Happy Endings

Our team have raced our way to the finish line and have now completed all of our assignments for our communications paper.  This is the last blog post.  This is the sweet, sweet end. 

Looking back, our team faced several hurdles in getting through this course.  We had two team members drop out in the week before our first group assignment was due.  Our team started with 5 and it was initially difficult to communicate within the team.  While some of our team members were saying the right things, and agreeing to meetings, they would not attend or would reschedule.  Eventually, Mel, Yvonne and I realised we were on our own and we were able to pull together.  From that point, our team really began to find traction and start succeeding. The three remaining team members pushed through and managed to complete the task.  I think we were incredibly lucky that within the three of us, we had access to several of the key Belbin roles. 

Yvonne definitely exemplifies the role of Team Co-ordinator.  She was able to deftly identify Mel & I’s key areas of skill and shape the tasks to ensure we were working effectively and efficiently.  Additionally, Yvonne took on the role of Completer Finisher.  She agonised over finishing the seminar to a high quality, while I was ready to just hand in any old slop. 

Mel was an excellent Team Worker, she was co-operative and completed all tasks assigned to her.  She was also our Resource Investigator, she single handedly managed the interviews of the health professionals which gave us the bulk of our resources. 

I believe I played the role of Implementer. I created timeframes and plans, which we didn’t always meet, but we tried!  I definitely feel that having timeframes in a team project is especially important, without timeframes, success or failure cannot be measured. 

I think our team, Mel, Yvonne and I, did amazingly well at achieving our objectives.  We all worked full time during this paper, all have homes to run and families to see.  But we pulled together, completed all the assignments and are now all exceptionally happy to be able to say….

IT’S OVER BABY!

Peace out! 

Looking forward and being grateful for the present

Last week was action packed.  Finishing the group report, starting the seminar, studying for my other Summer School courses, working full time and trying not to neglect my friends.  Additionally, managing some complex relationship issues between my flatmates, avoiding conflict at every turn and looking after my dog.  Some might say this is a stressful time, they would be correct!  However, I am trying to cultivate a more positive outlook for myself, so for this blog I am going to look to the future.

There is so much to look forward to.  I am eagerly anticipating the end of Summer School! I am incredibly excited about having a week where there are no blog posts required, no study to be done and I can sit and watch TV.  Guilt free TV time.  What an amazing concept that is.  A time when I can watch TV and I not stress about the study I am not getting done.  That day will be a truly amazing one.

While I am excited about my future, I am also grateful for the present.  Someone once told me: the past has passed, the future is undetermined and the present is a gift.  While I wish I always felt this way, I do see merit in this way of looking at the world.  Imagine the peace that must come from accepting that right now is all we have.  No one is guaranteed a future, everyone has a past, but we all have this moment. 

While that waffle may have seemed pointless and random, what I am trying to say, is that even though I have had a very stressful week, it is over.  I survived it.  This week has just begun.  Today could be a great day! It really just depends what I make of it.  

Rehabilitation through the ages...

Rehabilitation is a relatively new concept; it can be loosely defined as re-enabling an individual to complete activities that they were able to do prior to an injury or illness (Dean, Siegert, & Taylor, 2012).  In New Zealand, rehabilitation has undergone immense transformation, ranging from one extreme, where people had no rights at all, to the other, where people demanded to be treated fairly.

Initially, NZ prescribed to the charity model. People had no rights and had to be lucky to obtain rehabilitation (Some aspects of New Zealand’s disability history, 2002). If an individual came from a wealthy family, who chose to support them, they may have received some rehabilitation, but probably considered themselves lucky to have meals provided. The majority of people in NZ who had a disability and were not wealthy were forced to beg for charity from churches, charities or on the street.

After the war NZ had an influx of previously fit and healthy young men, returning from the war with physical and mental disabilities (Dean, et al., 2012). Public opinion started to shift and NZ moved into the medical model of rehabilitation. People no longer thought of those with disabilities as undeserving, they began to see disabilities as something that could happen to anyone. The medical community started working with injured soldiers to attempt to assist them to be able to function as they used to, or as closely as possible. After time the medical model of rehabilitation was offered to civilians as well (Some aspects of New Zealand’s disability history, 2002).  In 1938 social security stated, taxing people on their means and proving for others based on their needs. This was an important step forward in providing for those who required assistance due to illness and disability.

In the 1970’s people fought to be treated fairly. This started the rights-based model, where people were seen to be deserving of treatment, regardless of their status in society and that everyone should be treated fairly (Some aspects of New Zealand’s disability history, 2002).  This was a giant shift in rehabilitation models, from the medical professionals being in control, to the individual being able to drive the rehabilitation process. 

In 1972 ACC began.  ACC provided financial assistance to individuals injured in an accident and funded treatments. This was the start of a new divide for people requiring rehabilitation, if they were injured in an accident, ACC provided for them. However, if they required rehabilitation due to an illness, individuals had to rely on the lesser funded ministry of health.

Rehabilitation has undergone a massive transformation over the past one hundred years.  I can only imagine how this process will continue to grow and evolve as we advance as society. I only hope that one day, everyone requiring rehabilitation will have the same opportunity to obtain treatment, regardless of why they may need rehabilitation. 





References

Dean, S. G., Siegert, R. J., & Taylor, W. J. (2012). Interprofessional rehabilitation: A person                 centred Approach.  Chinchester, West Suffix: Wiley-Blackwell.

Some aspects of New Zealand’s disability history.  (2002).  Retrieved from
              http://publicaddress.net/access/some-aspects-of-new-zealands-disability-history-1/

Stigmatised, Disenfranchised and Ignored?

Although our society has made great strides towards becoming more tolerant and accepting, many people still experience stigma and discrimination on a daily basis.  Stigmatised attitudes towards those with mental illnesses are slowly reducing in strength, but we are a long way from being able to say that we do not discriminate against those with mental illnesses.  Interestingly, the stigma effecting those living with mental illnesses appears to spread to their family members and friends (Van der Sanden, Bos, Pryor, Reeder, and Stutterheim, 2013).  This is called stigma by association.  The psychological effects of experiencing stigma by association include reduced self-esteem, feelings of fear, shame, blame, rejection, abandonment and contamination (Larson & Corrigan, 2008; Corrigan, Miller & Watson, 2006; Van Der Sanden et al. 2013).  

   

The consequences of stigma by association are devastating and can be as life changing as having a mental illness in the first instance (Stuart, 2005).  If the family member with a mental illness cohabitates with the person experiencing stigma by association the stigma increases and they are likely to experience higher levels of discrimination, avoidance and ridicule (Van der Sanden et al, 2013).  Family and friends of people with mental illnesses need increased community support, not to be avoided or treated poorly.

What can we do about stigma by association?  Unfortunately, like all complicated social issues, there is no quick fix.  Studies completed by Larson & Corrigan (2013) and Sadow, Rider & Webster (2002) have concluded that individuals who have regular contact with people with mental illnesses in a variety of situations are less likely to hold stigmatised attitudes towards both those with mental illnesses and those associated to the person with the mental illness.  Observing people with mental illnesses competently holding roles in the community such as maintaining employment, competing in sports or using their creativity in a public arena reduce the likelihood of and degree to which stigmatised attitudes are held towards them (Sadow, Rider & Webster, 2002 and Stuart, 2005).   Creating a relationship with those who have mental illnesses in an equal footed arena appears to immediately reduce stigma (Larson & Corrigan).  Unfortunately, these relationships are difficult to manufacture.

What can you do to help those experiencing stigma by association?
Remember – mental illnesses are not contagious, or anyone’s fault.  Offer support and compassion to those with mental illnesses and to their family members.  Avoid or exit conversations which are bordering on discrimination and stigmatisation.  Be brave.  Be accepting, tolerant and supportive.  You could completely change someone’s life today, by looking past the stigma and being a decent human being. 

References

Bos, A. E., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in
            theory and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,35(1), 1-9.

Corrigan, P. W., Watson, A. C., & Miller, F. E. (2006). Blame, shame, and contamination:
            the impact of mental illness and drug dependence stigma on family members. Journal
            of Family Psychology, 20(2), 239.

Larson, J. E., & Corrigan, P. (2008). The stigma of families with mental illness. Academic
            Psychiatry, 32(2), 87-91.

Sadow, D., Ryder, M., & Webster, D. (2002). Is education of health professionals
            encouraging stigma towards the mentally ill?. Journal of Mental Health, 11(6), 657-
            665.

Sanden, R. L., Bos, A. E., Stutterheim, S. E., Pryor, J. B., & Kok, G. (2015). Stigma by
            Association     Among Family Members of People with a Mental Illness: A
            Qualitative Analysis. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25(5),
            400-417.

Stuart, H. (2005). Fighting stigma and discrimination is fighting for mental health. Canadian
            Public Policy, 31(s1), 21-28.

Happy New Year

I hope everyone had as excellent a holiday as I did!  Although the two weeks did fly by.  Time is such a strange concept.  Technically time has the same amount of seconds regardless of how you are spending it, yet when I am on holiday the seconds seem much quicker than when I am at work.  This week I have been thinking about my ethical views.  It has recently been pointed out to me that I typically have strong alternative views on controversial topics and I have pondering why that is. 

I tend to believe my views are alternative because I take a particularly logical view on most things.  I am not concerned with the emotionality of a decision, more with the decision’s fairness.  Although I completely understand that luck is a huge part of an individual’s experience of life, I also believe that you create your own opportunities.  In my experience, your choices dictate your future.  I suppose this is why I took the view that you should not be eligible to receive organ donations unless you had previously signed up to be a donor. 

Overall, I sign up to the “do no harm” philosophy of life.  You can do whatever you like, as long it harms no one.  But, as a caveat to that, I believe in taking responsibility for your actions and your choices.  Lady luck may rain all over your life, but if your actions are authentic then you can still live your best life.  If you choose to become a registered donor and then later need an organ, there is a certain fairness and authenticity to that need.  You were willing to donate your organs to help someone else, so you now that you need a donation, you should be higher on the list than someone who had made the decision not to help others. 

Some could say this is the morality of a young person and I agree there are countless factors I have excluded from my consideration.  However, when I consider my argument, the fairness over rules all else.  But then, that is just how my brain works.  Thank god we are all different, aye!   

Clarity, Brevity and Subject Matter!

What a week this has been!  Christmas is next week!  Where did 2016 go? I swear that years become shorter the older I get.  I’ve had a few things on my mind this week, but something I have been seriously considering is what is important in writing scientific documents. 

I think there are three key areas that are important when writing a scientific document, clarity, brevity and subject matter.  Clarity, because if no one can understand my writing, I may as well not write.  If someone is reading the results of an experiment and is confused about what the results are, then the entire experiment was a waste of time!  I can imagine nothing more disappointing then putting in the work required to undertake an experiment, only to have it be deemed pointless as no one can understand it. 

Brevity is extremely important.  While you must ensure to clearly explain the points in a document, pontificating and waffling must be avoided at all costs.  For two reasons, primarily because waffling is boring and someone reading a scientific document really just wants the facts.  Secondly, by introducing needless words, the door is being opened to a reader misinterpreting the document.  If the document is clear and brief, the key points will be impossible to misinterpret. 

Finally, subject matter must be taken into consideration.  Taking the time to understanding what research has been done before and ensuring that your document adds to the knowledge in this area, will make your document a “must read” in the field.  Without researching others input in the field you run the risk of just parroting what someone else has written before, even though you may have written it yourself.

Well, this probably hasn’t been the most exciting Pre-Christmas blog you have read this year.  However hopefully you can incorporate these thoughts when writing your next scientific document and aim for clarity, brevity and a positive addition to the subject matter. 

Merry Christmas!

Finishing my Position Paper!

This week I finally finished my position paper.  Well, “finished” is too final a word.  In reality I wrote enough words, attempted to proof read, gave up and submitted it.   Fingers crossed it cuts the mustard!  I did learn a lot about organ donations while researching for the position paper.  I read a lot of interesting perspectives on how organ donations could be allocated.  While I had always originally thought that a medical needs based system was the fairest allocation method, I eventually ended up changing my view. 

A preferential organ allocation system based on whether an individual is a registered donor is prescribed in an article published by Breyer & Kliemt (2007).   While they do not recommend excluding non donors (individuals not registered to donate organs) from the organ recipient pool, they do recommend offering a slight positive preference to registered donors.  They argue that by increasing the amount of registered donors, the amount of organs donated will increase, allowing more people to receive organ donations.   

Chandler (2005) has an opposing view, she argues that preferential systems disadvantage those in religious or ethnic minority groups who are unable to become donors based on their beliefs.  Furthermore, she argues that it will also disadvantage those who lack access to quality medical information, such as the elderly or the mentally ill. These two groups are more isolated that the standard population and may have less ability to understand the consequences of deciding to register as a donor, or not.  She believes that disadvantaging those who may not have had the ability to register is very unfair. 

In the end I do agree with those that argue for a priority distribution system based on prioritising those who had previously agreed to become donors.  It will increase the potential organ availability, which will benefit both those who are prioritised and those who are not registered donors. 

Refernces:

Breyer, F., & Kliemt, H. (2007). The shortage of human organs: causes, consequences and
            remedies. Analyse & Kritik, 29(2), 188-205.

  Chandler, J. A. (2005). Priority systems in the allocation of organs for transplant: should we reward
            those who have previously agreed to donate?. Health law journal, 13.