I work in human services. It can be a challenging job, but amazingly rewarding. Mostly I work with children that have a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder and provide a stimulating environment that is enriched with love and care. There are many details of my job that I wish no one to experience but I understand what has to be done in order to provide support for these children that do not see the world the way 'we' do. I have only been in this field for about a year and I feel like I have so much to learn. Every new client I get feels like the first day of work, every time.
When I am out in public with these children I am judged by passer-by's who think I am a lazy, inconsiderate parent that does not care for her child. I have had people (that do not know me or my client) come up and say what an awful a parent they think I am.... when I'm on the ground restraining a 'tantrum' child who has thrown their shoes, socks, pants, shirt and toys in protest to something I nor he have any control over. Just a few days ago I was with a 6-year old client who was showing very aggressive behaviour towards me...hitting, punching, head banging against my chest and screaming because he wanted to go a certain route home. This path was under construction and we were instructed to use the other side of the street. A child that has Autism can often feel like they MUST take the same route every single time, no matter what. This situation was difficult because I could not take this child on the exact same route he walks on every day to go home and he was not understanding why, despite my attempt to be as clear as possible; that we were taking a slight detour. Tears, screams, punches and scratches suddenly were all I could see and hear. I could do nothing to help this poor child, or so I felt. He was clearly in distress knowing he could not go the way he felt obligated to. One man, about 55, passed by me with a smile indicating he could relate to me as a parent and said "Don't worry, the tantrum stage will pass". Another woman stopped and condescendingly suggested I treat the child less forcefully (I was restraining him from his violent outburst and from running onto the busy street). The two people in this example assumed I did not know what I was doing as a 'young parent' and I felt quite frustrated. Usually I would not tell these people that my client has Autism but I was having a rather tough day with his behaviour so I let it be known. In both cases, the individuals immediately apologized and felt sympathy for my situation. The woman even asked how she could help! Amazing the turn-around in their perspective, huh. Now, in my moment of reflection I'm not quite sure how I feel about revealing a diagnosis to gain understanding or acceptance from people who are not informed. There seems to be a split with my co-workers: some will never, ever label the child as disabled because there are many ways in which the child is capable of a normal life, there just happens to be some areas in which they are different. On the other hand, many would reveal a diagnosis at any time and in any situation because it raises awareness about Autism and is a small but significant way of lifting stigma. For the most part, I agree with the latter. I am an advocate for Autism awareness because the behaviours are often mistaken for bad parenting styles. What the public sees is an out-of-control child with a mother or father who does not know how to discipline or love their children. This is clearly not the case. Autism is a term describing impaired social interactions in a person as a result of faulty neurodevelopment.You often cannot tell a child has Autism because there are no distinct physical characteristics that denote the disease (whereas Down's Syndrome or FAS does, for example). You can pick up typical behaviours like hand flapping, solitary play, short attention span and fixation on objects or ritualistic behaviour but sometimes you don't get the chance to observe a child for long enough to spot these. It also is difficult to identify and treat Autism because each and every person with Autism expresses it uniquely.
There is an interesting article I recently read on treating Autism with nutrition. What an incredibly simple, natural idea! I am going to devote much of my time researching this and will probably write my next blog on the reasons why we should be initially treating people with Autsim with food and steering away from medication. I hope this has evoked some different perspectives on exceptionalities and maybe even some challenging questions in response to my written down thought. Regardless, I hope you have found this beneficial to your day and beyond.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Today I have guts
I am taking a Clinical Ethics course as a part of my certification to be a counsellor. I along with my group of 3 others are presenting an ethical issue in front of my classmates (about 40). Our topic: Euthanasia aka killing yourself to preserve your own dignity. I have briefly asked my friends about what they think about Euthanasia. Most of them say they are against it because its a form of suicide, and our society frowns upon suicide as it is seen as an extremely selfish act. I agree with that to a certain extent. What makes me think Euthanasia is okay, even to the point where I praise it, is when someone is enduring a physical or mental state that will chronically effect their life and others to a terrible degree. Can you imagine yourself...a capable, able-bodied person that can get out of bed, shower, make food, attend to your personal hygiene, hug your brother, be romantic with your partner, drive, reach out and pick up fruit in the grocery store, bend down and pick up your child when he falls, adjust that lock of hair that is slightly out of place, run 5k every morning, run up the stairs when you're late for work...then...you realize that this illness the doctor tells you is in the beginning stages and soon you wont be able to do some of these things...then eventually none of these things that once gave you a sense of independence, a sense that you never before appreciated until it disintegrates within a matter of months, and your happiness crumbles with it. Life has a whole new meaning.
Do you get the point that I'm trying to make? You may be opposed to Euthanasia but until you are in a situation where your vitality has been arrested and replaced by torpor and distaste to everything then what would you do? There have been countless stories of people who tried to go beyond the social approval to legal approval of euthanasia or assistant suicide to preserve their dignity. Every case to date has been denied in Canada. Sadly some turn to the only means to an end that is legal: killing themselves, a much less dignified choice. To say the least.
Here is the beginning of our presentation I wrote to get the audience's attention:
Do you get the point that I'm trying to make? You may be opposed to Euthanasia but until you are in a situation where your vitality has been arrested and replaced by torpor and distaste to everything then what would you do? There have been countless stories of people who tried to go beyond the social approval to legal approval of euthanasia or assistant suicide to preserve their dignity. Every case to date has been denied in Canada. Sadly some turn to the only means to an end that is legal: killing themselves, a much less dignified choice. To say the least.
Here is the beginning of our presentation I wrote to get the audience's attention:
"Euthanasia...one of the most disputed topics in Western society today. We are here to present an explanation of where Euthanasia started from, how it has evolved and why such advocacy exists yet is challenged by strong opposition.
We start with Ancient Rome, where Cicero, a philosopher, lawyer and statesman promoted that the nature of death should be a good death than otherwise where one should drift into a pleasing environment as they fall asleep. “A good death is the ideal way to leave earth. It respects natural law, public order, dignity and tranquility.” Euthanasia in Greek means “Good Death”. It is a practice of ending life so that overwhelming pain and suffering are relieved.
Sir Thomas More in 1516 published a book titled “Utopia”. This book promoted euthanasia to end suffering. More insisted that: if an incurable disease is accompanied by chronic pain and anguish, life should be allowed to end to remove the world of torture and incarceration.
The 17th Century is where euthanasia is first used in a medical context. Sir Francis Bacon, a philosopher and scientist said it is “a physician’s responsibility to alleviate the physical sufferings of the body” and he included this concept of euthanasia, to make it a right; to let the soul be free of suffering. This may have been silently agreed upon by the people of his time but not publicly.
David Hume, an 18th century Scottish philosopher, historian and economist is known for his essay on Suicide. Here he argues that life is meant to be enjoyed, it must include free-will, even when a persons wishes for their life to end. A precious life should not be wasted if it becomes faulty, miserable and defective. Basically Hume suggested we should all avoid a poor quality life especially during the dying process. He justified a premature death if: you are being a significant burden to others, living a deteriorated state incapable of normal daily activities, having to be placed into a hospital until death, or being dependent on an intrusive medical apparatus to continue living.
In the 1870s we begin to see a split in moral acceptance of death. This split separated suicide or the intention to take ones own life, and euthanasian homicide which was then defined as an act (including an omission) of one person which ends the life of another. Both suicide and euthanasian homicide could be viewed as a rightful death because the intention was to relieve intractable suffering.
We now fast forward to 1994 where Margaret Battin a professor of Philosophy and Internal Medicine, a division of Medical Ethics at the University of Utah states that Euthanasia to reduce suffering must have 2 components in order for it to be valid.
1) It must avoid future pain and suffering
2) It must end current pain and suffering.
The assumption with Battin’s argument is: the existing pain must be intolerable and interminable.
In the present day we understand Euthanasia to have two sides. One for and one against the act.
If you are an advocate for euthanasia you would understand the critical elements of autonomy, individual liberty, the right to maintain human dignity, the reduction of suffering and promotion of justice ...to one’s vitality. Autonomy is a right and this includes the right to a good and appropriate death. The other elements are based on moral, religious, and cultural views on human life. You believe Euthanasia aids to avoid botched suicides, exerts control on existing practices we see today and supports the notion that people can make reasonable decisions even when they are suffering or are terminally ill.
If you oppose Euthanasia, you would encourage that the sanctity of human life is far too precious to end unnaturally. Death is irrevocable. Death is final. What happens when a diagnosis of a curable disease is mistaken for an incurable one? You may also believe that it is most difficult to determine the competent and rational decision making of a sick person, that choosing death could be for the wrong reasons, an undiagnosed clinical depression could underlay one’s perception of his or her reality; a physicians erosion of confidence could cloud and mislead an sick persons choice in life or death. Prohibiting Euthanasia protects the weak and incompetent or disadvantaged. Plus, the option of suicide is always available.
Over time different reasons for validating the different viewpoints of Euthanasia called for several types of Euthanasia to be defined. Currently we categorize euthanasia into 3 different types: Voluntary, Non-voluntary and involuntary.
Voluntary euthanasia is quite simple to explain. The patient gives consent to his or her death and the bringing about of their death is assisted by another person. This is also known as assisted suicide, or physician assisted suicide.
Non-Voluntary and Involuntary are two more complex methods to explain.
Non-voluntary Euthanasia is where the patient does not give consent because they are unable to give consent. This could be when the person has become or always has been incompetent or has left no living will. Child Euthanasia for example is illegal worldwide but some cases can be decriminalized because the purpose of euthanasia is intended to ease the pain of parents who are enduring hopeless and unbearable suffering.
Involuntary Euthanasia is conducted against a persons will. It was quite a prevalent method of ending life up to the 1940s where a physician could legally euthanize people deemed ‘idiots, imbeciles and congenital monstrosities (disease originating from birth leaving the person in a very abnormal state). In present day, involuntary euthanasia occurs when a physician gives a lethal injection to a person who is in the final stages of a terminal illness. Another example is when a son gives his sick father a lethal dose of his cancer medication and the father does no want this level of dose.
Another way of looking at Euthanasia is in a passive or active perspective. Passive means a person gives informed consent to withdrawal any treatment and this withdrawal would deliberately end their life. Active means that something is done to end one’s life such as using an injection of a noxious substance like potassium-chloride, sleeping medication or pain killers , forcing death.
Currently Euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the US State of Oregon and Washington. Not Canada.
Australia's short-lived legal Euthanasia system from 1996 to 1997 and had a euthanizing machine as its method to induce death to someone legally approved to die. This machine contained a lethal amount of a poisonous substance. The physician would hook this up to a patient and it was the patients free will at that moment on to end his or her life by responding to a question on the computer screen. By pushing one button.
Physician Assisted suicide is not classified as Euthanasia in Oregon and Washington. Rather, it is classified under their Death with Dignity Act.
The Canadian Medical Association chooses not to define euthanasia as wrong or right. They leave it up to society’s view of human life as it is ever-changing. The Canadian Senate Committee however does promote a “compassionate suicide” act. To date it would remain illegal and charges would still be assumed but with a lighter penalty compared to the charges of homicide which have frequently been handed down to those assisting in euthanasia.
Canada currently has an act called the Health Care Consent Act of 1996. It recognizes living wills that request refrain of heroic measures to preserve life if one become incapable of communicating.
The Criminal Code of Canada section 241 says that any person who counsels a person or aids a person to commit suicide whether the suicide is successful or not is guilty of a serious and criminal act and is subject to charges that relate to first and second degree murder or homicide.
Please look and listen to the following examples of cases on Euthanasia.”
We start with Ancient Rome, where Cicero, a philosopher, lawyer and statesman promoted that the nature of death should be a good death than otherwise where one should drift into a pleasing environment as they fall asleep. “A good death is the ideal way to leave earth. It respects natural law, public order, dignity and tranquility.” Euthanasia in Greek means “Good Death”. It is a practice of ending life so that overwhelming pain and suffering are relieved.
Sir Thomas More in 1516 published a book titled “Utopia”. This book promoted euthanasia to end suffering. More insisted that: if an incurable disease is accompanied by chronic pain and anguish, life should be allowed to end to remove the world of torture and incarceration.
The 17th Century is where euthanasia is first used in a medical context. Sir Francis Bacon, a philosopher and scientist said it is “a physician’s responsibility to alleviate the physical sufferings of the body” and he included this concept of euthanasia, to make it a right; to let the soul be free of suffering. This may have been silently agreed upon by the people of his time but not publicly.
David Hume, an 18th century Scottish philosopher, historian and economist is known for his essay on Suicide. Here he argues that life is meant to be enjoyed, it must include free-will, even when a persons wishes for their life to end. A precious life should not be wasted if it becomes faulty, miserable and defective. Basically Hume suggested we should all avoid a poor quality life especially during the dying process. He justified a premature death if: you are being a significant burden to others, living a deteriorated state incapable of normal daily activities, having to be placed into a hospital until death, or being dependent on an intrusive medical apparatus to continue living.
In the 1870s we begin to see a split in moral acceptance of death. This split separated suicide or the intention to take ones own life, and euthanasian homicide which was then defined as an act (including an omission) of one person which ends the life of another. Both suicide and euthanasian homicide could be viewed as a rightful death because the intention was to relieve intractable suffering.
We now fast forward to 1994 where Margaret Battin a professor of Philosophy and Internal Medicine, a division of Medical Ethics at the University of Utah states that Euthanasia to reduce suffering must have 2 components in order for it to be valid.
1) It must avoid future pain and suffering
2) It must end current pain and suffering.
The assumption with Battin’s argument is: the existing pain must be intolerable and interminable.
In the present day we understand Euthanasia to have two sides. One for and one against the act.
If you are an advocate for euthanasia you would understand the critical elements of autonomy, individual liberty, the right to maintain human dignity, the reduction of suffering and promotion of justice ...to one’s vitality. Autonomy is a right and this includes the right to a good and appropriate death. The other elements are based on moral, religious, and cultural views on human life. You believe Euthanasia aids to avoid botched suicides, exerts control on existing practices we see today and supports the notion that people can make reasonable decisions even when they are suffering or are terminally ill.
If you oppose Euthanasia, you would encourage that the sanctity of human life is far too precious to end unnaturally. Death is irrevocable. Death is final. What happens when a diagnosis of a curable disease is mistaken for an incurable one? You may also believe that it is most difficult to determine the competent and rational decision making of a sick person, that choosing death could be for the wrong reasons, an undiagnosed clinical depression could underlay one’s perception of his or her reality; a physicians erosion of confidence could cloud and mislead an sick persons choice in life or death. Prohibiting Euthanasia protects the weak and incompetent or disadvantaged. Plus, the option of suicide is always available.
Over time different reasons for validating the different viewpoints of Euthanasia called for several types of Euthanasia to be defined. Currently we categorize euthanasia into 3 different types: Voluntary, Non-voluntary and involuntary.
Voluntary euthanasia is quite simple to explain. The patient gives consent to his or her death and the bringing about of their death is assisted by another person. This is also known as assisted suicide, or physician assisted suicide.
Non-Voluntary and Involuntary are two more complex methods to explain.
Non-voluntary Euthanasia is where the patient does not give consent because they are unable to give consent. This could be when the person has become or always has been incompetent or has left no living will. Child Euthanasia for example is illegal worldwide but some cases can be decriminalized because the purpose of euthanasia is intended to ease the pain of parents who are enduring hopeless and unbearable suffering.
Involuntary Euthanasia is conducted against a persons will. It was quite a prevalent method of ending life up to the 1940s where a physician could legally euthanize people deemed ‘idiots, imbeciles and congenital monstrosities (disease originating from birth leaving the person in a very abnormal state). In present day, involuntary euthanasia occurs when a physician gives a lethal injection to a person who is in the final stages of a terminal illness. Another example is when a son gives his sick father a lethal dose of his cancer medication and the father does no want this level of dose.
Another way of looking at Euthanasia is in a passive or active perspective. Passive means a person gives informed consent to withdrawal any treatment and this withdrawal would deliberately end their life. Active means that something is done to end one’s life such as using an injection of a noxious substance like potassium-chloride, sleeping medication or pain killers , forcing death.
Currently Euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the US State of Oregon and Washington. Not Canada.
Australia's short-lived legal Euthanasia system from 1996 to 1997 and had a euthanizing machine as its method to induce death to someone legally approved to die. This machine contained a lethal amount of a poisonous substance. The physician would hook this up to a patient and it was the patients free will at that moment on to end his or her life by responding to a question on the computer screen. By pushing one button.
Physician Assisted suicide is not classified as Euthanasia in Oregon and Washington. Rather, it is classified under their Death with Dignity Act.
The Canadian Medical Association chooses not to define euthanasia as wrong or right. They leave it up to society’s view of human life as it is ever-changing. The Canadian Senate Committee however does promote a “compassionate suicide” act. To date it would remain illegal and charges would still be assumed but with a lighter penalty compared to the charges of homicide which have frequently been handed down to those assisting in euthanasia.
Canada currently has an act called the Health Care Consent Act of 1996. It recognizes living wills that request refrain of heroic measures to preserve life if one become incapable of communicating.
The Criminal Code of Canada section 241 says that any person who counsels a person or aids a person to commit suicide whether the suicide is successful or not is guilty of a serious and criminal act and is subject to charges that relate to first and second degree murder or homicide.
Please look and listen to the following examples of cases on Euthanasia.”
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
My mirror
I am sitting in my office amongst text books, binders, some work files and my mirror. Yes, my mirror! It is a 15 x 10 gorgeously framed mirror that rests on the back left hand side of my desk where, when I want to, I can look up from my work and see my face. Why do I do this? For several reasons:
1) To check what kind of expression I'm letting off to the 'world'. Sometimes I take a glance at myself in the mirror and I see a scrunched nose and wrinkled forehead. Such an ugly, negative image I'm projecting when I actually DON'T feel that way inside! How interesting that is. I make an effort to adjust my face to what I am feeling. This is good practice for when I'm not able to have my mirror when I'm running, studying at the library or sitting on the subway...and it also slows down the noticeable wrinkles!
2) To have social pressure, even when no one is around. I work well when others are present because I care that they see me as a successful member of society. This is a basic fact of social motivation and I use this tactic with my lovely mirror. When I'm slacking of on Facebook, Youtube or not focusing properly on the work I am doing I see my face in my peripheral vision. I look up and see that I am making no progress in this current mindset. I then make a decision- keep slacking off or re-focus. If I choose the former, guilt soon kicks in and I start to get frustrated at myself...just like at the library when so many people are around and it would be a shameful act to creep my friends on Facebook while others around me were studying so diligently. Eventually the latter decision prevails. Hooray!
3) To practice good posture. When I look at myself in the mirror and see a hunch back, double chin and crooked neck I quickly adjust the unflattering appearance. Done and Done.
4) To talk to myself. I am studying to be a counsellor. I am noticing through this program that it can be very challenging to attain skills that you THINK you have, but upon practice (ie in class, in front of everyone else) you realize you have a lot of work to do. When I am studying a certain skill that is crucial to my ability to perform a therapeutic session, my mirror is my best friend. I catch myself making mistakes and have no problem making those mistakes in front of myself. Because of this, I am much more comfortable in front of my peers at school and have made significant improvements on the micro and macro skills imperative for a therapeutic relationship.
YOU SHOULD DO THE SAME!
1) To check what kind of expression I'm letting off to the 'world'. Sometimes I take a glance at myself in the mirror and I see a scrunched nose and wrinkled forehead. Such an ugly, negative image I'm projecting when I actually DON'T feel that way inside! How interesting that is. I make an effort to adjust my face to what I am feeling. This is good practice for when I'm not able to have my mirror when I'm running, studying at the library or sitting on the subway...and it also slows down the noticeable wrinkles!
2) To have social pressure, even when no one is around. I work well when others are present because I care that they see me as a successful member of society. This is a basic fact of social motivation and I use this tactic with my lovely mirror. When I'm slacking of on Facebook, Youtube or not focusing properly on the work I am doing I see my face in my peripheral vision. I look up and see that I am making no progress in this current mindset. I then make a decision- keep slacking off or re-focus. If I choose the former, guilt soon kicks in and I start to get frustrated at myself...just like at the library when so many people are around and it would be a shameful act to creep my friends on Facebook while others around me were studying so diligently. Eventually the latter decision prevails. Hooray!
3) To practice good posture. When I look at myself in the mirror and see a hunch back, double chin and crooked neck I quickly adjust the unflattering appearance. Done and Done.
4) To talk to myself. I am studying to be a counsellor. I am noticing through this program that it can be very challenging to attain skills that you THINK you have, but upon practice (ie in class, in front of everyone else) you realize you have a lot of work to do. When I am studying a certain skill that is crucial to my ability to perform a therapeutic session, my mirror is my best friend. I catch myself making mistakes and have no problem making those mistakes in front of myself. Because of this, I am much more comfortable in front of my peers at school and have made significant improvements on the micro and macro skills imperative for a therapeutic relationship.
YOU SHOULD DO THE SAME!
Friday, November 19, 2010
Do you know what real food is?
I've been searching a long time for the right resources on food and it wasn't until my dear friend Sam gave me two books for Christmas 2009, both by Michael Pollan: The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food. These are the two most important books I have ever received in my lifetime. Why? My questions were finally answered, my anxiety reduced, and my suspicions confirmed. I can only say superlatives about Pollan and you will only know why after you have read BOTH of these books. I see him as the Michael Moore (sans sensationalism) of food activists. Michael Pollan is my hero for stepping up and going against some big powerhouses to get the real situation on the food we eat today...by revealing how much of our food actually isn't food.
Watch these videos to get a glimpse at what Pollan has to share with us:
http://michaelpollan.com/interviews/michael-pollan-on-bill-maher/
http://michaelpollan.com/videos/michael-pollan-on-nbc-nightly-news/
Watch these videos to get a glimpse at what Pollan has to share with us:
http://michaelpollan.com/interviews/michael-pollan-on-bill-maher/
http://michaelpollan.com/videos/michael-pollan-on-nbc-nightly-news/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)