A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown - pg.11 | allnurses

A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown - page 11

Reposting from PSNA Communications email. Karen A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown More Than 30 Nursing Organizations Call for Action in Wake of Newtown Tragedy ... Read More

  1. Visit  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    0
    People's bodies may respond to emotions, but the body still does not try to kill itself and get rid of a supposed "illness" with macrophage response as if it is a pathogen. There is no recognition by the body of this. When are we going to accept that people are not always going to do what we want and act like we want to all of the time? Is this not a cultural concept? In other cultures it may be completely fine to act that way and we are not being accepting or tolerant. We label it a "disease" when for them it is the way they live. This does not sound very multicultural.

    Now we don't just call having emotions or acting differently socially or culturally a "disease" we now say it is supposedly a "genetic disorder" too. So now, this person is classified an "outsider" and can never escape this so-called "disease" we devised because we deemed it supposedly "socially unacceptable" when it is simply a human variation. They have even less control than they did previously. Maybe the reason why people still act like they have no control over their lives after being supposedly "diagnosed" is because they DON'T feel they have any control over their lives especially due to the label.

    All humans are 99.9% the same. Source: National Geographic Humans, Chimps Not as Closely Related as Thought? . Can we just leave it at this that there are cultural differences and be tolerant? Shouldn't we focus our time on diseases which actually affect the body requiring a leukocyte and human cell response? Real diseases which can be tested with microbiological methods (agar, broth, ect.)? Something which won't take mental control from people, alienate them, and label them a supposed "outsider" for life when they are simply original? Variation and multiculturalism can be healthy. Maybe we should be focusing on improving their nutrition, exercise, and living environments first before we start applying labels to normal human emotions to stress. There is probably a good reason for why people respond to it, maybe because there is something causing it and we should focus on targeting the cause and not the person, giving them control yet removing the stressor (which could be very legitimate, e.g., oppression, bullying, dangerous items or events). We want a healthy society, not a society which thinks everyone is sick when we already have true medical diseases requiring macrophage response and microbiological tests already.

    Quote from aknottedyarn
    Schizophrenia - Causes
    Borderline personality disorder: Risk factors - MayoClinic.com
    NIMH - What causes depression?

    I have given examples of three psychiatric diseases from 3 different sources. All indicate changes in brain that can be seen on scans. All indicate that there is a genetic component. All discuss the role of changes in brain chemistry.

    I think it is common for us to look at mental illness with old eyes. We, in the past, did not know about genes. We had no way of looking at brains without the person being dead. If you only look at a specific disease such as Alzheimer's you will see that we still are not able to diagnose with many of the same kinds of testing that we have for physical diseases. Much of the advancement of knowledge about Alzheimer's comes from the research of brains after death.

    Yes, there are discussions about how to classify mental illnesses. We remain in our infancy about knowledge about mental illness. For example, we know that SSRI's work to alleviate symptoms of depression. We are not able to give medications with pure serotonin. We have drugs that inhibit uptake of it. We are in our beginning steps to see why some people do better on one drug than another.

    NIMH - Bipolar Disorder

    Here is an example of mental illness that has symptoms and causes that seem to "bleed" into other psychiatric diagnoses. For many there is a need for drugs that are also used for schizophrenia. We think of it as a disease of depression and manic episodes but it is very complex. Yes, some of the diagnosis is done by meeting of criteria rather than lab work. To me that suggests we do not know enough to ask the right questions, not that the diagnosis is a myth or related to anything PC.

    I cannot be too harsh on those who are rewriting the DSM. It shows that we are learning. It is not perfect. If we look at treatments for physical diseases going back a few generations we find leeches were used to treat things like ulcers, diverticulitis, heart disease. Certainly the leeches helped in those few individuals who suffered from hemochromatosis. We had to learn a great deal about the body in the hundred or so years since it was standard treatment for many illnesses to know why it worked for some illnesses and not others.

    I look forward to the time when we spend enough money and enough energy to know the causes of mental illness well enough to give effective treatment without the current practice of trial and error. It is not the fault of the person who has the disease or the disease itself. Rather it is the fault of our lack of knowledge and lack of learning about the brain and what effects it to cause these diseases.
  2. Visit  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    0
    There was more censorship of movies in the past and video games did not exist, there was more regulation of what one be thinking, yet they still happened anyway. There have been statistics on deaths since 1933. Think about this. There were asylums (open until the 1970's) and many mental institutions then (there are actually some still around, signs of the grim past, 2008 Source: NPR Inside The Nation's Largest Mental Institution : NPR), massive censorship of media and technology, there was even segregation of so-called "races."

    In 1933: there were 7,863 gun related homicides.
    In 2000: there were 10,801 gun related homicides.

    There is practically no difference in these statistics (only 2938... with population increases this number is basically completely stagnant), yet there was radically more control of thoughts before by calling people supposedly "ill" because they did not fit social norms, more censorship of media and less violence on TV, movies, and books.

    What is really the problem here? There was more regulation of thoughts, feelings, media, violence on TV and book, no video games, yet the number was thesame. Sources for statistic compilations (though this is available on federal websites) Brady Campaign and The Journal of Risk and Insurance, vol. 72 http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/289
    http://www.fox.temple.edu/cms/wp-con...eanLemaire.pdf

    Quote from HM-8404
    What you just posted pretty much says banning certain types of guns don't work. If someone is inclined to kill another they will use whatever gun is available.

    Guns have always been available in the US. It is actually harder to get them now than when I was a teen. Someone needs to take a hard no BS look at why shootings are more common now than in the past. What has changed? Have guns changed? Not really. Ammo? No. This only leaves society. Is there a massive increase in mental health issues? Perhaps. What could be the cause of that, single parent households, extreme violence in movies and video games desensitizing kids, not holding kids responsible for their actions, among other things?

    I bolded that portion for a reason. I feel this is the main contributor. People can be desensitized to anything. Just using my own experiences, when I first arrived in Iraq I was so nervous I could hardly sleep. As time went on everything started to become "normal" even the major firefights I was involved in. When someone is constantly bombarded with graphic images, be it violence or sexual, people get used to it and it becomes a part of everyday life. Just look at what nurses and first responders get desensitized to over time.
  3. Visit  TopazLover profile page
    2
    I am having difficulty following. Am I reading that you don't believe mental illness is an illness? Think genetic diseases are not "real" diseases?

    I agree that culturally some things are more acceptable than in others. In some cultures cock fighting is accepted. In the US we see it as abuse of an animal. Same for dog fights and the same for bull fighting. I don't think these things, by themselves would get someone labeled as psychotic.

    In general when someone is labeled as having mental illness there are many signposts. We are just learning about genetics so this is an area that will be explored more in the future. You have to remember that we did not even know about DNA within my lifetime. That is how quickly things develop. We are in our infancy about the brain. We are just learning about the chemicals and what they mean. In comparison: We are close to where our knowledge of the heart was 40-60 years ago with the working knowledge of chemical interactions causing response. We need much more knowledge to see how specific chemicals react in the brain. Genetics are certainly part of this.

    We used to try to bleed out problems or chase demons because we did not understand physical illnesses. As we are learning more about mental illness we find that it is more of brain dysfunction than a check off list in the current DSM -?

    Taking on year of stats is not valid and you can't determine much from those stats. There are good studies out there. I choose not to get into the gun control fight as much as some. I prefer to focus on what nurses can control. I figure there are other forums that can focus on guns. Our expertise is with human responses. To me that means all of us need to be involved with what we can do to help get more mental health assessment and treatment, not less. It is not a case of being labeled any more than being found to have diabetes labels you. We need to get our heads around that so we can provide adequate care to all our patients and not exclusde their mental status. As I review charts this is the biggest lack I find.
    workingharder and herring_RN like this.
  4. Visit  herring_RN profile page
    1
    I care for people with cardiovascular disease. Most often these are not caused by a pathogen.
    TopazLover likes this.
  5. Visit  Altra profile page
    3
    I participated in the poll at the beginning of this thread, but it is disappointingly (even shockingly) biased ... from an AN administrator whose reasoned knowledge and experience are so often invaluable here. Very disappointed.
    tewdles, IndiCRNA, and workingharder like this.
  6. Visit  jadelpn profile page
    0
    Quote from HM-8404
    What you just posted pretty much says banning certain types of guns don't work. If someone is inclined to kill another they will use whatever gun is available.

    Guns have always been available in the US. It is actually harder to get them now than when I was a teen. Someone needs to take a hard no BS look at why shootings are more common now than in the past. What has changed? Have guns changed? Not really. Ammo? No. This only leaves society. Is there a massive increase in mental health issues? Perhaps. What could be the cause of that, single parent households, extreme violence in movies and video games desensitizing kids, not holding kids responsible for their actions, among other things?

    I bolded that portion for a reason. I feel this is the main contributor. People can be desensitized to anything. Just using my own experiences, when I first arrived in Iraq I was so nervous I could hardly sleep. As time went on everything started to become "normal" even the major firefights I was involved in. When someone is constantly bombarded with graphic images, be it violence or sexual, people get used to it and it becomes a part of everyday life. Just look at what nurses and first responders get desensitized to over time.
    I can remember Saturday morning cartoons--Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck getting his beak shot off, Coyote and Woodpecker, lots of "violence" and we all laughed like heck!! GI Joe, all sorts of sci-fi "weapons of th future" tv shows-- And not to mention hours of make pretend games of cops and robbers (you are DEAD....I KILLED you) type of play, play guns, cap guns.....so that "extreme violence desensitizing kids" is not a valid argument, as this stuff has been around for years.
  7. Visit  Spidey's mom profile page
    1
    Quote from jadelpn
    I can remember Saturday morning cartoons--Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck getting his beak shot off, Coyote and Woodpecker, lots of "violence" and we all laughed like heck!! GI Joe, all sorts of sci-fi "weapons of th future" tv shows-- And not to mention hours of make pretend games of cops and robbers (you are DEAD....I KILLED you) type of play, play guns, cap guns.....so that "extreme violence desensitizing kids" is not a valid argument, as this stuff has been around for years.
    Oh my goodness . .that is not the same thing. At all. Cartoon "violence" consists of a cartoon anvil falling on the head of the cartoon coyote isn't the same as teaching kids to shoot or as one researcher puts it "unethically train children in the use of weapons and, more importantly, harden them emotionally to the act of murder by simulating the killing of hundreds or thousands of opponents in a single typical video game".

    If people are so gung-ho about restricting weapons, why let kids shoot in a realistic manner on a video game? With blood spurting and groans and screams? And what about the racism inherent in some of the games?

    I'm not a fan of video games period. Kids should be outside playing, getting fresh air, enjoying being a kid.
    tewdles likes this.
  8. Visit  jadelpn profile page
    0
    Quote from Spidey's mom
    Oh my goodness . .that is not the same thing. At all. Cartoon "violence" consists of a cartoon anvil falling on the head of the cartoon coyote isn't the same as teaching kids to shoot or as one researcher puts it "unethically train children in the use of weapons and, more importantly, harden them emotionally to the act of murder by simulating the killing of hundreds or thousands of opponents in a single typical video game".

    If people are so gung-ho about restricting weapons, why let kids shoot in a realistic manner on a video game? With blood spurting and groans and screams? And what about the racism inherent in some of the games?

    I'm not a fan of video games period. Kids should be outside playing, getting fresh air, enjoying being a kid.
    Then I will respectfully agree to disagree. There is a whole entire generation of kids who played all sorts of games that would be considered "violent" from bb guns to simulated plastic weapons to cap guns. Games like risk to dungeons and dragons. There is not a cartoon that I saw on looney tunes that did not have some sort of character physically hurting another character. Try it on your little brother, however, and there was a price to pay. Which brings to point that parents have lost a great deal of control over their children. In the quest for "free thinkers" and kids being able to "make their own choices" have ended up with some entitled kids. With little consequences. Let kids be kids indeed, and let parents make the choices for them, teaching them along the way so that when they are grown they can make the same good choices. When they are grown, out of the parent's home, and need to. If I grew up in a home with guns in them, and I did not, I wouldn't think of touching it, as my parents would have locked me in my room until 18.....or the dreaded "spoon". (<----sarcastic, but it was a valid threat at the time). much like I did not go into my parent's room to seek out trouble, backtalked, or any of the other things kids do that they do to test the waters. Add that to a kid who has some brain dysfunction (and we keep referring to the child in question as mentally ill, when in fact he was autisitc which AGAIN is different) and parents have quite a tempest to deal with. Early Intervention. Parents need help and are too caught up in "what will the neighbors think" to get it.
  9. Visit  TopazLover profile page
    1
    Just as an aside, One of the things that the service says is that people who played lots of video games have great hand eye coordination and are much easier to train to do complex tasks involving these skills. Of course they are great at running drones, but that is also another thread.
    tewdles likes this.
  10. Visit  Spidey's mom profile page
    1
    Quote from jadelpn
    Then I will respectfully agree to disagree. There is a whole entire generation of kids who played all sorts of games that would be considered "violent" from bb guns to simulated plastic weapons to cap guns. Games like risk to dungeons and dragons. There is not a cartoon that I saw on looney tunes that did not have some sort of character physically hurting another character. Try it on your little brother, however, and there was a price to pay. Which brings to point that parents have lost a great deal of control over their children. In the quest for "free thinkers" and kids being able to "make their own choices" have ended up with some entitled kids. With little consequences. Let kids be kids indeed, and let parents make the choices for them, teaching them along the way so that when they are grown they can make the same good choices. When they are grown, out of the parent's home, and need to. If I grew up in a home with guns in them, and I did not, I wouldn't think of touching it, as my parents would have locked me in my room until 18.....or the dreaded "spoon". (<----sarcastic, but it was a valid threat at the time). much like I did not go into my parent's room to seek out trouble, backtalked, or any of the other things kids do that they do to test the waters. Add that to a kid who has some brain dysfunction (and we keep referring to the child in question as mentally ill, when in fact he was autisitc which AGAIN is different) and parents have quite a tempest to deal with. Early Intervention. Parents need help and are too caught up in "what will the neighbors think" to get it.
    Yep, agree to disagree. BB guns in the hands of children who are supervised and taught respect for guns, simulated plastic weapons, cap guns . . . . all not based on realism.

    I did not like Dungeons and Dragons and never let my kids play.

    Looney Tunes - all cartoonish . . not real. Try to find an anvil in real life to drop on little brother's head.

    I do agree that there tends to be a loss of control over kids nowadays - the "free thinker" and "make their own choices" kids grew up in the late 60's and 70's. . . . .they are raising kids now trying to be their kid's friend vs. parent so I agree with you there. I see it all the time as a school district nurse.

    My 4 kids have grown up in a home with firearms. We got our last son his first .22 a few years ago and he's 11 now. Big brother got him a compound bow for Christmas and will take him bow hunting for his first deer next year.

    None of this, in my opinion, has anything to do with desensitizing kids towards violence.

    I'm not saying ALL kids who watch rated "M" video games will shoot up a school - but I do think a game that looks realistic, has you shooting people, complete with blood and moans, is completely different than Bug Bunny.

    The armed services use those violent games to desensitize the recruits.

    I'm not letting my kid anywhere near those.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/20/506...se-to-gun.html
    Popularity of violent video games
    Let's stop deluding ourselves that interactive games where players are rewarded for making choices such as dismembering, decapitating, torturing or raping a human being – with blood spurting and victims screaming – are no different from reading "Lord of the Flies" or watching a "Road Runner" cartoon. Obviously, most gamers don't act on violent fantasies. But these games, whether we participate in them or not, reflect and shape a culture that increasingly glorifies and trivializes violence. It is up to us to take on this coarsening of our culture.
    Last edit by Spidey's mom on Dec 30, '12
    tewdles likes this.
  11. Visit  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    0
    I think this entire claim of the last few decades to "lose the stigma" is faux as the entire stigma starts with the label of so-called "illness" or supposed "disease" or "abnormality" (esp. a "permanent genetic default") as the person with the label KNOWS it makes them "different" (with a negative, not a positive correlation of originality) and it is based off someone's decision that their actions, personality, or feelings are supposedly "abnormal." This is unlike diabetes or cardiovascular disease as those affect the human body's cells (e.g., myocardia caused by ischemia) and do not affect people's actions, personality, or character/social place significantly. Any person could get cardiovascular disease no matter what they are like socially or their actions. Yes, there is diet involved and exercise, but that has nothing to do with social norms or communication, ect. Mostly people who do these things WANT CONTROL, I repeat these people WANT CONTROL over their lives. They're acting out because there is an outside problem causing it and they want people to just listen to them for once instead of calling them the so-called "problem." This is like calling a victim of a crime who is feeling trauma from an event a supposed "problem" and saying it was their fault of getting victimized in the first place and they should have "acted better." This is crushing and makes them feel even more vulnerable/out of control. Instead of attacking the victim why don't you attack the criminal and tell them those are normal (repeat, normal) feelings of victimization and lets try to reduce crime. This diverts the problem from them to the actual cause in the first place. It is never the fault of the victim, but of the attacker.

    Chemical reactions do not necessarily mean there is a so-called "illness," but an emotional reaction to stress, fear, anger, not the person's fault or a "disease" (based on social opinion). There are chemical reactions for positive aspects and characteristics as well. Chemical reactions do not have to be labeled "illnesses," but natural human variations. Maybe someone with a supposedly "differing" chemical reaction is the only person who can recognize there is a problem and is trying to tell others. Each person differs in personality thankfully, yet, we are 99.9% the same. This is normal variation, not a "disease" or "ailment" (meaning, needing eradication by taking away their sense of self-control by labeling, i.e., stereotyping them and placing them in a box, and telling them it is their problem). To their bodily cells, their is no ailment killing their cells like a disease would. It's nothing like lysis (from overhydration) or myocardia. Their bodies are not trying to remove any so-called "disease" nor are their human cells significantly altered.

    One can claim it is like having a physical disease like diabetes, yet is is not as this so-called "disease" is directly connected to their daily actions, personality type, self-control, feelings and place in society. It depends, greatly, on social norms and subjected to change (as each year, the supposed "illnesses" increase in number by votes from a board). The supposedly "genetic disease" (not called a normal variation in personality or reaction to distress) aspect did not come until after hundreds of "diseases" were added to the manual. Science is currently being forced to prove the so-called "diseases" which were previously already listed. They were not primarily scientifically discovered as were viruses, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or paralysis, which are concrete and cannot be disputed as they have a mathematical and human cell response basis, they were primarily socially discovered. Then once they were "discovered" they are trying to use science to prove it. Does this not sound like it does not make sense? You could say it was a hypothesis, but they already had claimed it was an "illness" without this "proof" beforehand due to social standards.

    This is almost like saying the sun revolves around the earth (geocentric model) and accepting it as scientific proof firstly by observations, then trying to use some testing to prove it... not mainly because it is fact, but because it "good" socially for this to happen. It was widely accepted, then continually falsely "added to" for this social convenience. They were at the beginning of a new territory also.

    And those statistics per year are consistently near 10,000 from 1933 to 2000. This was the purpose of me listing them as there has been no change. Th total overall yearly related deaths due to firearms has stayed consistently near 30,000 since they were first published.

    If nurses were more unionized, they would have greater national influence (i.e., lobbying, advertizing and providing information to the public). There are nursing organizations supporting gun reform as well as the AMA already.

    Quote from aknottedyarn
    I am having difficulty following. Am I reading that you don't believe mental illness is an illness? Think genetic diseases are not "real" diseases?

    I agree that culturally some things are more acceptable than in others. In some cultures cock fighting is accepted. In the US we see it as abuse of an animal. Same for dog fights and the same for bull fighting. I don't think these things, by themselves would get someone labeled as psychotic.

    In general when someone is labeled as having mental illness there are many signposts. We are just learning about genetics so this is an area that will be explored more in the future. You have to remember that we did not even know about DNA within my lifetime. That is how quickly things develop. We are in our infancy about the brain. We are just learning about the chemicals and what they mean. In comparison: We are close to where our knowledge of the heart was 40-60 years ago with the working knowledge of chemical interactions causing response. We need much more knowledge to see how specific chemicals react in the brain. Genetics are certainly part of this.

    We used to try to bleed out problems or chase demons because we did not understand physical illnesses. As we are learning more about mental illness we find that it is more of brain dysfunction than a check off list in the current DSM -?

    Taking on year of stats is not valid and you can't determine much from those stats. There are good studies out there. I choose not to get into the gun control fight as much as some. I prefer to focus on what nurses can control. I figure there are other forums that can focus on guns. Our expertise is with human responses. To me that means all of us need to be involved with what we can do to help get more mental health assessment and treatment, not less. It is not a case of being labeled any more than being found to have diabetes labels you. We need to get our heads around that so we can provide adequate care to all our patients and not exclusde their mental status. As I review charts this is the biggest lack I find.
    I care for people with cardiovascular disease. Most often these are not caused by a pathogen.
    Last edit by InfirmiereJolie on Dec 27, '12
  12. Visit  TopazLover profile page
    3
    Doctors Say Gun Control is a Public Health Issue | American News Report
    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 31,000 Americans die from firearms annually. While there’s decades of research on what leads people to commit violence against themselves or others, there’s significantly less information on how access to firearms contributes to the likelihood and consequences of these acts.
    That dearth of research, say Arthur Kellermann, MD, vice president of the RAND Corporation and Frederick Rivara, MD, Seattle Children’s Hospital, is the direct result of pro-gun members of Congress mounting an effort in 1996 to eliminate funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC. Although the effort failed, language was added preventing the CDC from using federal funds “to advocate or promote gun control.”

    So, in 1996 the NRA (through lobbying Congress) was able to get research stopped about what leads people to commit violence, etc.
    How many people have died since then that might have been alive today if research had not been stopped?


    Sad that the ability to sell more guns with less restrictions trumps the value of human life. As we now know the NRA really is only the mouthpiece for gun sales. Those honest shooters who thought the NRA was there to protect their interests need to wake up and smell the gun powder being sold. It has nothing to do with anything except greed.
    tewdles, jadelpn, and herring_RN like this.
  13. Visit  Overland1 profile page
    2
    My concern is that, as in so many cases, we (as nurses) are getting dragged into a lot of incorrect perceptions that have "grown legs" (thanks to the media and politicians, both of which I trust lately at a level one step below a stool sample). Nurses will be out there protesting, writing, and campaigning (as in the past with other issues) their way into being looked upon with disfavor when all the chips fall (and they will).

    We are nurses; most of us entered and remain in this profession to help people. We have the ability to make or break a person's life in mere seconds or less. We make a positive difference in people's lives every day. We also exercise great caution, logic, and reason in doing what we do as nurses. We need to exercise that same degree of caution, logic, and reason when pursuing and attaching ourselves the myriad causes out there.
    workingharder and HM-8404 like this.

Must Read Topics



Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and find your dream job.

Visit Our Sponsors
Top
close
close