Archive for the PERSONAL Category

Psychiatric Ethics & the Goldwater Rule

Posted in MEDICOPOLITICS, ONLINE DEBATE, PERSONAL, PRACTICE, PSYCHIATRY, U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 11, 2018 by drjgelb

The desperation of the Democrats, still baying at the moon over a year since their terrible candidate lost the election, despite her seditious, criminal actions to subvert the will of the American People, is astonishing. We have witnessed a complete refusal by the Democrats and their supporters to allow a smooth and peaceful transition of power. Instead, as each attempt to oust President Trump falls flat on its face, the derangement of his enemies escalates & now we have the absurd scene of highly trained medical specialists attempting to misuse their skills in order to achieve what their compatriots have been unable to pull off. Let me make it very clear to all my colleagues, friends and readers, opining on someone that one has not clinically evaluated, that one has never met, without taking a thorough psychiatric and medical history, conducting a Mental State Examination, including an assessment of Cognitive Function, obtaining a collaborative history from family, friends, involved medical practitioners and allied health and obtaining appropriate special investigations such as blood tests and medical imaging, is MALPRACTICE or put formally, Professional Misconduct. The actions of the psychiatrists supporting the outrageous 25th Amendment Coup attempt are a despicable display of partisan abuse of psychiatry reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s fabrication of the diagnosis of “Slowly Progressive Schizophrenia” used to incarcerate & stupefy hundreds of thousands of political dissidents and enemies of the state. So egregious was the USSR’s behaviour considered that the nation was expelled from the World Psychiatric Association and the psychiatrists that colluded with the regime were ostracised for life. I consider attempts to use our specialty as a political weapon makes the perpetrators the equivalent of War Criminals. At the very least, they don’t give a damn about President Trump’s Human Rights. They bring psychiatry into shameful disrepute and I sincerely hope that those engaged in this shameful, cowardly attack are formally reported to their State Medical Board for ethical investigation and censure. Below are some of the official APA statements regarding this ongoing debacle. You can see that the APA leadership has had to repeat its warning to members more than a few times and has had to head off at the pass several attempts to introduce confounding side issues to the debate.

APA Calls for End to ‘Armchair’ Psychiatry

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as “The Goldwater Rule.” We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.

The ethical principle, in place since 1973, guides physician members of the APA to refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context. Doing otherwise undermines the credibility and integrity of the profession and the physician-patient relationship. Although APA’s ethical guidelines can only be enforced against APA members, we urge all psychiatrists, regardless of membership, to abide by this guidance in respect of our patients and our profession.

A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease. The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status. Often collateral information from family members or individuals who know the person well is included, with permission from the patient.

“The Goldwater Rule embodies these concepts and makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. “APA stands behind this rule.”

The President is about to undergo his annual physical examination, and APA has confidence that his physician will follow the standard of care in examining all systems, which includes an age-appropriate medical and mental health evaluation. If mental health concerns are raised, the standard of care would result in the examining physician seeking consultation from an experienced psychiatrist who would approach the consultation with objectivity and within the physician-patient confidential relationship.

APA is ready to make recommendations from among our 37,000 psychiatrist members, physicians who have the knowledge, training, expertise, discretion, and objectivity to perform a thorough and apolitical evaluation. Using psychiatry for political or self-aggrandizing purposes is stigmatizing for our patients and negatively impacts our profession.

 

 

Goldwater Rule

by Aaron Levin

Restraint of psychiatrists’ comments on political candidates is grounded in APA’s response to an attempt to question Barry Goldwater’s mental health during the 1964 campaign for President.

“Do you believe Barry Goldwater is psychologically fit to serve as President of the United States?” the editors of Fact magazine asked 12,356 psychiatrists during the 1964 presidential campaign between Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson.

The responses set off a wave of reaction that resonated again most recently after media speculation about the mental status of the current Republican presidential candidate.

Fact published numerous comments questioning Sen. Barry Goldwater’s psychological capacity for office, which ultimately led to the creation of APA’s “Goldwater Rule” in 1973.

A look at the original episode reveals as much about psychiatry’s changes over the last half century as it does about politics then or now.

The harshly negative responses by people who had never even met Goldwater seem astonishing by today’s standards, as a sampling suggests:

“I believe Goldwater to be suffering from a chronic psychosis,” wrote one.

“A megalomaniacal, grandiose omnipotence appears to pervade Mr. Goldwater’s personality giving further evidence of his denial and lack of recognition of his own feelings of insecurity and ineffectiveness,” wrote another.

“From his published statements I get the impression that Goldwater is basically a paranoid schizophrenic who decompensates from time to time. … He resembles Mao Tse-tung,” said a third.

Not wanting to exclude other relevant 20th-century tyrants, another claimed, “I believe Goldwater has the same pathological makeup as Hitler, Castro, Stalin, and other known schizophrenic leaders.”

Others pushed back. In reality, Goldwater had worked in his family’s business, then served as a transport pilot in World War II, and retained a commission in the Air Force Reserve for many years. He was twice elected senator before the 1964 presidential race and would be again in 1968, 1974, and 1980.

It was difficult, said one psychiatrist quoted in Fact, to believe that a man who was “psychotic” or “schizophrenic” would have managed all that.

“I served as a flight surgeon in the USAF,” wrote Wilbert Lyons, M.D., of Sellersville, Pa. “I speak with authority when I say that Sen. Goldwater could not be a jet pilot if he were emotionally unstable.”

Goldwater certainly held very conservative political views and expressed them forcefully. Many of the respondents who declared him “unfit” were likely expressing their own political biases in psychiatric terms. Tellingly, many of them asked that their names be withheld from publication, perhaps hinting at some guilt feelings over their cavalier, remote diagnoses of the candidate.

Nevertheless, many other respondents understood immediately the greater implications of the question for psychiatry’s purported role in the electoral process.

“Your inquiry for a professional opinion regarding Sen. Barry Goldwater’s general mental stability is an insult to me,” wrote Thomas Stach, M.D., in 1964. “An inquiry of this type regarding any individual can only be based on ignorance of the field of psychiatry.”

Stach demanded an apology from the editors to all the psychiatrists who had received the survey.

“It was astounding to me when the survey first came out,” Stach, now retired in Willowbrook, Ill., told Psychiatric News. “It was impossible for a psychiatrist to come to a conclusion like that without a personal examination. The psychiatrists who were baited into giving responses were imprudent.”

Some offered a nuanced statement of their own positions.

“Politically, I heartily disapprove of Goldwater,” wrote Joseph Schachter, M.D., Ph.D., in 1964. “In fact, I find him somewhat frightening. Yet I do not feel I can honestly say he is psychologically unfit to serve as president.”

“I still think that’s a plausible view of the Goldwater situation,” said Schachter, now retired and living in New York City, in a recent interview. “Psychiatrists and psychoanalysts have the right as citizens to comment on elections and candidates and are free to do that, but without selecting a psychiatric diagnosis.”

“Vetting a candidate should be based on his or her position on the issues,” agreed Stach. “The survey betrayed the ignorance of the questioner.”

APA’s initial reaction to the Fact magazine article came swiftly.

“[S]hould you decide to publish the results of a purported ‘survey’ of psychiatric opinion on the question you have posed, the Association will take all possible measures to disavow its validity,” wrote APA Medical Director Walter Barton, M.D., in a letter to the magazine’s editors on October 1, 1964.

APA President Daniel Blain, M.D., denounced the compilation as “a hodge-podge of the personal political opinions of selected psychiatrists speaking as individuals. … [T]he replies to the question have no scientific or medical validity whatsoever.”

Tying political partisanship to the psychiatric profession, continued Blain, “has, in effect, administered a low blow to all who would work to advance the treatment and care of the mentally ill of America.”

APA’s formal response came in 1973 with the adoption of Section 7.3 in the Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, which became known as the Goldwater Rule.

The rule applies to public figures and states: “It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement” (see below).

The episode and the subsequent adoption of Section 7.3 appear to have dampened the enthusiasm of most APA members for a repeat performance, leaving psychiatric diagnosis to the media.

Text of APA’s Ethics Annotation Known as ‘Goldwater Rule’

7. 3. On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.

 

APA’s Goldwater Rule Remains a Guiding Principle for Physician Members

ARLINGTON, Va. — The American Psychiatric Association (APA) today released the following statement regarding The Goldwater Rule:

“In the past year and a half, there have been numerous news articles and commentaries on The Goldwater Rule. The Goldwater Rule is an ethics principle that guides our physician members not to provide professional opinions in the media about the mental health of someone they have not personally examined and without patient consent or other legal authority. A personal examination includes ruling out physical causes of or other reasons for a behavior. Nothing about the Goldwater Rule discourages psychiatrists from providing education to the public about mental illnesses; in fact, APA encourages psychiatrists to educate the public about the causes, symptoms, and treatment of mental illnesses and substance use disorders.

The APA would also like to dispel a common misconception about the so-called “Duty to Warn.” The duty to warn is a legal concept which varies from state to state, but which generally requires psychiatrists to breach the confidentiality of the therapeutic session when a risk of danger to others becomes known during treatment of the patient. It does not apply if there is no physician-patient relationship.”

 

APA Reaffirms Support for Goldwater Rule

ARLINGTON, Va. March 16, 2017 — The American Psychiatric Association (APA) today reaffirmed its support behind the ethics guideline commonly known as “The Goldwater Rule,” which asserts that member psychiatrists should not give professional opinions about the mental state of someone they have not personally evaluated.

The APA’s Ethics Committee issued an opinion that clarifies the ethical principle and answers questions that have been posed recently.

Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association and its members have abided by a principle commonly known as “the Goldwater Rule.” The ethics principle is so named because of its association with an incident that took place during the 1964 presidential election. (See APA Blog on Goldwater Rule.) During that election, Fact magazine published a survey in which it queried some 12,356 psychiatrists on whether candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit to be president. A total of 2,417 of those queried responded, with 1,189 saying that Goldwater was unfit to assume the presidency. Goldwater would later sue the magazine, which was found liable for damages.

“It was unethical and irresponsible back in 1964 to offer professional opinions on people who were not properly evaluated and it is unethical and irresponsible today,” said APA President Maria A. Oquendo, M.D., Ph.D. “In the past year, we have received numerous inquiries from member psychiatrists, the press and the public about the Goldwater Rule. We decided to clarify the ethical underpinnings of the principle and answer some of the common questions raised by our members. APA continues to support these ethical principles.”

In reaffirming the existing policy, the Ethics Committee explained the rationale behind the rule. For example, offering a professional opinion or a diagnosis of someone they have not thoroughly examined compromises the integrity of the doctor and the profession and it has the potential to stigmatize those with mental illness. Furthermore, when a physician publicly gives a professional opinion on a public figure without consent, it violates the principle that a psychiatric evaluation must occur with consent or authorization.

 

The Goldwater Rule: Why breaking it is Unethical and Irresponsible

August 3rd 2016    

Every four years, the United States goes through a protracted elections process for the highest office in the land. This year, the election seems like anything but a normal contest, that has at times devolved into outright vitriol. The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible.

Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.

Maria A. Oquendo, M.D.

Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association and its members have abided by a principle commonly known as “the Goldwater Rule,” which prohibits psychiatrists from offering opinions on someone they have not personally evaluated. The rule is so named because of its association with an incident that took place during the 1964 presidential election. During that election, Fact magazine published a survey in which they queried some 12,356 psychiatrists on whether candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit to be president. A total of 2,417 of those queried responded, with 1,189 saying that Goldwater was unfit to assume the presidency.

While there was no formal policy in place at the time that survey was published, the ethical implications of the Goldwater survey, in which some responding doctors even issued specific diagnoses without ever having examined him personally, became immediately clear. This large, very public ethical misstep by a significant number of psychiatrists violated the spirit of the ethical code that we live by as physicians, and could very well have eroded public confidence in psychiatry.

We live in an age where information on a given individual is easier to access and more abundant than ever before, particularly if that person happens to be a public figure. With that in mind, I can understand the desire to get inside the mind of a Presidential candidate. I can also understand how a patient might feel if they saw their doctor offering an uninformed medical opinion on someone they have never examined. A patient who sees that might lose confidence in their doctor, and would likely feel stigmatized by language painting a candidate with a mental disorder (real or perceived) as “unfit” or “unworthy” to assume the Presidency.

Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.

The Goldwater Rule is published as an annotation in the Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry. I encourage you all to read the full text of the rule below, and keep it in mind during this election cycle, and other events of similarly intense public interest.

 

 

The Ethical Psychiatrist’s Role in Public Elections

April 7th 2016

Presidential elections are intense and may lead some observers to speculate about the mental health of the candidates. People are curious about psychiatrists’ diagnostic opinions of politicians and other public figures. This is a sufficiently common phenomenon that APA added an annotation to the Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry in 1973, commonly referred to as the Goldwater Rule, prohibiting psychiatrists from offering public opinions about people they have not personally evaluated.

Section 7, Article 3, of the Principles states, “On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

Why is it called the Goldwater Rule? During the 1964 presidential election, Fact magazine published the results of a survey it had mailed to 12,356 psychiatrists. Of the 2,417 respondents, 1,189 replied that Sen. Barry Goldwater was not psychologically fit to be president. For a detailed account of the responses, see Henry Pinsker, M.D.’s “Goldwater Rule History” in Psychiatric News. Sen. Goldwater successfully sued Fact for libel and was awarded $75,000 in punitive damages.

APA responded to this very public ethical misstep by a large number of psychiatrists with the annotation above, and periodically the Goldwater Rule is recapped in APA publications (“Ethics Reminder Offered About Goldwater Rule on Talking to the Media,” and in the national media (“Should Therapists Analyze Presidential Candidates?).

Beyond a reminder about the rule, it may be helpful to understand some of the ethical concepts behind it. Virtue ethics emphasizes the personal characteristics that society expects physicians to embody. Among these virtues are respect for others, humility, and adherence to diagnostic processes according to the standards of our field. If we venture a diagnostic impression about a person we have not examined, we trample upon these virtues.

In addition to inviting a lawsuit for libel or slander, a potential consequence of psychiatrists breaching these virtues is a diminution of public confidence in psychiatrists. If we will speak to the media about the possible psychiatric diagnosis of a person we have not evaluated, will we also reveal the identities and diagnoses of our patients? We must guard against undermining the protective cloak of confidentiality, without which people may refrain from seeking mental health treatment.

Political campaigns are brutal. Even a psychologically healthy person needs extra support if engaged as a candidate in an election. Because of stigma, that candidate needs to be assured of the utmost privacy and confidentiality if he or she is to enter treatment. If we are hazarding guesses about politicians’ diagnoses in the media, we will lose the opportunity to provide treatment to our political leaders, which is perhaps one of the most effective ways to ensure a mentally healthy leadership while simultaneously eroding the stigma attached to our field.

Psychiatrists can play an important role in elections, but it is mostly silent. 

 

 

There are many other similar statements, warnings, reminders and guidelines that have been issued on a regular basis since 1973, as each election cycle strained adherence to the Goldwater Rule but have no doubt, EVERY PSYCHIATRIST IS FULLY AWARE OF THEIR ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN THESE MATTERS and the public has the right to expect better of its key Mental Health Professionals. 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

“targeted, tortured and killed by her assailant because she was Jewish.”

Posted in CRIME & CORRUPTION, Cultural Marxism, ONLINE DEBATE, PERSONAL with tags , , , , , , , on June 2, 2017 by drjgelb

“As further details emerge of the brutal murder of an Orthodox Jewish woman in a Paris suburb at the hands of a Muslim assailant last month, French Jews are increasingly worried and angered by what one prominent member of the community called an “organised silence” surrounding the case.

Dr. Sarah Halimi — a 66-year-old pensioner living in the Paris suburb of Belleville — was murdered in the early hours of April 4 2017 by Kada Traore, a 27-year-old immigrant from Mali.  After breaking into the neighboring apartment of another Malian family at 4:25 a.m. — whose terrified inhabitants locked themselves away as they heard him recite verses from the Quran — Traore jumped over the balcony and forced his way into Halimi’s apartment. As he beat the elderly lady savagely, her screams prompted neighbours to call the police.

Three officers arrived at 4:45 a.m. But on hearing Traore yelling “Allahu Akhbar!” and “Shaitan!” (Arabic for ‘Satan’), they feared a terrorist attack was taking place, and called for backup. Anti-terror officers did not arrive until 5:00 a.m., by which time Halimi had been thrown by her attacker from the window of her third-floor apartment to the ground below. Traore, reported to be a drug dealer and addict with a criminal record, then returned to the apartment of the Malian family where he resumed his prayers, and was not taken into police custody until almost 6:00 a.m.

Shock over the barbaric nature of the murder has been compounded by the reluctance of both the media and French authorities to recognise it as an antisemitic hate crime — even after a silent march of remembrance on the Sunday after the murder was met by local youths chanting “Death to the Jews” and “We Own Kalashnikovs.”

In an open letter to new French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb, Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine — a French journalist and expert on antisemitism — charged that “in the advanced decadence that reigns today in the country of (antisemitic comedian) Dieudonné, for whom ‘the Jews are dogs’ (and people laugh hysterically), it seems that a run-over dog deserves more attention than a murdered Jewish woman.”

Laignel-Lavastine also quoted William Attal, Halimi’s brother, who stated, “I have waited seven weeks before I said anything. The absolute silence about my sister’s murder has become intolerable.”

Since the murder, official and media accounts of what transpired have played up claims that Traore was suffering from mental illness, while virtually ignoring the antisemitic element of the crime. A common theory is that the recent French election encouraged — in the phrase of Michel Gurfinkiel, a leading French political analyst and president of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute in Paris — an “organized silence” around the Halimi murder.

“Such a story would benefit the Right and the National Front,” Gurfinkiel said. “Everyone is convinced this is why there has been such an organized silence around the story.”

A few days after the murder, Marine Le Pen — the leader of the far-right, anti-immigrant National Front — tweeted that Halimi’s fate made her want to “speak about Islamist antisemitism.” Le Pen was defeated by centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron in the second round of the presidential election on May 7.

“The Jewish community was very careful not to be suspected of siding with Marine Le Pen,” Gurfinkiel said. He also noted that state provision of security to religious buildings and institutions means that Jewish organizations are “reluctant to raise certain questions.”

But as more time passes in the wake of Halimi’s murder, the calls to recognize its antisemitic nature are growing. Interviewed by the Le Parisien newspaper last week, the lawyers for the Halimi family, Jean-Alex Buchinger and David Kaminsky, said in no uncertain terms that Sarah Halimi had been “targeted, tortured and killed by her assailant because she was Jewish.”

Halimi’s murder robbed the Jewish community in Paris of one of its most loved figures, known for her work as a doctor and as a kindergarten teacher. “She was very well known and respected, a great person,” Gurfinkiel said. “The tragedy is that she was living in that part of Paris where Jews are gradually leaving, since the security doesn’t exist anymore.”

It also brought forth reminders of the 2006 kidnapping and murder of a young French Jew, Ilan Halimi — no relation to Ruth Halimi — whose body was left for dead by a mostly-Muslim gang who seized him out of the belief that Jews were wealthy and willing to pay ransom money.

“The French police were of no help during the whole (Ilan Halimi) episode, rejecting any idea that antisemitism could have played a role in the affair and preferring to believe the absurd notion that this was the result of some war between rival gangs,” Laignel-Lavastine noted in her letter about Ruth Halimi to French Interior Minister Collomb. “Ten years later, we have reached the same point.”

Traore is currently undergoing psychiatric tests and Jewish communal leaders are impatient for more information from authorities. “The more time passes, the more the community feels that there is something you do not want to tell us,” commented Joel Mergui, head of the Consistoire — the governing body of French Jewish communities.”

VIP Sexual Predators – A Global Obscenity that Requires Urgent & Aggressive Action!

Posted in CRIME & CORRUPTION, PERSONAL, SEX with tags on April 6, 2017 by drjgelb

In the You Tube Video I have reposted here, the brilliant Paul Joseph Watson shouts out in defence of children & implores us to pressure our representatives to immediately conduct a far reaching, comprehensive investigation of the rumours, whispers & news fragments regarding politicians, judges, diplomats & prominent, wealthy & powerful citizens allegedly secretly perpetrating depraved sex crimes against children all over the Western World. 

Why isn’t this just another conspiracy theory? 

Because in addition to the scandals of Rotherham, Sweden, Cologne & the lurid tales regarding Bill Clinton 27 trips to Orgy Island on his mate’s jet (dubbed The Lolita Express), we know better. Thanks to the massive uptake by Law Enforcement of Crime Mapping & the numerous accompanying publicly available smartphone applications logging local crimes throughout several nations, we now know that there are literally thousands of sex offenders living in almost every town, city & neighbourhood in the U.S. & probably similarly in other Western countries. 

A recent program on the Crime & Investigation cable channel regarding the investigation of a spate of sex crimes against children in a town in the U.S., became a nightmare for Police when it was discovered that over 500 registered sex offenders resided within a couple of miles of the victims. Many of these convicted felons had been placed in communities unaware of their presence…….including the Police!

Watch & Listen carefully to Paul Joseph Watson’s impassioned plea for action to put a stop to this horror in our midst!

 

How To Be An Adult -By Oreoluwa Fakorede

Posted in PERSONAL with tags , , , , , , on January 17, 2017 by drjgelb

Repost From Medium – not authored by me

By Oreoluwa Fakorede    Jan 6 2017

Source:   https://medium.com/personal-growth/how-to-be-an-adult-af42cbd31808#.nc4z3eqwe

Well done Oreoluwa Fakorede – great list!

1. Don’t be an idiot, generally.

2. If you’re going to drive, don’t drink. See 1 above.

3. When you’re driving, leave your phone alone. Snapchat can wait.

4. And leave it alone when you’re with people, the kind you can reach out and touch.

5. Ask for help when you need it. Don’t struggle alone.

6. Don’t expect too much from people and don’t blame anyone for the way your life turned out. Take responsibility.

7. Face your past, make peace with it and move along.

8. Read, please.

9. Be that person who knows a little about a lot and a lot about one thing at least.

10. Stop talking about other people so much. Maybe stop talking so much, generally.

11. Save, a little at a time. It’s called discipline and discipline is essential for living a grown-up life.

12. You know the guy who buys everyone drinks at the bar on pay day? Don’t be him. He’s the poster boy for idiocy.

13. I’ll reinforce that point: Rich people don’t need to buy strangers a round of drinks to prove anything. It proves nothing.

14. Don’t crash weddings. It’s beneath you. Shut up already about the gastronomic value of small chops. Don’t let your appetite embarrass you.

15. When you’re actually invited (as in you have an actual invite), attend the marriage ceremony itself and skip the reception. The first is beautiful, the second usually taints the awe of the first: hunger and alcohol bring out the worst in people.

16. Speaking of marriage, you know the people who got married because “We were pressured?” Don’t be those people.

17. Be on time every time. Try.

18. Put more effort into listening.

19. Be friends with people who exist off the internet.

20. Don’t beg for sex. I know you’re thirsty, it’ll pass.

21. Know your alcohol limit: the point after which you can no longer trust yourself to look out for yourself.

22. Respect yourself enough to be respected by other people. It might sound corny, but respect really does breed respect.

23. Learn to cook. It’s a basic survival skill. Secondarily, it makes you look good when you can do it well.

24. If you’re upset, say you are and let it go. Don’t bottle it in. Grudges are poisonous.

25. Commit to something. Could be a faith or a regular salon appointment. Commit.

26. When you can help, help. There’s nothing quite like the feeling you get from making someone else’s life better.

27. Take yourself out often.

28. Tell yourself the truth. That’s the most basic form of self-love.

29. And tell everyone else the truth. Open your mouth, let it out, shut your mouth. It’s not always that easy but it’s what’s best for everyone.

30. Accept your humanity and stop chasing perfection. The roses come with thorns.

31. Don’t drag anyone into your personal drama. It’s not fair.

32. Don’t lead people on. It’s okay not to know what you want, just don’t act like you do.

DEATH OF A BELOVED PET

Posted in PERSONAL with tags , , , , , on September 8, 2016 by drjgelb

My 21yr old daughter, Kya, lost her beloved nearly 13yr old dog, Jupiter yesterday after a short but devastating illness. She and her mother had to make the terrible, heart-rending decision to cease heroic treatment & allow the Vet to let him pass peacefully. The pain of the last week is etched in my daughter’s tear-stained face. This is the first time that she has experienced loss & grief as an adult. I want to post what she placed on her Facebook Profile, followed by a poem I sent to her to try and put some words to what I thought she might be feeling.

 

14291654_10154478496579889_4483998503094382253_nHere then is her post:

 

“The last few days have been torturous and today was the hardest day of my life. I had to let my best friend, my boy, go to cross the rainbow bridge. My Jupiter, booping, juping, ju-ping-ping. The universe selected our lives to intertwine and the day we saw you, in the centre of a gated row of barking, jumping dogs, sat you, a quiet boy wagging his tail with big gorgeous, soulful eyes – we knew you were our boy right then and that we would be connected, heart and soul, for life. I am so grateful to have shared more than half my lifetime with such an amazing, beautiful, loyal best friend. Our souls will forever be interconnected, our memories forever cherished. I will love you endlessly and miss you so so deeply. I will see you again, waiting at the rainbow bridge. You are such a good boy, my boy, my Jupiter.” ❤️ 

 

And here is the poem by Lord Byron, inscribed on the grave of his beloved dog, “Boatswain”:

 

Lord Byron (1788-1824), born George Gordon Byron was an Anglo-Saxon poet. He was a flamboyant, eccentric character, reviled and revered at the same time.  He was regarded as one of the greatest European poets and remains widely read.

One of Lord Byron’s best known works, “Epitaph to a dog”, was written for his Newfoundland dog ‘Boatswain’.

Boatswain (1803-1808), Lord Byron’s Newfoundland dog, died of rabies while Byron was living at Newstead, and it is here that Boatswain lays buried.

 Lord Byron wrote the following epitaph in honour of his faithful friend:

“Near this Spot

are deposited the Remains of one

who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

and all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

if inscribed over human Ashes,

is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG,

who was born in Newfoundland May 1803,

and died at Newstead Nov 18th, 1808.”

“When some proud son of man returns to earth,

Unknown by glory, but upheld by birth,

The sculptor’s art exhausts the pomp of woe,

And stories urns record that rests below.

When all is done, upon the tomb is seen,

Not what he was, but what he should have been.

But the poor dog, in life the firmest friend,

The first to welcome, foremost to defend,

Whose honest heart is still his master’s own,

Who labours, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,

Unhonoured falls, unnoticed all his worth,

Denied in heaven the soul he held on earth –

While man, vain insect, hopes to be forgiven,

And claims himself a sole exclusive heaven.

Oh man, thou feeble tenant of an hour,

Debased by slavery, or corrupt by power –

Who knows thee well must quit thee with disgust,

Degraded mass of animated dust!

Thy love is lust, thy friendship all a cheat,

Thy smiles hypocrisy, thy words deceit!

By nature vile, ennoble but by name,

Each kindred brute might bid thee blush for shame.

Ye, who perchance behold this simple urn,

Pass on – it honours none you wish to mourn.

To mark a friend’s remains these stones arise;

I never knew but one – and here he lies.”

How hard we strive to push from our minds thoughts of losing or departing from those we truly love. It’s one of life’s hardest challenges.

ANZAC DAY IS 25TH APRIL 2016

Posted in GUN CONTROL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE & THE HORRORS OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM!, PERSONAL, PRACTICE, PSYCHIATRY with tags , , , on April 6, 2016 by drjgelb

Anzac Day, 25th April 2016, is a difficult day for many if not most Veterans, especially those whose mental health has been damaged by their military service. Current ADF members whose deployment has caused damage to their mental health may also suffer on or around Anzac Day, even among those not yet diagnosed with a mental health condition. It’s important to know that the day itself is not the only day of increased risk for mental distress, worsened symptoms of mental health disorders & suicide. Many Veterans have reported feeling rising tension & increased unease from the beginning of April or earlier that last until well after Anzac day is over. The “Anzac Day Effect”, as I call it, is actually an example of the well known “Anniversary Reaction”, a peak of distress that commonly occurs on important days such as birthdays, Christmas & wedding anniversaries in the bereaved. In other words, it is normal & expected to be common. What is different, is that this common effect is made more likely and more severe in those Veterans already suffering from a mental disorder like PTSD, where reminders of military service have a more severe impact. Regardless of whether or not you have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, be aware that you and/or your Veteran mates are entering a potentially difficult period and keep an eye out for each other. If you’re worried about yourself or a mate, don’t keep quiet & hope it just passes. Ask yourself or your mate if they’re travelling ok, start a conversation about what you are feeling or about what you’ve read about the tough time that many Veterans go through around Anzac Day. The best medicine for distress around Anzac Day isn’t Alcohol, it’s airing these feelings with trusted people…….Veterans, family, friends or your doctor. Suicide results from hopelessness & involves alcohol 75% of the time. Observing Anzac Day with either no alcohol or by limiting your alcohol intake, together with a willingness to talk and awareness of the increased Anzac Day risks amongst the entire Veteran community, will, not might, save lives. To all Veterans, I wish you a solemn and special Day of remembrance, nostalgia and celebration of our national heroes, past, present & future.

I DON’T LIKE JEWS BECAUSE…….

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS, PERSONAL with tags on July 12, 2015 by drjgelb

July 12, 2015 at 1:21am
Justin Amler
Justin Amler is a South African born, Melbourne based writer who has lived in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia.
I don’t like Jews because…

We Jews are a convenient scapegoat for the failures of this world. How Inconvenient for our enemies that we now defend ourselves against those who hate us!

We Jews are a convenient scapegoat for the failures of this world. How Inconvenient for our enemies that we now defend ourselves against those who hate us!

Jews are very annoying – they really are. They are the cause of all the world’s problems. It’s true, you know. I read it in all the newspapers and I see it in the protests across the world… Al Jazeera told me it’s true. So did the Guardian and the BBC. I mean… surely most of the world’s people can’t be wrong?

If Jews would stop being so stubborn, there’d be peace in the world once again. In fact – the world would be an incredible place filled with peace and harmony and gentle music. But now instead, it is faced with much darkness and it’s all because of the Jews.

I don’t like Jews because they don’t listen to their friends like America and Britain and Europe and the Arab League who know what’s best for them. The Jews are just sooo stubborn and refuse to listen even though their friends would guarantee their security just as they have done for countless other peoples around the world. If anyone dares attacks the Jews, the world will definitely step in and help them – I’m convinced.

It bothers me that the Jews won’t listen to the UN and the Human Rights Organisations. I mean come on – they are an organisation for human rights! Since the UN was formed, they have ensured that no genocides or massacres or human rights violations have taken place. And most importantly they haven’t been biased at all – like I said, they’re the UN and represent all countries fairly in the world. They are tough on everyone!

I also don’t like the Jews because they are just so aggressive. They attacked the Palestinians in Gaza for no reason at all. They were merely watching television, tending their flocks and celebrating Guy Fawkes day when the Jews just attacked them! Don’t they understand that Hamas cares about its people and have built so many schools, kindergartens and hospitals for them? Don’t these stubborn Jews understand that under the Palestinian Authority government, which includes Hamas, their rights will be guaranteed? You know, before Israel came along, the last couple of thousand years had been great for the Jews!

I also don’t like the Jews because they planned the 9/11 attacks. The Arab media said so and they are a bastion of truth and freedom. We can rely on their reports.

And of course they are responsible for global warming… and um… global cooling. And they are also all communists who control Russia and the world… and well… they are also all capitalists who control America…and the world… so…um…either way… they are at fault. If Israel didn’t exist, the Boka Haram folk wouldn’t have been forced to kidnap those girls in Nigeria. And Syria wouldn’t have had to fight a bloody civil war. And the Concorde wouldn’t have blown up. And there wouldn’t have been that terrible earthquake in China. And the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami wouldn’t have happened. And what about the traffic on the roads – it just takes…forever! Not to mention the Ozone hole…

I don’t like the Jews because Israel has been conquering and taking over other countries for years and they really should give up on their fanciful quest for world domination. Any map of the Middle East will tell you that their country already takes up most it. And come on already! Enough about Jerusalem – it was never Jewish and there was never a Jewish temple – Yasser Arafat even said so to Bill Clinton – and Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize. That wall in Jerusalem is just part of an ancient biblical tennis court practicing area.

And jeez…I just can’t believe they are going on and on like a broken record about tunnels in Gaza! I mean clearly they are for an irrigation system and the weapons they found inside them…puh-lease – everyone knows that attacks on irrigation systems are at an all-time high. And those tranquilizers and handcuffs also discovered are to restrain wild animals who mistakenly fall into the hidden trap doors. Sure, those tunnels might inadvertently drift into Israel, but that’s only because Hamas want to help the Israeli farmers too, just as they tendered the greenhouses Israel left behind when they left Gaza.

They just don’t get it – these Jews. ISIS and Al-Qaeda and Boka Haram and Fatah and Hamas are only after human rights and Arab dignity. If Israel would just stop attacks on all the Muslims in the world and stop taking over the media in America and Europe and stop pretending that Jews were in Israel for more than just a few years and stop relying on their outdated Bible, because all the artifacts discovered and excavations uncovered in Israel are just propaganda – the world would like them again.

Jews should stop getting so worked up by those signs we see in all the peace protests that say ‘Kill the Jews’. It’s just a bit of harmless banter. It’s a protest for peace, for heaven’s sake! And the attacks on the synagogues in Paris, again – exaggeration! It’s just boys having some fun – no harm there. Boys will be boys, after all.

I don’t like the Jews, because they just don’t understand that the world actually does like them, it’s just their… you know… ways… they don’t like. If they would just lay down their weapons and allow the warmth and generosity of fundamentalist Islam to take over, peace would break out again and everyone would like the Jews.

Just as they have in the past, the world will protect them in the future. That’s an iron clad guarantee, so let’s all join hands and hope these silly Jews will finally just get it and give up their invented country, so that the world can return to a more peaceful time.

%d bloggers like this: