Break out the maternity frocks
The Labour Party has found a fresh way to be progressive, by telling us that pregnant women are extremely fragile bundles of jangled nerves and prone to emotional outbursts.
The men in the house must tiptoe around them and take great care not to upset them.
As Justyne Caruana fought, yelled and barracked her way around parliament and our television sets over the last few days, looking and sounding anything but delicate, her boss thought it would be an excellent idea to inform the nation that, poor thing, she is in the early stages of pregnancy and Tonio Borg and the nasty beasts on the government benches were simply horrid to upset her. They picked on her, he said, because she is the “weakest link”. Ahem.
What was he intimating, exactly – that they might have caused her to suffer a miscarriage by putting her through this unbelievably traumatic experience?
If not that, then what – ‘don’t be mean to Justyne because she’s pregnant’? Muscat has clearly been conditioned by his wife’s own risky experience of pregnancy, which she talked about in an interview, to regard pregnancy as something that is intrinsically difficult and that pregnant women have to be cared for like sick ones.
But pregnancy is not a disease or an illness. If Mrs Caruana is fit enough to sit in parliament until 2am debating and then voting, after which she somehow had to find her way across the channel to her home in Gozo or spend the night alone or with friends in Malta, and if she is fit enough to spend the following days giving press statements, attending press conferences and haranguing others on television shows, then she is fit enough to handle criticism. Indeed, she has shown us already that she is more than fit enough: that woman has a real pair of lungs on her.
Playing the pregnancy card is just so backward. ‘Miskina, the little woman is pregnant and delicate. Bring out the smelling-salts’. Justyne Caruana, whether pregnant or not, is one of the least delicate women I have yet to come across. And I don’t mean that as criticism.
I can’t stand women who play the ‘delicate little woman’ card when it suits them, especially not when you know they are as tough as steel and as hard as nails, and only claim to be ‘weak’ and ‘little’ when it suits them. Interestingly enough, they only play that particular card with men and never with women, because with other women it just doesn’t wash. We’re onto their game.
The sight of Mrs Caruana the other day, wearing a tight top in the vain hope that the littlest bump would show and now people would know it’s not too many chicken nuggets, and standing with her hands pressed into her back like somebody walking around the hospital labour ward, was just too much.
It’s not only Joseph Muscat who really needs to grow up. What next, for heaven’s sake – one of those old-fashioned maternity smocks with a bow tied beneath the chin?
CHILDREN ON ANTI-DEPRESSANTS
The report on the family court, released by parliament’s social affairs committee, includes the depressing news that many Maltese children are on antidepressants as a result of their parents’ disruptive behaviour in the wake of marital breakdown.
Those who wrote the report seem to have accepted as a normal state of affairs the prescribing of antidepressants to children. They came across as shocked that the behaviour of parents is driving their children to this extent of depression, but then they took as a natural consequence of this the fact that those children are now on antidepressants.
It’s true that Malta is a pill-popping culture where the solution to everything seems to come in little bottles or blister-packs. But children on antidepressants? How normal is this, and more to the point, how sensible?
So a child is depressed because his world as he knows it has been shattered. The solution is to repair that world as best possible and bring about some form of peace and security.
But because his world cannot or will not be repaired, we treat the symptoms of depression by putting him on addictive pills rather than solving the depression itself by going to the source.
There is something intrinsically sick about stuffing children with anti-depressants – and yes, I mean really sick. Anti-depressants are a bad idea generally, even with adults. They mask the problem rather than solving it, and over and above that they create more problems in themselves – problems of dependency, of addiction, of withdrawal symptoms.
Besides, my observation is often that we drug people to make them easier to cope with, not for their own benefit. We tell ourselves that it’s for their benefit when clearly it isn’t. It’s just easier to drug them then to expend the time and effort on eradicating the cause of their depression.
People rarely get depressed for no reason; there’s always something at the root of it, however well hidden, and that something will stay there, pills or no pills, until it is hunted down, rooted out, admitted to and confronted.
In adults, the root cause is often difficult to find because it’s been so deeply buried. But with children in these situations, the reason for their depression is obvious.
What does feeding them pills solve? It certainly doesn’t eradicate the reasons for their upset. What parents are doing in these situations, with the collusion of unscrupulous doctors, is drugging their children – yes, drugging them, in the same way that bored and unhappy housewives used to be drugged with diazepam in the 1960s and 1970s – to manage the problem so that it doesn’t have to be dealt with.
That’s horrific. Parents in these situations know exactly what they should do, and it’s not taking their children to the doctor to get them an anti-anxiety pill prescription so that they have another stick with which to beat their estranged spouse.
They should get a grip on themselves, and if they can’t, maybe there are a couple of doctors who should do it for them.
It is ironic, isn’t it, that while so many parents are forced to battle their children’s addiction to mood-altering illegal drugs, other parents are actually giving their children a dependency to mood-altering legal ones.
This article was published in The Malta Independent last Thursday.
37 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Child depression? It’s all about bad parenting.
“The solution is to repair that world as best possible and bring about some form of peace and security.”
Kieku l-ideali hekk hu, li nregghulhom lura d-dinja li kellhom qabel tkissret permezz ta tibdil ghall-aghar minnhabba separazzjoni, imma kif nafu, dan mhux dejjem possibbli.
Jekk ghandhomx jinghataw pilloli kontra d-dipressjoni, mhux se nghidu jien, imma nhallieh f’idejn min jifhem. izda li nista nghid hu li meta snin ilu kont ghaddej minn depression wara separazzjoni, allahares ma kienux il-pilloli li taghni Dr Anton Grech, ghax ma nafx kif kont nispicca, izda l-pilloli wehidhom mhux se jfejquk, imma trid tiggieled mieghek innifsek u ma tibqax tittama fi hwejjeg li ma jistghux isehhu, ghax dan ikun l-ikbar ghadu ghal-fejqan tieghek.
U l-istess ghat-tfal – jekk nibqghu nittamawhom li s-sittwazzjoni taghhom qatt tista terga lura ghal li kienet, inkunu qed nidhku bihom, u nbiedulhom il-fejqan, u jekk il-professjonist jidhirlu li ghal xi zmien it-tifel ghandu jinghata xi pirmli, ghandu johodhom ghax is-sustanza taghhom tkun mehtiega ghal-gisem, adult jew zghir, peress li sustanzi naturali bhas-Seratonil li jighnuna nikkoppjaw ma l-istess tal-hajja ma jkunux qed ilahhqu ma l-istress il-gdid.
Issa jekk tabib jaghti pilloli lil xi hadd li m’ghandux bzonnhom, ikun qed jizbalja, indipendentament jekk ix-xi hadd ikunx tifel jew adult, u ma jistax jissejjah tabib ghall dik il-haga ghax tmur kontra l-mistier tieghu, bl-istess mod li wiehed li hu zbaljat fil-logika, m’ghandniex nifhmu li hu filosofu f’dak li hu zbaljat.
Dr Anton Grech l-Ghawdxi bil-clinic l-Imsida? Ahem…..
The price for the selfishness of parents is paid by their children.
I think the weakest link is Joseph himself cause he never gets it right.
“People rarely get depressed for no reason; there’s always something at the root of it, however well hidden, and that something will stay there, pills or no pills, until it is hunted down, rooted out, admitted to and confronted.”
Dangerous argument to be making on such a well-followed blog. Most forms of depression in adults are genetic and related to chemical imbalances in the brain which lead to a malfunction of the neurotransmitters.
A very common reaction to depression is the reluctance to treat it in any way: “Nothing can help me and I don’t want to become dependant on these pills…”
I’m afraid that reinforcing such arguments on your blog doesn’t help.
[Daphne – Most forms of depression in adults are NOT genetic. They are caused by the stresses and strains of life, by disappointment, by facing the fact that this is your life and it hasn’t been a rehearsal, by relationship difficulties, and the rest of the package that comes with being grown-up. Some people are equipped to handle it, but others are not. To my mind, the argument that it is caused most times by genes is just an excuse to make the person feel better about himself and is a bit of a brush-off of responsibility. It’s like the current attempts being made to claim that there is a gene which makes people alcoholics. Oh, so that’s OK then; it’s not their fault.]
And yet, you espouse the notion of genetics for homosexuals.
Don’t you think you are contradicting yourself, particularly since there is a school of thought which views sexuality as a developmental process, from interest in one’s self, to interest in the same, to interest in the Other, and therefore homosexuality would be a stalled development.
[Daphne – What do depression and alcoholism have in common with homosexuality? Nothing. I can’t understand your comparison.]
Homosexuality (like alcoholism) is an addiction to a particular type of sex with a particular type of sex partner. There is the addictive element which is probably related to taking pleasure from sex.
Environment must have then turn on the “having sex with members of the same sex” pleasure mechanism.
[Daphne – Sigh. No, it isn’t. No more than heterosexuality is a form of addiction to sex between men and women. You’re confusing sexuality with having sex. And the latter is a natural compulsion, not an addiction, anyway.]
If we accept Darwinian evolutionary theory as an explanation of the relationship between the anatomical form and the purpose it serves, how can one explain homosexuality as being genetically inherited?
From an evolutionary point of view, homosexuality is a deadend. If all humans were homosexual, humanity would end. This would defy the survival of the species.
Homosexuality seems to be the evolutionary mechanism of sexual pleasure (which evolved to ensure reproduction and care of the offspring with the same sexual partner) gone wrong.
What would you think of all this?
[Daphne – I cannot disagree more. If you are going to explain everything in evolutionary terms, then what exactly is the evolutionary purpose of ugliness? That homosexuality is genetic may not be evident in societies where homosexuals don’t marry and have children, and where families are scattered, but it sure as hell is obvious in Malta.]
Ugliness has nothing to do with the relationship between anatomical form and purpose. The relationship can be exemplified with the elbow: the elbow has the form it has because that form is the evolutionary best to allow the purpose of the elbow, i.e., its movement. Whether an elbow is beautiful or ugly will not in any way affect the relationship between form and function.
Doesn’t it follow, therefore, that homosexuality (expressed between males in sodomization) is not conducive to reproduction, and is therefore not efficient in evolutionary terms, and is therefore the result not of genetic transmission but defective upbringing with its attendant psychological side-effects? In other words, it’s a question of nurture rather than nature?
[Daphne – I cannot believe there are still people who reason like this. The beauty of being human is that, unlike beasts of the field, most of the things we do do not have, or have to have, an evolutionary purpose. That is, indeed, which distinguishes us from those beasts of the field.]
Regarding children in separated families: I read about a study that seems to indicate that the real problem is not separations, divorce and multiple families but how well the separated parents manage the new situation. Parents that remain antagonists end up destroying their children, and that will happen even if the parents stay married for society’s sake.
@ Overestimated Shakespeare…
Evolution is not purpose driven. It’s just a simple filter on generations of living organisms. Gene transfer seems to be more complicated than I understood it at O-level a long time ago.
The fact that you cannot seem to find any ‘natural purpose’ for homosexuality doesn’t mean that it’s not there. A case in point would be offspring from a single pair of parents with a wide spectrum of risk-taking characteristics. I’m sure you agree that nature has ‘found a way’ of keeping these traits going from generation to generation as there isn’t a unique character trait that works in all environments all the time.
Evolutionary psychologists seem to find purpose in depression for example: depressed people tend to be more realistic in their views. It doesn’t mean though that depression is only triggered genetically. It could be triggered by certain chemicals or lesions in the brain. Depression could be a valid coping mechanism.
Could be that if you’re going through a particularly difficult time, the brain chemistry alters and even the structures themselves. Science still has a lot to learn about the brain (though it’s getting better with fMRI) and I know nothing.
The problem is that people ignore the warning signs and do not change their lifestyle to accommodate this for various reasons, including the rat race for money, status etc.
There are “defective” genes such as the thalassaemia genes, cystic fibrosis, hyperlipidaemia (excess fats in the blood) gene, etc that have not only kept their presence in the population but have in fact increased their incidence.
It has been shown that these genes give an evolutionary advantage. The common factor amongst them is the fact that they are recessive genes – thus whilst they confer an advantage to the “healthy” carrier, in those cases where the person inherits two abnormal genes, the condition was invariably fatal.
A similar picture can thus be extrapolated for the complex genetic disorders e.g. hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, depression, schizophrenia etc. Some altered genes on their own could offer some advantages but when a number of these are found in the same individual, then this individual is a walking time-bomb. A single trigger factor and the combination of genes goes to work.
This is the mechanism for all the complex disorders. The question of homosexuality is still not clear though most probably some genetic factor is at work.
Darwin would not agree with you. Darwin reports that many of our emotions and behaviours can be found in other animals but to lesser degrees.
[Daphne – Yes, including homosexuality, or didn’t you know that?]
Actually, much of modern science (in this field, of course) is based on the idea that we are only higher primates – not a species distinct from the genus of apes and monkeys.
What behaviour would you quote as an example of your assertion that “the beauty of being human is that, unlike beasts of the field, most of the things we do do not have, or have to have, an evolutionary purpose”?
[Daphne – Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood performed at Wembley Arena earlier tonight. No evolutionary purpose there. I was in the audience, overcome with emotion. No evolutionary purpose there, either. The audience went wild when Winwood sang an old Traffic song, Dear Mr Fantasy, for his encore – even though there was no evolutionary purpose in writing that song, in singing it, or in listening to it, and when many in the audience hadn’t even been born when it was first released. Now I’m sitting here replying to comments on this blog. No evolutionary purpose there that I can think of.]
@Joseph A Borg
Evolution is a term used to describe a process whereby creatures survive who have the characteristics needed to cope with the stresses and strains of a given environment.
There is therefore – according to this theory – an intimate relationship between the make-up of the creature and the purpose of that make-up.
Also, according to this theory, creatures are continuously changing – evolving – to cope better with changing environments, i.e. with new stresses and strains.
Evolution depends on reproduction: it is in the copying of genetic material that changes take place. If sex does not lead to reproduction, the species disappears. Not because evolution would not take place, but because, even more fundamentally, there would be no new (evolved) individuals which might carry on the species.
@ Daphne
1. The emotion you felt at the concert – lucky you for being there! – is the emotion of communality. It is an evolutionary device to make human beings (are other animals) feel part of a larger group, and that sense of belonging (of feeling one-ness) can lead to a greater probability of survival for the individual, given that humans are gregarious beings, and they stand to gain from group activities.
2. Indeed there is homosexual behaviour among other animals – but their community make-up is different from human society.
We should not mix sexual gratification with reproduction.
One can obtain sexual gratification by copulating without necessarily reproducing.
Reproduction depends on sexual gratification, but the contrary is the not the case. Sexual gratification does not depend on reproduction.
Sexual gratification is an evolutionary device (or so evolutionary science tells us) to ensure reproduction of the species, and a mechanism to cement the bond between the parents while the offspring is still young.
Sexual gratification by itself does not make evolutionary sense. Why should two humans spend all that energy (in courtship, copulation, maintaining the relationship, warding off mate poachers and other competitors) for mere gratification?
Let me give you an analogy: eating.
We all feel pleasure when we are hungry and we eat. The pain from hunger and the gratification from eating are not ends in themselves. They are meant to ensure that we eat, otherwise we die (as individuals). The pain generated by hunger induces humans to engage in hunting, or gathering of fruits, or farming – but it involves waste of energy and exposure to dangers.
Yet, it is necessary to engage in such acitivities to survive (intake of food = energy). The gratification one feels upon eating is a confirmation that the needs of the body have been satisfied. Therefore, the pain and the gratification are evolutionary devices meant to ensure the survival of the individual.
Similarly, the gratification from sex is not an end in itself (like in homosexual copulation), but is meant to ensure that we reproduce, otherwise we die (as a species).
[Daphne – Shoot all women past the age of 40 then (risk of disabled children followed by inability to have children at all) and free all men with wives over 40 to find teenagers with whom they can reproduce. What is the evolutionary purpose of a monogamous relationship once the woman is past childbearing years and once the children have been raised? You can’t attribute an evolutionary purpose to everything.]
Like binge-eating, like alcoholism, and like all other stress-releasing activities, homosexuality is mere gratification, without any real useful purpose (apart from the instantaneous and short-lived relief from stress).
[Daphne – We are never going to agree on this one. If to your mind the purpose of a sexual/loving relationship between two people is purely reproductive, there is no hope for older people or for the infertile, is there? And how do you square increased infertility among couples who start trying to have children late – anything over the age of 30 is late – a situation which is now predominant in Western society, with the failure of ‘evolution’ to catch up with the social reality that having babies at 20 is no longer desirable or sensible?]
The stress is probably due to the presence of external factors during childhood and unresolved conflicts with the father and a continued sense of loyalty toward the mother.
[Daphne – Oh, what rubbish, honestly. What came first, the chicken or the egg? People notice that homosexual men tend to be very attached to their mothers, and work out that this is what made them homosexual. The reverse doesn’t occur to them: that the reason some – definitely not all – homosexual men are very close to their mothers is BECAUSE they are homosexual, and homosexual men tend to get along better with women than straight men do (one of the ironies of your ‘evolution’).]
(That basically covers the input of Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud to the world. Their followers updated their ideas, but the basic framework is still the same.)
Actually, Daphne, as usual your observations are very acute. Which is why this blog is so enjoyable!
Despite their acuteness, however, I must disagree. Evolutionary biologists argue – let us not forget that these are all theories – that the infertility in older women is aimed at increasing the investment in the children they would have already borne.
When compared to other primates, the size of a human baby is very large in proportion to its mother’s body, e.g. baby gorillas are much smaller than human babies, even though adult gorillas are heavier than adult humans.
The large size of the human baby poses veritable hazards to the survival of the mother during parturition
Evolutionary biologists, therefore, argue that it is more in the interests of the species if a woman stops being fertile in order to raise the children she has delivered with such danger to her own life, instead of keeping on giving birth to more children with the risk of dying and leaving those already born orphans.
[Daphne – Ah, but here’s the thing: the great mystery (and the one which turns your theory upside down) is that it’s women who have never given birth who have trouble conceiving after the age of 30-35. Women who have had children already in their 20s just seem to go on conceiving right through their 30s, and would have a child a year between the age of 20 and 44 if matters were left to their own devices.]
Modern-day infertility at a young age is being attributed to pollution. e.g., it has been found that Danish men have a lower sperm count due to environmental contamination from heavy industry.
With regard to infertile couples, of course you are right. They get gratification from companionship and sexual activity. One might add that they might even have an evolutionary role by adopting orphans.
[Daphne – The reproductive/evolutionary drive is to ensure the survival of ONE’S OWN genes and not those of somebody else or the survival of the human race in general.]
With regard to homosexual men’s relationship with their mothers, I admit you might have a point. Homosexual men could really feel close to their mothers because of their sexuality and not the other way round.
Nevertheless – and I will not add anything more, as this is not exactly my field – it would seem that the theory (these are ALL theories) on the relationship with the mother would stem from observation.
Lastly, however, I would add that it still does not make evolutionary sense to have homosexuals. It is a sheer waste of energy, and it would seem that Life is based on continuous energy saving.
[Daphne – I can think of many people who are an evolutionary waste of time and space and this assessment is not made on their sexuality.]
I repeat, however, that these are all theories. I have still to see someone bringing hard and fast evidence in support of all this.
As all theories, they ultimately boil down to “faith”. So much so, that in the 19th century, evolution was referred to as a Doctrine. The similarity in language with another field of human inquiry is uncanny, isn’t it?
@ Daphne
Also, with reference to this comment: “And how do you square increased infertility among couples who start trying to have children late – anything over the age of 30 is late – a situation which is now predominant in Western society, with the failure of ‘evolution’ to catch up with the social reality that having babies at 20 is no longer desirable or sensible?”
Actually, one of the main concerns of environmentalists/ecologists is that changes to the environment brought about by human activity are taking place at such a fast rate that living beings are not being given enough time to evolve and cope with the new changes.
For instance, global warming could bring about a rise of 2-5 degrees Celsius in the temperature of the oceans. This could mean that certain species – among which reef coral – would be wiped out, because they cannot evolve fast enough to cope with the new, higher temperature.
So, yes, you are right in observing that evolution cannot catch up with frantic human “development”, but wrong in the conclusion you draw from the observation.
Daphne, I have to disagree with you on this one. Though the clinical and scientific classification of depression has become quite complicated (6-7 discrete types), the old definition of depression should be useful for this discussion.
In my student days depression used to be classified as either endogenous or exogenous. The exogenous depression is today referred to as reactive depression.
The most common form of “real” depression is in fact the endogenous type. Unfortunately, in Malta, the “diagnosis” of depression is made quite haphazardly and in many cases where “reactive depression” is diagnosed and inappropriately treated, the person is actually suffering from anxiety.
My surprise with some of my colleagues is the fact that though there are useful tools, in the form of questionnaires and observation criteria, these are hardly ever used to distinguish whether someone has a real reactive depression or is just anxious. Thus, though I do not have any scientific data to back me, 50% of the Maltese that are diagnosed with depression are in fact just passing through a rough patch.
Treating these only with drugs would in fact make things worse as we would be tampering with the chemicals in our brain. Out of the rest, there is a minor percentage that has in fact a reactive depression – and these again might require a type of treatment but also a good dose of psychotherapy.
The rest – up to 10% of the population – have in fact a type of endogenous depression with the most common being “major depression” and manic-depression or bi-polar disorder in second place. In this case the problem lies in the brain’s chemicals – basically an interplay between serotonin, adrenaline and cortisol – an imbalance between these chemicals can produce a change from “some anxiety” that should see the person trying to reach a goal (required and good) to severe anxiety and finally depression.
This type of depression is not very dissimilar to heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and cancer. There is an environmental component (internal/external) and a genetic component. It is this type of depression that requires prolonged and effective drug treatment. The emphasis here is on the word “effective” – again something that requires the health professional to be up to date with the most recent research and literature.
May I just emphasise that in those that are really suffering from endogenous depression, stopping their medication can have very serious consequences including suicide.
There are genes that can increase one’s tendency for addiction – and as most research (including some excellent research projects being conducted at the University of Malta) is indicating that different addictions are working at the same centre in the brain – basically the pleasure centre – so the same pathways are being activated whether one is addicted to tobacco, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, chocolate, work or sex. Thus, I would not be surprised that the same genes would be involved in all the types of addiction and it is the environment that would then modify to what one would be addicted to.
Usually genes determine propensity – that is, in this case: how prone are you to becoming depressed? Genetics per se do not determine whether a person is depressed or fulfilled – that comes with perception and perception is highly determined by conditioning.
On the balance of personality and conditioning (nature vs nurture), I usually give more weight to personality (genes) as a determinant of one’s life course. But in some areas of behaviourism, nurture, rather than nature, is the main determinant.
Depression is a case in point. Many ‘depressed’ people are only so because of their own perception of life – unfulfilled ambitions and dreams, for example, could result in depression later in life.
Even stress and worry levels are determined by one’s own perception – although, again, personality traits also determine that perception.
As for alcoholism, one may become a regular drinker by reason of both conditioning and personality, but whether one becomes, clinically, an alcoholic or not depends entirely on genes, not regularity or quantities.
You’re one to talk about depression, kev, with your giant inflated ego and cocksure attitude.
Does the report in question actually say that many Maltese children are on antidepressants ?
In actual fact very few Maltese children are on antidepressants. Prescribing these drugs to children is a major decision which the vast majority of medical practioners, I am sure, take very seriously.
Daphne you maintain that “people rarely get depressed for no reason”. If only this were true ! In Maltese “minn fommok ‘l Alla”.
People like Winston Churchill, his daughter Diana and that master of journalism Indro Montanelli come to mind.
Il male oscuro is one of the great scourges that afflict the human race.
Daphne it is pretty obvious that you do not suffer from endogenous depression, you never have and you probably never will. I am pleased for you. Good luck!
[Daphne – How does anyone know what happened in those people’s childhood, which they might never have talked about because they thought it was normal? And I’m not talking about sexual abuse – even being sent away to school at seven years old when unable to cope but expected to do so could have been a cause. But because being sent away at seven was normal practice, it wouldn’t have been seen as a cause of distress in later life. I think there is always a cause – indeed, I have noticed there is – and the reason that you get several depressives in the same family is because neurosis engenders neurosis. Dealing with a depressive can bring it on.]
If I was reading the right report, there is only one sentence that refers to drug treatment in children – and in the Maltese version – the one that I could download from the government site, in which the word “kalmanti” is used. If taken literally, these are no antidepressants but anxiolytics – so treating anxiety.
Another problem is whilst the report mentions some cases there are (or at least I could not find them) no figures or real statistics.
Labour MPs took an oath that they heard Justyne say yes.
On what did Alfred Sant and Evarist Bartolo take the oath?
Solemn declaration. On their honour, in other words.
And apparently, there was such a racket going on at the time of the voting that, unless they have all been supplied with bionic ears, it is next to impossible for the whole PL parliamentary group to have really and truly heard her vote. So much for the veracity of the oath taken by the group.
Conflating citizenship with religion is so dangerous.
Sigh!
Joseph is crassness personified so blabbing about Justyne Caruana’s condition is the height of politeness for him and his ilk.
______
As for your piece about depression, while not in any way denigrating what you wrote about children on medication, some people, nevertheless are more prone to have it more than others regardless of situations in life.
Of course, it is exacerbated when such people meet with some calamity at some juncture in their lives. How does one explain the ‘phenomenon’ of some people who have a good life but suffer from depression while others, whose lives are anything but, are capable of surmounting or coping with whatever life throws at them? Besides the ‘inbuilt’ inclination to suffer bouts of depression, some do not have the necessary coping mechanisms to deal with it.
When it comes to children, it is usually both…for being so young they still have to create structures of coping mechanisms, both internal and external. The tragedy remains however, if these children do not have the necessary network of support from their family and must rely on professionals, who no matter how caring they are, they are still not family.
Daphne, like you, I used to take the slightly supercilious attitude to depression that you also take. I too thought that when there is something seriously wrong it must be faced and dealt with and that depressives didn’t want to do this.
[Daphne – I do NOT have a slightly supercilious attitude towards depression, but a factual one. I am not saying that people bring it on themselves and that they should pull themselves together, because I know they can’t. I am saying something else entirely: that encouraging sufferers to believe that it is congenital merely engenders a victim mentality and an it’s-in-my-genes-so-what-can-I-do attitude. But from what I’ve seen of depression in others, there is always a cause and it isn’t genes. Unless there is a dramatic and obvious trigger for it, like traumatic grief, depression is invariably the result of people feeling trapped and helpless in a life they don’t want to lead, or feeling forced to be somebody they don’t want to be. They may be unable to admit this even to themselves. The depression seems to lift miraculously as soon as they are given permission (or as soon as they give themselves permission) to be themselves or stop doing what they don’t want to do in the kind of life they don’t want to live. People who live the lives they want to live never seem to get depressed.]
I know now – having been through depression myself – that it’s not a question of not wanting to do this, but not being capable of doing this. In true depression the brain chemistry goes completely out of sync. Your brain is incapable of creating a positive idea, let alone carrying it out.
The causes, at this stage, are of secondary importance. Unless the brain chemistry is given some semblance of normality, the sufferer is incapable of breaking out of the prison he’s in. Your remark ‘Anti-depressants are a bad idea generally, even with adults. They mask the problem rather than solving it, and over and above that they create more problems in themselves – problems of dependency, of addiction, of withdrawal symptoms.’ is simplistic. It may be true in some cases but certainly not in all.
Overcoming depression is a long and extremely hard journey which I wouldn’t wish on anyone. You start that journey in a such an all-conquering state of paralysis that you cannot even SEE beyond the paralysis. In such circumstances anti-depressants are beneficial and necessary. They allow you to see the road ahead for what it is. I agree that they cannot be regarded as a final solution, but as a first step, to loosen the paralysis, yes, Prozac is necessary.
Further progress, in my experience, depends largely on the help and support of others. This is a strange thing in that one doesn’t always find it where one expects it. Indeed, sometimes those on whom you counted most for support will kick you in the teeth and that is a terrible thing. On the other hand the corollary to this is that one can sometimes find support in the most unexpected of places and that is a great thing.
Don’t be so dismissive about depressives, real depressives I mean. They need help and support.
I couldn’t agree more with what you wrote.
We have to understand that we are in fact just complicated chemical machines that when compared with man-made machines have extraordinary self-healing capabilities. But these self-healing capabilities are not 100% foolproof and things can go wrong – usually one just requires a slight imbalance in the production of a chemical to have a complete change in character, outlook or health.
So, whilst taking medications that one does not need can result in a chemical imbalance, taking these medications when needed should result in an improvement.
The problem is one of proper diagnosis and lack of adequate patient time. So rather than push for less use of medication, I would push for a better diagnosis.
“So, whilst taking medications that one does not need can result in a chemical imbalance, taking these medications when needed should result in an improvement.”
Yes, when depression is the result of chemical imbalance. When it’s the result of circumstance, there’s fuck all that medication can achieve, apart from being a drain on one’s purse.
At the end of a course of medication, prescribed by some twit in a fancy room, you’ll realise you could have spent that money on outfitting yourself and hiring a couple of Sherpas to stand atop Everest. Lots of fun, depression cured, instant fame guaranteed.
Calling anti-depressants, or any medication for that matter, a bad idea in such a widely read and influential blog is unwise as readers may decide to stop such medication without professional help. this can be very harmful and may even end up in suicidal thoughts and actions.
Just like love of money is the root of all evil and not the money itself, it is the misuse of such important medication, or any substance actually, which is bad and should be strongly discouraged and not it use when properly prescribed and monitored.
I agree wholeheartedly that medications are seriously overused in Malta, sometimes with the collaboration of doctors and pharmacists who are regularly pressurised by very insistent patients or relatives. However, if there is true depression, as compared to unhappiness however severe, this results in a deteriorating imbalance of brain chemistry which is not likely correct itself by just eliminating the cause. Unfortunately excessive delay in correcting this imbalance may result in permanent brain changes.
I ask you not to condemn the use of such medication but to encourage your readership who are patients or their relatives that they are open with their health professional and ask questions if unsure of anything. Do encourage them to ask for a second/specialist opinion especially for such important illnesses which may have such an impact on present and future quality of life.
There are many forms of depression; some that benefit from therapy and some that do not. Telling someone who is depressed to ‘snap out of it’ is insensitive and unfair.
Being diagnosed with clinical depression was a relief. I wasn’t crazy or out of my mind when I suffered an episode. My psychiatrist did not come to the decision to start medication lightly. There was a period of therapy first before he suggested I try medication.
I also have it on good authority that anti-depressants are not addictive (in the physical ‘craving’ sense) because they take so long to work. Addiction works on the basis of immediate gratification. Anti-depressants take at least 3 weeks to begin to work.
Of course, being dependent on them is perfectly possible as well (‘I can’t function without them!’). One must also keep in mind that most sufferers do not need medication all their lives. There are periods when they are not necessary and periods when they are and a responsible adult will take them as needed.
While I usually enjoy reading your articles, this one made me rather uncomfortable. The idea that depression equals weakness or an inability to deal with situations like everyone else is the reason why many people who need help don’t seek it. [‘Mela! Biex jaħsbuni miġnun!’]. Perpetuating this myth is damaging and misinformed.
[Daphne – Rachel, I am not quarrelling about the need to get treatment when one is depressed. But I am gravely at odds with the contemporary view that all forms of prolonged unhappiness are depression and qualify for medical treatment. It is as though we have lost sight of the fact that unhappiness is a normal part of the human condition. It comes and it goes and sometimes it stays. But it isn’t depression, which is something else entirely as you and others have pointed out.
Those who are reluctant to seek help are probably those who don’t need it. If they can reason with themselves that they are not keen on being thought unstable, then they are probably just unhappy or anxious. The truly depressed are incapable of any such rationalisation. They are beyond caring whether anyone thinks them mad or what anyone thinks of them at all. They refuse to get out of bed, get dressed, eat, wash themselves, brush their hair, leave the house. And they certainly can’t think straight.
I wouldn’t sniff at the reluctance of unhappy people to seek therapy or to say they are receiving it. They are right in perceiving that it would change others’ view of them, and this perception shows that their mind is working rather more normally than they believe. Another contemporary fallacy is to equate mental illness with physical illness. But the two are entirely different, and the difference is the reason why people are uncomfortable relying on those – for work or whatever – who have mental illness even if it is only depression. Physical illness does not make people unpredictable, but mental illness certainly does. It’s the lack of predictability that makes others uncomfortable around people with mental illness. The less we pretend to ourselves about this, the better. After all, we had a significant illustration of this in parliament some days ago.]
“It is as though we have lost sight of the fact that unhappiness is a normal part of the human condition.”
Saying it like it is…
And I blame big-pharma changing direction from providing essential medicine to creating expensive life-style drugs to fill the vacuum created by Nixon’s War on Drugs. After all, it’s good business.
The best advice I had from a psychiatrist, after I had a terrible accident in 1977 during the doctors’ strike and suffered from post-traumatic depression, was to have a daily walk along the beach. It took some time to heal but I believe that it worked.
I am afraid that the demarcation line is not quite so sharp as that.
Quite a number of ‘physical’ illnesses if uncontrolled can result in unpredictable, at least to a lay person, behaviour or responses while there are also ‘mental’ disorders that do not produce such changes.
Also we do know that there are illnesses which although primarily producing ‘physical’ manifestations do also affect the brain to a greater or lesser extent, especially if not controlled.
I agree with you that the stigma associated with ‘mard tal-mohh’ is much greater than all the others and it’s so unfair as in reality all important illness may result in unexpected behaviour, even if only the taking of much more sick leave than usual or the appearance of bloody-mindedness in a previously reasonable person.
[Daphne – That’s not the sort of unpredictable behaviour I mean. You know the sort I mean, and so do all those others who try to justify an equation between mental and physical illness. People with cancer do not ring their friends to tell them that they have just seen the queen on television and that they know for a fact that they are her daughter, or that the police are coming to get them because they shot John Lennon. They do not turn up at airport check-in desks demanding to be let on the flight to Hong Kong – without a passport or a ticket – so that the airport authorities have to ring family members to collect them. They do not – and this is a case from our own news in recent weeks – deliberately set fire to gunpowder just outside a fireworks workshop, destroying the workshop and almost killing their colleagues, then telling the police that they did it because they were depressed. Those are extreme cases but in between there are many others on a less serious level that nonetheless make people afraid and uncomfortable.]
Dr. Justyne Caruana is the Labour Party spokesperson for the ‘family’ (Kelliem ghal Familja) according to the PL website. In a piece published on the 16th of May on maltastar.com relating to the parliamentary vote in favour or against a motion by the PL on the new power-station contract, Dr. Caruana wrote, ‘as a mother….I voted in favour of the opposition’s motion against this atrocious decision’.
Dr. Caruana, as a mother of a 2 or 3 year old toddler (as seen on TV during political meetings) and as shadow spokesperson for the ‘family’, was in parliament at 1 o’clock in the morning debating, voting and, in general, doing politics. Dr. Caruana is also a lawyer who practises in the Gozo courts from Monday to Friday. She also dons her people’s representative hat in the afternoons and duly and dutifully does her bit in parliament in Malta too.
And beside these commitments, Dr. Caruana advertises, in her personal business cards, her legal office hours and legal office address in Gozo during the week and on Saturdays. In view of all this Dr. Caruana should either be glorified and given full kudos for her super-human multi-tasking capabilities while at the same time doing her maternal duties ‘as a mother’ or else there is something, somewhere which is amiss. As far as I know, the law courts in Gozo, do not have child-caring facilities, nor does our parliament building.
So, while Dr. Caruana is certainly doing her bit of shrilling in the law courts and in parliament, so well and so publicly, could it be that ‘as a mother’ and as shadow speaker for the ‘family’ she has found a new way how to cope with all? Or is it that the bit that is actually amiss in this life-style is the toddler with the absent mother? I wonder what does the ‘shadow speaker for the family’ has to teach Maltese society about motherhood.
[Daphne – Are you prepared to put the same criticism to the countless men in the House who have or have had small children while they were MPs following exactly the same career trajectory as Justyne Caruana? Or is it only women who should stay at home with small children?]
My point is that during the toddler years, at least one parent should be in the continuous presence of his/her child. And this at least until the child starts going to school. And, furthermore, although I might be considered to be old school here, I still believe that once the child returns from school, he/she should find at least one parent waiting for him/her.
[Daphne – Perhaps the child’s father has taken on that role. If not, it is almost certainly the grandparents. In any case, I really think this sort of thing is nobody’s business but that of the couple involved. As for having one parent waiting for the child after school, it makes no difference as my generation has proved. We all had mothers who didn’t work, because almost no mothers did in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, and it didn’t prevent many of my contemporaries from making a mess of their lives or killing themselves with drugs and/or drink.]
I mentioned Dr. Caruana for two reasons: firstly it is because she is the shadow spokesperson for the ‘family’ (whatever this entails then) and secondly because she prides herself in reminding Maltese society every so often of her motherhood (even Dr. Joseph Muscat, leader of the PL, has deemed fit to mention this to the nation).
[Daphne – You miss the point. She’s unsuitable not because she goes out to work and leaves her child in the care of others (thousands do the same). She’s unsuitable because she’s coarse, common and ill-spoken.]
What example does Maltese society have to follow then? A rat race for the material well-being (also known as career) while the off-spring is from dawn till dusk at nanna?
[Daphne – Nothing wrong with nanna. After all, she brought up mummy – or daddy.]
I am a career person and during the first four years of my offspring’s life I shelved my career plans and was out of employment for my child’s sake. Or maybe it was not a good idea after all, and I should have graciously left my child at my parents or at an ultra-modern child caring facility. And since my child is of school-going age, I return home (from work) always at the same time my child does.
This choice goes beyond gender. This arrangement should be done to suit the best of the whole ‘family’ unit. The other adult member of our unit does his/her best to be home as early as possible as well.
I do not know the family arrangement of each and every individual male MP in our parliament. However, if each male MP spends all that time away from the rest of his family, as well as his spouse, to the detriment of the children’s rights to enjoy the presence of (at least) one or both of their parents, then my criticism applies to them as well.
I believe that children deserve, have a right even, and really look forward to enjoy the maximum time possible with their parents.
[Daphne – What makes so many parents think that their children are gagging for their company? I have always found this mysterious. It’s not as though we haven’t all been children ourselves. Did we want our parents under our feet all the time? No. Children just need to know their parents are available, and after the initial blast of conversation when they come home from school or whatever, what they want most is their mother off their backs and to be left in peace with their own projects in their own room or the television or computer. Mothers hanging around kidding themselves they’re providing company after the age of say, seven, are a nuisance. But then I’m speaking only of families in which there are several siblings of roughly the same age. The trend of the last 20 years or so in having one child or two children fairly well spaced out has meant that the child’s primary relationship, which should be with his or her siblings of the same age, is instead focussed on the mother, which is unhealthy for both.]
In your reply to my comment on unpredictable behaviour you mention examples of severely deluded or psychotic individuals which fortunately are few and their condition well known to their community. Unfortunately a few are abandoned by family and friends to their own devices and that is when tragedies happen.
This is the most visible and dramatic tip of the iceberg of mental disorders where the vast majority have symptoms that are much easier to hide from family and friends until the proverbial ‘last straw’ and they do something foolish or worse.
The main point of my intervention is to share my experience supported by current knowledge of the strong interrelation of mind and body where a change in one will invariably alter the function of the other.
Fortunately for the vast majority there is enough medical knowledge to correct the situation and avoid the behavioral changes you have referred to.