Lessons learned from cancer patients...

*disclaimer... I haven't had cancer, I'm just speaking from an outsider looking in. That may mean I am wrong about some stuff. Happy for feedback, and with only the upmost respect that I write this*

I'm young. And like everybody else I am not getting any younger. When I take risks now (like skateboarding fast down a hill) I do so with only the confidence that income protection insurance can provide. I have found myself starting sentences with words like "I remember" and "the first people who did that song...". I am conscious of my sense of aging, and the perceived decline in opportunity as time passes, although I readily acknowledge that this is my perception. I, like many thousands of people around the world work in the health system, often with the most vulnerable people. The cancer world has been my home now for 5 years or so, and in that time I have been afforded some of life's greatest lessons, with thanks to the unfortunate people who are indiscrimatley targeted by the insidiousness of cancer. Some of these people have been very young, some very old, some sad, some anxious and all just trying to manage the best they can. So when I wake thinking about dentists bills, worries about responsibilities, that next birthday I remind myself of this stuff...

Lessons taken from cancer patients (well for me anyway)
- it doesn't matter how much money, property, fame or people you have. it's the relationships we have that matter, not "stuff".
- investing time in joy, not worry, regret or over-thinking seems to be a good way to live.
- everyone has an innate fear of their own mortality, but when the time comes, our brains support us.
- cancer mirrors life. The people I expect not to touch me at all, are the ones who touch me the most, often without warning and with much surprise.
- tomorrow may not be as you think.

The selfishness that I take from the privilege of being engaged with people at the most vulnerable of times is that of sacred time. Before I entered this world I was all about tomorrow, like a parent, I would use the expression "one day" often. Many of the people I meet talk about regrets, wishes and should have dones. I am not talking about recklessness, instead about engagement. Sitting in the sun, going to the drinks you are dreading, contacting old friends and lovers, learning new things and spending time to just be. For me, there has never been a better sentiment than "life is fleeting". Not just because of cancer in our world, but all of the other stuff.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

A leaky boat across the ocean is the same as p+o right?

So today's opinion comes back to government policy, well kind of. Stick with me kids and I will take you there...

So if you don't have an opinion about immigration and boat people in Australia I suspect you have been hiding underneath something. Today's blog isn't about my opinion of how people should immigrate here. It's more about Australias checkered albeit quiet past in relation to immigration and ongoing injustices to those who don't fit the Aussie model.

Ok, so let's revisit history...

First Fleet arrive, aboriginals are killed, raped, exploited and decisions are made re their status as "people" to allow ongoing abuse etc. For those interested, women were also exploited significantly and were exposed to ongoing sexual crimes and violence for several generations on arrival from the motherland.

Somewhere along the line we decide that it's good to dig up a shiny gold like substance and it makes people rich. People rush to places, start digging stuff up and then become resentful angry and generally unpleasant to anyone who wasn't "Aussie", including the Chinese migrants who were too good at making money. Fast forward a couple of yrs and then we decide that migration is ok, but only if you are English (or some other Anglo nation), speak English and look like people who are English, and have an exceptional knowledge of random Australian historical events (no doubt to the exclusion of those details which might discourage people from migrating here).

Then, we decide that we need immigrants again, and increase the numbers, but again only from places which we approve of. Then people start coming by boats again (we don't like that anymore) and we don't like this, so we argue for lots of years, some people die and we make a new policy, send some bogans on a trip, they gain insight, we feel sorry for people for 2 mins and then decide to send them offshore in a "migration solution". Do we need to revisit the last time a leader started talking about "solutions" and sending people away. In fairness, those people went on trains rather than planes, but you see where I am going with this.

My brief (and I am certain not 100% accurate) history isn't meant to be exhaustive, it's Mostly to highlight the ongoing struggle Australia has had with migration and our perceptions of such. The understanding of the plight of those seeking asylum is bare for most people, and I am not for a second claiming to understand it more than others. But, I feel that as a society we do not exhibit empathy or try to understand how people come to end up in Australia. How bad must peoples lives and situations be to even consider making potentially life threatening journeys across the world to protect their children? Would you intentionally put your children in harms way, of course not. Would you sit on the roof of a detention centre and sew your lips together to get attention if you felt you could do so by just talking? This is of course assuming that there are people who speak your language.

So when I hear words like the migration solution coupled with knowledge that the place they are being sent has a less than impressive human rights record, it just makes me a little bit nervous, and always makes me wonder if we have learnt anything at all.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Temporary visit to the unemployment couch...

Ok, due to wisdom teeth removal pain and subsequent days of pain killers, the blog is both on time, but probably something that may not make a whole lot of sense. In saying this, I would just like to remind you that my sparky wit and intelligent repoirte may be downgraded this week, but exists nonetheless.

So today's blog...I was expecting more backlash from my gay marriage views...maybe the l-word and queer as folk have desensitized my populace of readers to the ways the gay folk sometimes feel about convention...but I'm glad i got it out there!

So today, I am having some thoughts about our need to fill in our days and time on earth. For 4 days now, I have been largely out of action. Oscillating between the couch and the bed, drinking chocolate milk and eating yogo (8 yr olds worldwide I am sure would be very excited about this). This is a massive diversion for me. My days of non-working are always filled with loads of stuff (even if at times it's menial) and my days of working are stimulating and at times exhausting. I exercise, talk with people and try and be well read.

I'm not gonna lie. When I was told I would need to take a chunk of time off, I was filled a little bit with excitement and possibility. The decadence of watching endless tv, indulging in comfort food and drugs, and perhaps the best part, no one has any expectation of me right now. Is it enjoyable? Nope, not even a little bit. Apart from pain, I am quite frankly under-stimulated and bored. I have tried to read, but my brain won't pay attention, I have thought of at least 5 business ideas, planned fantasy trips and got angry at stupid people on tv...

I have always been confused by people in my world, and in the world at large who opt (for whatever reason) to not work/study/etc for periods of time. I am all about work/life balance, I only work 4 days a week, and that's my choice. But, the idea of simply having nothing to do confuses me, and psychologically doesn't make much sense to me. Work (or any other purposeful activities) provide us with much more than financial security, it gives us a sense of ownership, purpose, success and human interaction. We have known for a very long time that the links between depression, unemployment and decreases in immune function. None of these things are good obviously, but there are times when people have little choice then to not participate in employment. And like any function of depression, the less someone does, the less we want to do, hence the cycle of unemployment being much harder to break than it would appear from the surface when people say simply "the dole bludgers are...." lazy, worthless etc...

I worked with the long term unemployed for a long time, and it became obvious very quickly even in my quite naive understanding of the world that it is not as simple as putting someone in a job and then all is fixed. The factors contributing to unemployment are numerous and complicated, and range from family expectations, self esteem, transport, low mood, skills, environmental market trends, where u live, what language u speak etc...however, the thing that I know is that even initially people may make the choice to take time out, the longer that this time out lingers, it becomes more exponentially harder to reenter the place from which u came.

I'm not even a little bit comparing my experience this week to being unemployed, but it has reminded me, that this isn't a fun, fruitful or engaging way to live. We have all been in situations like this from time to time, when students etc when noodles were the staple food for years, but there was a sense it would finish at some time and it would get better. I can only imagine what that might be like without being able to see any way out of this, and frankly I don't wish it upon anybody.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Gayness...

Ok, so I know this was meant to be posted last week, but I was incapacitated with dental pain (I can see the face you are giving me!) And in the shadow of the carbon tax debacle, the gay marriage debate is slightly less topical than 2 weeks ago when I proposed this!

Anyway, so a couple of weeks ago there seemed to be a "tipping point" (Malcolm Gladwell is my friend) around the idea of gay marriage with many random surveys re the need to acknowledge gay relationships and the need for Australian society to place the same importance on these relationships as our straight compatriots.

Ok, so in the interest of transparency (for those interested in my views about media and statistical transparency please see earlier posts! I can hear the eager clicking from here!) I feel I need to tell you that I'm not really into marriage. Gay, straight, I don't mind, but I don't think it's the thing for me. That said, I recognize the importance and need for people to be recognized in the relationships that they are in.

So. The big gay debate. Side a) yup, bring it on, I love my partner so I should be able to marry them and have equal rights. Side b) it's unnatural, unchristian and if we let the dykes marry it will singlehandedly bring down the economy and the next thing we will be allowing animals to marry. Don't even get me started on the logic of this, why would I marry a sheep? I would marry a light globe next. For those interested Ellen has a fantastic standup routine about this!

I can see both sides, and in fairness to the political leaders, if I was in that chair, I wouldn't be touching it with a barge pole (I would also like to know what a barge pole is). Maybe second only to immigration, gay rights has continued to divide communities and has been doing so for hundreds of years. Outside of my obvious understanding of the complexities of the development of homosexuality, as a group the gaybees have been fighting since we realized that little Susan was much more interesting then little Johnny. For the right to not getting beaten to being able to hold hands in the street (this is a slight digression, the history of gay rights isn't the point). In fact, we have often defined ourselves by those fights. I openly acknowledge that my life is much easier thanks to all of the people who had unimaginable shit happen to them so that they could love who they love.

This is one of the reasons that I am a bit sad that there is all this talk of gay marriage. What do we have left to fight for then? What happens to Mardi GRAS, pride, and one of the most robust political movements of modern history. I understand the need or urgency to be the same as everybody else. But we aren't the same. There isn't loads of gay kids on tv, other than when they are being "the gay kid", all same sex relationships are portrayed in mannied and stereotypical, usually with story lines related only to their "gayness". I am immersed in my community, and I am very tolerant of those who are different, but part of that understanding is what comes from being a bit different. That means more to me, and lots of people I know, than the option to spend lots of money on weddings that will statistically end in divorce. Why don't we continue to embrace our little rainbow family, and encapsulate the stuff that makes all communities bred out of adversity fire, and let other people worry about the other stuff. Do I think people should have the choice to marry, of course, but I don't think that it should define everything we do moving forward from here based on whether we can get married?

Does this make me an angry cynical dyke? Probably, maybe i haven't met the right girl yet.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The certainty of death....

So today, my blog is taking a slightly different path. This is less issue related, and more towards a generalist opinion of a somewhat challenging subject. I say 'challenging' because for me this issue is generally the thing that I deal with and examine each and everyday, but the thing which has bounded up to see me this week, is that I do so perhaps with blinders on. I am talking of course about the universally certainty of death and dying. Death has provided foder and fear of societies since the beginning of our understanding of self. All individuals inherently fear and percieve death in some way, shape or form. However, in order to continue to wake up and get out of bed in the mornings, our brain is
able to displace these fears and concerns, and until we are 'forced' to
percieve our mortality we simply engage in the ignorance is bliss model.
So why am I talking about this? Well, as I alluded too, I am in a unique
and privaledged space where I am able to speak with people about death
and facing their mortality each and every day. I discuss how people will
die, what happens to their brains and their families as this time approaches, and occasionally I am almost helpful to people who are experiencing what can only be described as a 'hell' of acute grief. I read alot about death and the culture of death, I have a morbid
curisoity about death rituals and I advocate very openly with people to
talk about death.

Thankfully (I remain somewhat superstitious about this) I have not
experienced the death of anyone close to me as an adult. I have had friends die, and I have been surrounded by death consistently for the past 5 years. This has resulted in my attendance at more funerals, of
more designs and faiths that I am unable to recall, some of which filled
me with grief and those which filled me with anger. Each of these
funerals present the invariable challenge of examining my own mortality, and I am thankful for each moment of my day, everyday, which is a gift that I would not return. My world is filled with an urgency which I was unable to contemplate prior to engaging in this work. I am banging on
about this for a few reasons, one is that I like to bang on about stuff,
the other is that there is an expectation on myself (by myself and by others, or at least I percieve it to be so) to be good at grief, and talking with people about death and dying.

So when someone close to me lost a family member last week, I was very
confronted by my complete inadequecy to say anything remotley helpful,
or being able to make this better. Logically and in my rational mind, I
understand that there is nothing that helps people in this state. Research supports the idea that those who are grieving become emotionally like those who are aged between 5 and 8, and have the responses consistent with being this age. The only thing that I could do, was to make jokes (this seemed to help), but my urge to 'fix' this was tangible, and I was falling on the side of the coin where I wasn't
the expert, I was just a human engaging with another human who I care about. (I can see the face you are giving me, this should not be brain
science....).

This entry is more food for thought, because believe me, if you get me
talking about death I will bang on about it all day. I love the emotional intricacys of the world, and our finite time here. There is something quite 'magical', in the absence of a better word, about the death and dying process, and the emotional engagement and often disengagement which ensues. My challenge for the week is examining what you do in your everyday world, and the impact they have on others, particulary around the areas which are hard, gritty, and the stuff that our best evolutionary intincts make us want to run away from. I have been examining this week about the views that I was raised with about death and dying, and the thing which I have come up with, was that it wasnt something that you talk about. Ever. Because you might upset
someone. It has become very obvious to me, that the way of death I was
raised with was probably a) a little unhelpful, b) completley revised in
adulthood and c) not the way that many families and cultures do it, and
I think I have alot to learn about this.

So, a diversion from my normal tact, next week, I am taking on Gay
Marriage. You may be surprised.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Number boggle...

Ok, so after a brief holiday I have returned to the blog (much to the relief of my hundreds of fans...). I won't trouble you with the reasons why, other than to say, well it was fun and involved some plastic food.

So today, my soapbox is on the very titillating subject of statistical misrepresentation. I think it would be stating the obvious to mention I am partial to the odd stat now and then, however, I have no delusions of being a statistical whizz, and am currently stalking a professor who had a test examining type 2 error named after him. But, the glaring information bleep on an unnamed current affairs expose on the banning of the burqa has sparked my stats antenna. It's well acknowledged that many media and propaganda machines utilize statistics to gather support and engage the population. The Nazis did it particularly well, and in a subtle and innocent way at first. No-one started talking about a holocaust until the population was on board with the regime. Unfortunately, history is taking some time to sink in, and there appears to be a growing mechanism of fear, alienation and catastrophising around Arabic nationals both in Australia and around the world. US is known to have significant issues re this, Paris has controversially engaged a burqa ban, and as I found in japan recently, there is a strong sense of "Arabic=bad". Anyway, this isn't about stats. So...

*steps onto soapbox 'ahem'*

A very damning statistic was presented on said program saying 95% of Australians were supportive of banning the burqa. My interest was peaked, as frankly I was surprised that the Australian populace would become that outraged about anything, even football! although it must be noted that following the Four corners live export story there were reports showing consistently high concern re the immediate halt of live exports. These reports were consistent through many many channels and were seemingly quite robust.

It turns out that this 95% statistic re burqa was reported on the data of 35000 people. In my basic gestimating, with a population approaching 22 million, this is a representative sample of about 0.2%. Or probably the amount of people aged over 90 in australia currently.

Is this misrepresentation intentional? Maybe not. However, it is hard to imagine that a high level of transparency was thought out when this was presented with "scary" images of women wearing full face burqas, and very emotive language. I instead propose that this was reasonably blatant scaremongering technique (or another word Jonathan Holmes might use on media watch).

I am not claiming any kind of intellectual superiority, but I will acknowledge a reasonably good understanding of stats and their use. I enjoy working with numbers, and i am the first to jump up and down when I think i have found something. But I am also aware that I looked up when hearing a number like 95%, and questioned it. Did everyone watching that program question the methodology or was it touted in watercooler type discussions to engage and enable further segregation in the community? I'm not denouncing stats usage, the ideal program for me is chock full of graphs and statistical modeling. I'm just saying 100% transparency is expected. As I am expecting 100% of all readers to agree with me.





- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

I am an addict baby, that's no lie...(ah, k's choice)

Over the past couple of days I have been thinking about addictions. Why you ask? Well pay attention! I was challenged earlier in the week to quit a couple of addictions in an attempt to 'manage' (I feel like fix would be too definitive) some health stuff. I agreed to it, with caveats, like "I can't do it until I get back from japan, because I need caffeine when I travel" "but when I get back I will definitely do it"....

The psychological mechanisms of addiction have intrigued me for sometime (not enough to work in the field mind you). Anyone I have ever spoken to with any kind of addiction, from caffeine to heroin, always develops (albiet unconscious) some seemingly rational justification of why they engage, and continue to engage in things which are ultimatley unhealthy for them. I am at a loss to describe an addiction which is good for you, in the sense of addiction being at the extreme end of the behavioral continuum. Even exercise or eating vegetables have negative consequences both physically and psychologically when at that extreme end of behavioir. And we know it's bad. I know that my diet coke habit will probably result in many long term health issues that at this time in my life I have no concept of. I justify this to myself (and clearly anyone who will listen) that there has been no causal link between diet coke and brain tumoirs, or stomach cancer, or Leukemia. But there wasn't a causal link proven between smoking and lung cancer for many years either, it was just a process of getting enough people into trials to show the effect. Showing causality is fraught with scientific danger, but in the absence of causality do I think that drinking copious amounts of chemicals is good for me? Of course not. Does this knowledge stop me doing it, or provide a voice in my head every time I take a sip reminding me of the danger? Nope. Not even a little bit.

Many memoirs have been penned reflecting the difficult nature of addictions and the seemingly infinite cycle of fighting them ( a little part of me hopes that a talk show host will read my blog and make me famous). Why do we keep doing things that we know are bad? Can it be as simple as "because they make us feel good?"

The path of starting an addiction often seems pretty innocuous in and of itself, one smoke, a couple of cups of coffee, just one more pain pill. I was reminded of this a little on the weekend when I watched "Trainspotting" and that constant idea "of just one more hit", our human behavioural assumption would indicate that when a person is ready to give up (point to appropriate place here on the stages of change model) we should just give up, but all the research suggests that setting a date to stop a behaviour is more successful. Its almost counterintuitive.

Meanwhile. I am open to giving up the "dc" but mostly my motivation is financial. I am ready to have an extra $30 a week. I'm not ready for headaches, sugar crashes, fatigue and bottles of water. Is this a predictor of poor quitting outcomes? I think not, I have quit loads of times before.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone