Health Debate", Q&A, ABC1, (video transcript), Australian Broadcasting Commission, Monday 22 April, 2013,
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3732232.htm

Pope Francis' Exorcism confusion raises questions over the effectiveness of the Practice

A video of Pope Francis addressing a disabled man in the crowd after a recent Sunday mass, has produced an online frenzy claiming that the Pope conducted an exorcism on him. This coincides with an upsurge in people wanting to undergo exorcisms, as well as its training in Rome's religious universities. So what did Pope Francis do that has gotten the public so worked-up? This is what happened according to media reports about the video:

“The young man heaved deeply a half-dozen times, shook, then slumped in his wheelchair as Francis prayed over him”.

And according to the religious officialdom, the above episode constitutes an exorcism:

“surveyed exorcists...agreed there was 'no doubt' that Francis either performed an exorcism or a prayer to free the man from the devil.”

The Vatican for its part said that Francis was not performing an exorcism, but was simply praying for him. It is also unable to state clearly if it was an exorcism or not, but it has downplayed the claims. Coincidentally, Pope John Paul II was also claimed to have performed an exorcism near the same location thirty years earlier in 1982.  

So what is really going on here? What we see is suffering people exhibiting a religious ferver, who want to believe that a healing event took place. The focus of interest is on the Pope, his homilies against the devil, and the hope that exorcism promises for healing the suffering. What is missing from the analysis of the event is observation of the sufferer, such as the following:

* There was no pre-assessment of the sufferer, in terms of his psychological and physical condition.
* There was no brain science involved, in terms of levels of consciousness and access to past memories.
* There was no observation after the event, in terms of whether or not the person exhibited noticeable change.

These are the parameters one needs to use to judge whether a person has been healed of some degree of suffering or not. To just place one's hands on a person's head, say meaningful (prayer) words, and then move on to the next person is not typically conducive to healing. Few psychotherapists do this – but many religious workers do. And the suffering person seen to be shaking, convulsing, and slumping could just signal an abreaction – a random expression of energy, perhaps due to being overwhelmed with excitement and expectation. And so it is most likely that he was not healed of anything at all.

The inability of religious people to judge whether a person has healed some of their suffering or not under exorcism, prayer, or miracle raises questions about the effectiveness of claimed healing episodes of key religious figures of the past. Most such prophets, gods, and saints got their fame for their healing abilities. But given that at those past times there was even less knowledge than there is today – together with the fact that there was no video, media, or Internet, and little opportunity for expert analysis – it raises the query as to whether their fame was due more to religious ferver and hope than to real healing.

A more official form of exorcism is practised. But even it involves only superficial pre-assessment of the sufferer, no up-to-date brain science, and superficial post-treatment observation. Because it is based on a system of faith – and not on questioning, observation, and advancement – it can never improve, grow, become more effective, or for any rare successes (i.e., when a sufferer inadvertently slips into some past pain and resolves it) to be reproducible so as to benefit other sufferers.

In contrast, with laws of pain treatment a sufferer can experience a healing episode (AKA “healing miracle”) several times a month over a number of years. That is a concept that would blow religious people's minds! And, yet, this is exactly what they are missing out on.  

For it to take 30 years between public displays of what people think could be healing exorcisms or not is way too long. Meanwhile, this suggests that other religious activities – like masses, sermons, and singing – are just there to fill in the yawning gap between supposed miracles. It is a sad but inevitable reality that the millions of religious followers around the world are forever doomed to be trapped in a wait-and-hope struggle with their faiths, and will never experience healing of their problems during their lifetimes via this pathway.

Update:

The sufferer in the video has subsequently stated that although he feels better after the encounter with the Pope, he still feels possessed. He also stated that he “has undergone 30 exorcisms by ten exorcists to no avail”.

References:

“Pope Francis' blessing on disabled man looked like exorcism, say experts”, news.com.au, (online), News Limited, May 22, 2013, (accessed 8 June 2013),
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/experts-say-pope-francis-action-on-disabled-man-look-like-exorcism/story-fndir2ev-1226647985418

“Man who Pope Francis allegedly performed an exorcism on claims to be still possessed”, Irish Central, (online), IrishCentral LLC, Updated Tuesday, June 4, 2013, (accessed 8 June 2013),
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Man-who-Pope-Francis-allegedly-performed-an-exorcism-on-claims-to-be-still-possessed----VIDEO-210049301.html

Lagalising Marijuana: a small change in Society marks the beginning of a Social Revolution

In the United Sates the two states of Washington and Colorado have just voted to legalise marijuana for personal production and use, with pending court hearings against infringers scheduled to be dissolved. (California recently had the same vote, but it failed to pass.) This flies in the face of the Federal Government's policy of a "war on drugs", in which all forms of illicit drugs and their production are prohibited. Drug toleration or legalisation is not new - several European countries practice it to varying degrees, and a few countries in South America have recently lagalised some drug use and manufacture. But they are already known for their relaxed cultural views (European) or for adopting radical policies (South American), so theirs is more of a small kick-off to revolutionary change. The situation in the US is much different, because it is traditionally conservative in nature - due to its stout religious core - and has a history of being vocal proponents of prohibition. So these two states' new stance against the federal government's - and their entire nation's - prohibition policy is a more significant kick-off to a social revolution. So what has changed to bring this about, and what does this revolution involve?

For a long time there has been argument over whether it is better to outlaw illicit drug use, tolerate it to some degree, or to legalise it. The latter two arguments have gained weight recently due to the shocking levels of drug gang crime and violence in South America - especially in Mexico - where commentators have claimed that the "war on drugs" has failed. But despite the growing voices for toleration or legalisation, most of the world's politicians have remained resolute. The difference has come about from the new perspective on the "war on drugs" afforded by the laws of pain. This system was used to describe in a new way the reasons for illicit drug manufacture and crime, and how it is a repeat of the failed alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. The system also embodies a psychotherapeutic science that can heal drug addiction. So with such a new perspective and healing treatment available, it would be possible for countries to control illicit drug production, reap extra income from its taxing, make drugs safer to consume for users, provide effective healing treatment - and, at the same time, take such control and finances away from drug gangs. This new perspective was picked up by the social grapevine, then similar views expressed by others, and this has all helped to push the toleration/legalisation viewpoint over a "tipping point" and into a stage where it can be acted upon instead of just being vocalised. And so Colorado and Washington have decided to act upon this viewpoint in the case of marijuana. The general sentiments of their populaces are that they are sick of the court misdemeaners and clogged-up jail system. Colorado has adopted similar plans to those described above, while Washington has held back on the commercial production side of things. The states are now nervously awaiting a response from the Federal Government.

So what is the new social revolution about? News articles about these two states' legalisation of marijuana have merely described the event without apportioning any meaning to it. New Scientist, for example, says that it is entering into "uncharted waters". They do not yet see a revolution underway here (in relation to our species evolution). But according to laws of pain science, our original ape ancestors' lost their ability to heal psychoemotional pain, and this set our species on a path of technological evolution rather than continued genetic evolution. As a result, each successive hominid generation lost more feeling capacity - which has culminated in gross acts of violence, such as the killing of megafauna as humans spread across the world at the end of the last Ice Age, the Hundred Years War of the Middle Ages, and the two World Wars of the Twentieth Century. Lack of feeling capacity is also seen in other areas of life, such as in crime and drug use. In summary, then, our species requires psychoemotional healing in order to restore optimal feeling capacity and health - and to be able to parent the following generations properly. So a change in policy to toleration/legalisation of drugs means that drug use (and related violence) is now treated as a health problem rather than a crime, and such affected people are guided towards treatment programs rather than jails. It therefore expands the range of people included in the suffering category, and in need of psychotherapeutic healing, and, so, is a change in accord with laws of pain science.

Since this development is so far part of a "grapevine melange of ideas and programs" - and not directly part of the laws of pain system itself as yet - the main problem will be whether the treatment programs provided by governments will effectively heal addiction or not. Experience of drug treatment programs in Europe and Australia shows that they can be beneficial to some, but that they are not especially effective. If such traditional treatments do not prove effective, then the revolutionary change will stagnate or even go backwards. Only time will tell if this revolution can get off to a good start, accept more guidance from laws of pain science, and develop into something more meaningful for suffering humanity...

Politicians Procrastinate over whether to Legalise Drugs or not - but if they did, would it work?

Throughout the Twentieth Century, and now the Twenty-first Century, there has been a political policy of a "war on drugs" (mostly in the West). Alternatively, a few European countries - namely Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden - have tried a different approach of various degrees of drug toleration and/or legalisation. Prohibition and legalisation are the two extreme arguments to trying to curb the social drug problem and its associated organised crime gangs - with many advocates on both sides. In October 2010, I posted an article on the advantages of legalising drugs from a laws of pain perspective - which added new information to the debate. One of those points was the existence of a direct relationship between unresolved psychoemotional pain and drug and alcohol addiction. The more pain one has, the more craving need for drugs one has, and vice versa: the more past pain one resolves the less craving for drugs. Resolving a lot of past pain restores feeling capacity, and leaves one recovered, whole, and healthy. The ability of the laws of pain to resolve drug addiction, therefore, now makes it safe and effective to introduce a policy of legalising drugs. This new perspective and energy behind my article has added to the debate grapevine, as is evidenced by the renewed push for the legalisation of drugs - as exemplified below - (but without any reference to the laws of pain system itself).

In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released their report on the state of the war on drugs, and declared it a failure, that it was causing more harm than good, and that policy reform was needed. And in September 2012, the Australia21 committee released their report on the war on drugs, and (echoing some of my own points) also stated that it had failed, that drugs (marijuana and ecstasy) should be legalised and commercially supplied (under government regulation) instead of being controlled by crime gangs, drug packaging could contain warnings, and drug-effects information provided at supply centres. As a result, some politicians have agreed with these reports, while some have disagreed. The latter note that the legalisation of drugs in other countries has not been especially successful, and that the legalisation of (previously prohibited) alcohol has led to a significant social problem of alcohol abuse.

But what if politicians did take a bold step, accept these committees' recommendations, and legalise some drugs - would it work? No. Why? Because to date they have no accurate and effective science that relates to drug addiction to go with such a policy change - the committees and other advocates have omitted that part. They have the standard sciences of medicine, psychology, and psychiatry to draw upon, but they have been around for centuries and still have not made any significant dent in the drug addiction problem. So, in effect, what these committees and supporters are essentially pushing for is a "change in attitude" - without a change in science - and expecting that that alone will heal the drug problem and make society a better place to live in. So how would such a new policy pan out if it was introduced? At one end of the policy spectrum, cleaner and more affordable drugs would be readily available to addicts - but at the other end of the spectrum, the users would not be getting healed of their addiction. And after some years of this kind of "bottlenecking", there would be a public backlash against the (obviously failed) policy, and things will have to be reverted back to the way they were, with the pruning back of treatment centres, trying to manage drug addiction without healing people, and still trying to clamp down on heavier drug use and organised crime. Nothing will have progressed.

The war on drugs has been fought for a hundred years now - without success. And the legalisation of drugs will still not occur anytime soon. US President Barack Obama has stated that America would never do it, and Australian PM Julia Gillard is against it, as is the Attorney General Nicola Roxon - along with numerous leading figures and experts. So after a hundred years of failure, the most influential politicians and social leaders still have closed minds to any new approach to the drug problem. Effectively, what they are saying on their part is that they are prepared to keep people addicted to drugs, and the crime gangs profiting from the drug trade, because they do not as yet know how to solve this social problem. And the knee-jerk reaction to when you cannot resolve a social problem is to keep it suppressed - in this case, by clamping down on it with increased law and order. And here is just one perplexing aspect of this policy's ramifications: the newly-elected state governments of Queensland, NSW, and Victoria are currently slashing thousands of jobs in education and health - and disrupting those families' lives - in order to build up financial reserves; while at the same time, criminal gangs are syphoning off multi-millions of dollars from the public by being allowed to control the street drug trade. This situation does not make sense, when revenues could be made healthier - and people's jobs and families not disrupted - if government was to take over control of the street drug problem (from a laws of pain perspective).

If political and social leaders cannot come up with something different and more effective for a social problem after a hundred years of trying, then there is something wrong with our class of leaders. The question then is, why do we keep them in power?


References:

War on Drugs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

'Drug prohibition a colossal failure', say experts calling for regulated cannabis use, September 09, 2012,
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/regulate-cannabis-use-report-urges/story-fndo6ejf-1226468417047

Uruguay takes 'war on drugs' in new direction: The state as dealer, September 19, 2012,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2012/0919/Uruguay-takes-war-on-drugs-in-new-direction-The-state-as-dealer

Thousands rally against Campbell Newman’s monster cuts, September 14, 2012,
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/52221

NSW to slash $1.7b from Schools, September 11, 2012,
http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusiness/8531088/nsw-to-slash-1-7b-from-schools

Mass Killings now Endemic in Human Society

Just when we all may have thought that the worst cases of mass killings had come and gone, in July we witnessed a new worst case of mass killings in the US. In Aurora, Colorado, 12 people were killed and 58 injured in a movie theatre shooting spree - by a gunman impersonating one of the movie characters. There are two issues in this shooting that make it sadly ironic, and highlights the failed state of our social system. The first issue is that one of the victims, Jessica Ghawi - a young aspiring sports journalist - had narrowly avoided a previous shooting spree just a couple of months earlier in a Canada shopping mall. One would think that having to survive one shooting spree would be the ultimate in bad luck - and, so, you would probably never have to experience a similar event again. But to stumble into two such events - just months apart - tells us that these mass shootings are something more than just momentary tragedies - they are here to stay. The fact that writers are now trying to reassure the public that mass killings are rare events only confirms the fact that they have become a persistent and worrying part of modern society. In fact, mass killing events can now be added to the list of health hazards - like AIDS, ebola, Legionaire's Disease, malaria, rabies, and transport accidents - that, although rare, require us to be mindful of them and to take some measures to avoid. The second issue is that the perpatrator of the Aurora shootings was educated in neuroscience - as well as seeing a psychiatrist - but not even that could help him resolve his own troubled mind. This confirms how ineffective traditional mind-and-brain sciences are in resolving mental health problems.

More than ever before we need a social leadership that can agree that mass killings are now a persistent problem in society, and who can come up with a plan of action to stop them. So what have our social leaders had to say about the nature of human violence? A look at the news shows what we have:

* A president who says that the Aurora event was an "act of evil".
* A Catholic priest who says that the Aurora perpetrator was "possessed by the devil".
* An ex-Secret Service psychologist - and mass shootings expert - who says that the Aurora perpetrator could be "psychotic, manic, or faking it".
* A child psychologist who says that the perpetrator's motive comes down to being "mad, bad, or sad".
* US politicians heatedly debating whether mass killings are a problem of "gun control" or not - all the while, trying not to offend the powerful pro-gun lobby.
* An Australian police commissioner who says that youth violence is due to "watching video games" that act to desensitise them to violence - a view backed-up by the state premier (whose own reign has been marked by around 85 shooting incidents - in a country where there is firm gun control).
* And scientists who have done studies that show that violence in the young can be due to exposure to violence on TV or in video games; but who are equally opposed by scientists who claim that there is no solid evidence that violence on TV or in video games influences youth violence.

So there you have it. Mass killings have now become endemic in our society - and in genuine efforts to be helpful, our social leaders have offered their own take on what causes violence - but, unfortunately for the public, it all ends up being a hodge-podge of ideas and opinions. President Obama has said that the US must now do some "soul searching", and "come together to bring an end to this violence". But do you think that our social leaders could agree on a unified plan of action to resolve such a problem? And, assuming that they could, do you think that their solution would be effective? Not likely.

So what is the real issue here? Well, all of these social leaders are correct in their own way - but, from a global perspective, they are all fundamentally incorrect. Yes, some killers have spent many hours watching violent videos; and some do react to voices in the head as if possessed. The actions of perpetrators' towards fellow humans are indeed evil; and most are dissociated from the event as if psychotic. If there were no guns there would no doubt be fewer mass killings; and some perpetrators do fit the profile described in scientific studies. But these are all factors "associated" with violence - not root causes. What is missing here is an underlying, unified, global science of human nature that identifies and treats the sole, root cause of the problem. And according to that latest science - the laws of pain - the cause is an accumulation of unresolved painful experiences during upbringing that diminishes feeling capacity (that is, leads to a lack of empathy, desensitisation to violence, and dissociation) - within a social system that does not properly recognise the long-term impact that painful experiences have on people. It is this combination of individual repression and social ignorance that causes some people to eventually explode into violent rage - as their only perceived means of expressing anger and frustration.

Some people like to laugh at the concept of "past traumas" affecting people in such a random, violent manner. But they laugh while their own traditional explanations (such as those listed above), and implimented programs, have proven time-and-again to be too shallow and ineffective. At some point the public is going to have to make a decision: is it worth their own or their relative's life to continue to support repeatedly failed remedies for social problems? Or is it worth taking a risk with a brand new human nature science, and a ready-to-roll-out action plan, to effectively dissolve these kinds of social problems once and for all? What is there to lose? 


References:

Katherine Weber, "James Holmes Was Demon Possessed, Claims Catholic Priest", CP N.America, (online), The Christian Post, August 1, 2012, (accessed 9 Aug 2012),
http://global.christianpost.com/news/james-holmes-was-demon-possessed-claims-catholic-priest-79227/

"Obama says Colorado shooting was an 'evil act'", The Times of India, (online), Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd., Jul 23, 2012, (accessed 9 Aug 2012),
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-23/us/32803787_1_aurora-theater-president-barack-obama-new-batman-movie

"Obama calls for end to violence in Denver", Herald Sun, (online), The Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd, August 09, 2012, (accessed 11 Aug 2012),
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/obama-calls-for-end-to-violence-in-denver/story-e6frf7k6-1226446626769

Michael Carr-Gregg, "How did James Holmes, a smart guy from a good home, become a mass murder suspect?" News.com.au, Herald Sun, (online), News Limited., July 28, 2012, (accessed 9 Aug 2012),
http://www.news.com.au/national/how-did-james-holmes-a-smart-guy-from-a-good-home-become-a-mass-murder-suspect/story-fndo4cq1-1226437079362

Claire Connelly, "Police commissioner Andrew Scipione under fire for video game comments", news.com.au, (online), News Limited., August 06, 2012,  (accessed 9 Aug 2012),
http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/police-commissioner-andrew-scipione-under-fire-for-video-game-comments/story-e6frfrt9-1226443975410

Who Really Killed Michael Jackson?

 

In June 2009, Michael Jackson - the "King of Pop" - died at his home while under the care of his (cardiologist) doctor, Conrad Murray. The subsequent autopsy revealed that Jackson was in reasonably good health. The most unusual feature of his body, however, were puncture marks in his arms (made by intravenous needles). The toxicology report found that he had died from respiratory and heart failure due to an overdose of propofol, combined with the effects of other (sleep-inducing) medications given to him. Jackson's death was deemed a homicide, and Conrad Murray had to stand trial for wrongful death. To counter the public focus on him, Murray appeared in a documentary about his relationship with Jackson, what happened the night Jackson died, and his defence team's strategy meetings during his trial.

After treating Jackson and his children since 2006, Murray was eventually emplyed by Jackson as his personal physician in 2009. He often treated him six days a week. Amongst general health treatments, Murray primarily treated Jackson for insomnia with standard medications and, at times, small doses of propofol (a hospital aneasthetic). In the two months prior to his death Jackson received nightly doses of propofol. During his defence team's discussions they summed up Jackson's behavioural condition as follows: they noted that besides having difficulty getting to sleep, he also had a bed-wetting problem, his private room was often messy, and he kept pictures of children on display. They were non-plussed as to how a 50-year-old man could have such abnormal behaviours - which they concluded were "psychological". And here is the crux of Jackson's death that has eluded everyone - it can be summed up in a single question:

Why was a medical doctor treating Jackson when he was in reasonably good physical health, and his problems were mostly of a psychological nature?

There is an opportunity here to illustrate the differences between how the traditional legal system operates and how a legal system cognizant of the laws of pain would operate. For the traditional legal system, the posthumous investigations - autopsy, toxicology report, and court case - were all based on physical medicine: that is, what medications were given to Jackson? How was CPR applied? What was the condition of the body? What drug concentrations were found in the blood system? Etcetera. Very little information pertained to Jackson's psychoemotional state - aside from the fact that a few people noted that he was in good spirits for a couple of days prior to his death. This focus on physicality emphasises the dominance that Traditional Medicine has in our society, and the corresponding subordinance of traditional psychology (due to its ineffectiveness). As a result of the physical evidence against him, Murray was found guilty by a jury in November 2011, and sentenced to the maximum four years for involuntary manslaughter.

For a legal system cognizant of the laws of pain, the effort would be more to put the event on trial - to establish what happened - rather than to solely put a target person on trial. Firstly, besides considering the physical evidence, it would also seek to establish what Jackson's psychoemotional condition was like. His problems of inability to sleep, bed-wetting, unable to clean up after himself, and idolising the childhood state are all developmental problems leftover from childhood. Jackson had stated that he had never had a childhood (due to the demands of his family music group), that he was sometimes beaten by his father, that he was bullied by other youths in the family's early performing days, and that he was periodically ridiculed in the media in adulthood. Additionally, he was known to be a regular subscription drug user, was twice accused of child molestation due to his habit of keeping children over at his Neverland Ranch, altered his appearance to that of a Peter Pan-like identity, and was fearful of dying from a sudden heart attack like Elvis Presley (the "king of rock-n-roll"). So while Jackson was physically healthy and able to function in society as a performer, his psyche was strongly twisted as a result of a painful upbringing.

Secondly, Jackson did not just die within a home environment, he also died within a particular social environment. That social environment was not a Third World society, nor an industrialising society - but a First World, post-industrial society. Such a society has particular traits - one being that it tries to provide a "chemical solution" for many problems: industrial processes, cleaning necessities, germ killing, food preserving, toiletries, etcetera. And in terms of health care it tends to be an over-medicalised society - where there are prescription medications to tackle almost every health and behavioural problem. So whenever people suffer from personal problems in this society, they invariably reach for some type of "chemical solution": cigarettes, alcohol, vapour sniffing, street drugs - or prescription drugs. The voices of people and organisations promoting other treatments are comparitively weak - because of the ineffectiveness of such treatments. So, in effect, the message that our society tells us is to take chemicals to feel better. Conversely, there is little information about the prevalence and dangers of prepsychoemotional pain from upbringing and how it can be resolved.

So what would be the summation to this event in such a new type of court? Jackson's history of accumulated pain led him to form a co-dependent relationship with Murray: so that Jackson could act out his tendency towards hypochondria; while Murray could act out his tendency towards overdoctoring (of which there is a family history - his father also got into trouble in relation to administering medications). So Jackson had some role to play in his own death, because by using his influence to obtain propofol as a medication - and a compliant medical professional to administer it - he repeatedly put himself in a potential death situation should something go wrong. And Conrad Murray also played a role, by not properly monitoring his patient, and by being ill-prepared to deal with a propofol-based emergency. (There were numerous doctors, nurses, and pharmicists before Murray - some of whom gave Jackson propofol - who would have been thankful that Jackson did not die while under their care.) Additionally, Jackson's death was partly due to enduring the pain-laden edge of life characteristic of a modern, post-industrial society. In this type of society unresolved childhood developmental problems are rutinely left unresolved, to be carried on into adulthood. This leads to numerous personality and behavioural quirks, niggling health problems, and unreasonable fears - just like those that Jackson suffered from.

We can know that society is partly to blame for this incident, because Jackson was not alone in the way that he died. Just the year before, Heath Ledger also died of an accidental prescription drug overdose while treating insomnia. And some of the drugs he used were the same as those that Jackson used. Investigators back then also tried to pin the blame on a single "target", but were unable to do so. Society obviously did not learn of the dangers of over-medicating oneself from Ledger's death. And society also did not learn from the death of Anna Nicole Smith - just a year before Ledger's demise - again, from an accidental overdose of prescription medications to treat sleepng problems (again, involving some of the same drugs). And there have been other famous people who have also died by over-medicating themselves with various chemicals: Amy Winehouse (accidental alcohol poisoning), Paula Yates (accidental heroine overdose), Jimi Hendrix (choked on vomit from alcohol and/or prescription drug overdose), Janice Joplin (accidental heroine overdose), John Bonham (choked on vomit from alcohol binge), Keith Moon (accidental alcohol-withdrawal medication overdose), and John Balushi (accidental cocaine and heroine overdose) to name a few. There are undoubtedly some everyday citizens who die in similar circumstances. Chemicals can provide an escape - or temporary releif - from suffering, but too much of them - or chemicals that are inappropriate to the presenting symptoms - can kill us.

So, a conventional legal system tends to heap blame for tragedies on a single target, and only occasionally makes recommendations for social change to prevent similar circumstances occuring to others in the future (such as when a tragedy involves a large number of people). After Jackson's death, for example, the court made no recommendations for social change in treating the types of problems Jackson faced. Also, at the time of Jackson's death, President Barack Obama stated that it was a tragedy, and that he still had Jackson's songs on his iphone. Yet, even after the court case, he and the government asked no questions about why a healthy person should die prematurely in an advanced society; no questions as to why medical doctors inappropriately treat psychological symptoms; and no questions as to why a society should base many of its treatments for health and behavioural problems on chemicals. And, so, the Establishment have made no changes to improve society in this regard. This will ensure that some of the creative people of the future - as well as some everyday troubled citizens - will continue to die from over-medicating themselves. In contrast, a legal system cognizant of the laws of pain would be better able to apportion blame in tragic events - as described above - as well as provide finer-grained recommendations for social change so that such events would be less likely to occur in the future. In this case, the court could recommend that sufferers of transient sleeping (and other health problems) should seek pharmaceutical chemicals for temporary relief only; while sufferers of persistent insomnia (and other health problems) should seek laws of pain-based treatment because its ability to rewire the brain is what is needed for perminent healing.


References:

http://wikipedia.org

Michael Jackson and the Doctor: A Deadly Friendship, video, Channel 9, 10 November 2011.