Showing posts with label ~The New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ~The New York Times. Show all posts

Friday, May 2, 2014

Friday's Faith - "The Art of Presence" ~by David Brooks via ~The New York Times







Friday's Faith

The Art of Presence

~David Brooks

via

~The New York Times






{As a follow-up to, "A New Normal: Ten Things I've Learned About Trauma" by Catherine Woodiwiss, (I had posted for you on this blog yesterday under Thursday's Therapy), David Brooks of The New York Times had written the following synopsis of Catherine's work as well as of conversations he had had with Catherine's parents, both of whom are Child-Loss parents. I discovered this article today and thought it would be a great post for Friday's Faith:}



The Art of Presence

JAN. 20, 2014




Tragedy has twice visited the Woodiwiss family. In 2008, Anna Woodiwiss, then 27, was working for a service organization in Afghanistan. On April 1, she went horseback riding and was thrown, dying from her injuries. In 2013, her younger sister Catherine, then 26, was biking to work from her home in Washington. She was hit by a car and her face was severely smashed up. She has endured and will continue to endure a series of operations. For a time, she breathed and ate through a tube, unable to speak. The recovery is slow.

The victims of trauma, she writes in a remarkable blog post for Sojourners, experience days “when you feel like a quivering, cowardly shell of yourself, when despair yawns as a terrible chasm, when fear paralyzes any chance for pleasure. This is just a fight that has to be won, over and over and over again.”

Her mother, Mary, talks about the deep organic grief that a parent feels when they have lost one child and seen another badly injured, a pain felt in bones and fiber.

But suffering is a teacher. And, among other things, the Woodiwisses drew a few lessons, which at least apply to their own experience, about how those of us outside the zone of trauma might better communicate with those inside the zone. There are no uniformly right responses, but their collective wisdom, some of it contained in Catherine’s Sojourners piece, is quite useful:



Do be there. 

Some people think that those who experience trauma need space to sort things through. Assume the opposite. 

Most people need presence. 

The Woodiwisses say they were awed after each tragedy by the number of people, many of whom had been mere acquaintances, who showed up and offered love, from across the nation and the continents. They were also disoriented by a number of close friends who simply weren’t there, who were afraid or too busy.

Anna and Catherine’s father, Ashley, says he could detect no pattern to help predict who would step up and provide the ministry of presence and who would fumble. 

Neither age, experience nor personal belief correlated with sensitivity and love.



Don’t compare, ever. 

Don’t say, “I understand what it’s like to lose a child. My dog died, and that was hard, too.” Even if the comparison seems more germane, don’t make it. Each trauma should be respected in its uniqueness. Each story should be heard attentively as its own thing. 

“From the inside,” Catherine writes, comparisons “sting as clueless, careless, or just plain false.”



Do bring soup. 

The non-verbal expressions of love are as healing as eloquence. 

When Mary was living with Catherine during her recovery, some young friend noticed she didn’t have a bathmat. He went to Target and got a bathmat. Mary says she will never forget that.




Do not say “you’ll get over it.” 

“There is no such thing as ‘getting over it,’ ” Catherine writes, 

“A major disruption leaves a new normal in its wake. There is no ‘back to the old me.’ ”



Do be a builder. 

The Woodiwisses distinguish between firefighters and builders. 

Firefighters drop everything and arrive at the moment of crisis.  

Builders are there for years and years, walking alongside as the victims live out in the world. 

Very few people are capable of performing both roles.




Don’t say it’s all for the best or try to make sense out of what has happened. 

Catherine and her parents speak with astonishing gentleness and quiet thoughtfulness, but it’s pretty obvious that 

these tragedies have stripped away their tolerance for pretense and unrooted optimism.


Ashley also warned against those who would overinterpret, and try to make sense of the inexplicable. 
Even devout Christians, as the Woodiwisses are, should worry about taking theology beyond its limits. Theology is a grounding in ultimate hope, not a formula book to explain away each individual event.


I’d say that what these experiences call for is a sort of passive activism. 

We have a tendency, especially in an achievement-oriented culture, to want to solve problems and repair brokenness — to propose, plan, fix, interpret, explain and solve. 
But what seems to be needed here is the art of presence  

—to perform tasks without trying to control or alter the elemental situation. Allow nature to take its course. 

Grant the sufferers the dignity of their own process. Let them define meaning. 

Sit simply through moments of pain and uncomfortable darkness. Be practical, mundane, simple and direct.


Ashley and Mary went to Afghanistan a few months after Anna’s death. They remember that as a time out of time. 

They wept together with Afghan villagers and felt touched by grace. 

“That period changed me and opened my imagination,” Ashley recalls. 

“This thing called presence and love is more available than I had thought." 

It is more ready to be let loose than I ever imagined.”





{Highlights, and some indentions, mine}




A version of this op-ed appears in print on January 21, 2014, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: The Art of Presence. Order Reprints|









Kind Gesture Graphic, thanks to
2012- Love and Loss / Facebook

"The Art of Presence" article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/opinion/brooks-the-art-of-presence.html


Thursday, May 2, 2013

Thursday's Therapy - "Good Grief" ~The New York Times





Thursday's Therapy

"Good Grief"




Just a reminder, there is a flip side to the opinion shared by the psychologist from last week's Thursday's Therapy, so we wanted to share this vantage point this week so that you can decide where your thoughts more closely align...



Opinion

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The New York Times
Good Grief
By ALLEN FRANCES
Published: August 14, 2010

Coronado, Calif.


Cyprian Koscielniak

A startling suggestion is buried in the fine print describing proposed changes for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — perhaps better known as the D.S.M. 5, the book that will set the new boundary between mental disorder and normality. If this suggestion is adopted, many people who experience completely normal grief could be mislabeled as having a psychiatric problem.

Suppose your spouse or child died two weeks ago and now you feel sad, take less interest and pleasure in things, have little appetite or energy, can’t sleep well and don’t feel like going to work. In the proposal for the D.S.M. 5, your condition would be diagnosed as a major depressive disorder.

This would be a wholesale medicalization of normal emotion, and it would result in the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of people who would do just fine if left alone to grieve with family and friends, as people always have. It is also a safe bet that the drug companies would quickly and greedily pounce on the opportunity to mount a marketing blitz targeted to the bereaved and a campaign to “teach” physicians how to treat mourning with a magic pill.
It is not that psychiatrists are in bed with the drug companies, as is often alleged. The proposed change actually grows out of the best of intentions. Researchers point out that, during bereavement, some people develop an enduring case of major depression, and clinicians hope that by identifying such cases early they could reduce the burdens of illness with treatment.

This approach could help those grievers who have severe and potentially dangerous symptoms — for example, delusional guilt over things done to or not done for the deceased, suicidal desires to join the lost loved one, morbid preoccupation with worthlessness, restless agitation, drastic weight loss or a complete inability to function. When things get this bad, the need for a quick diagnosis and immediate treatment is obvious. But people with such symptoms are rare, and their condition can be diagnosed using the criteria for major depression provided in the current manual, the D.S.M. IV.

What is proposed for the D.S.M. 5 is a radical expansion of the boundary for mental illness that would cause psychiatry to intrude in the realm of normal grief. Why is this such a bad idea? First, it would give mentally healthy people the ominous-sounding diagnosis of a major depressive disorder, which in turn could make it harder for them to get a job or health insurance.

Then there would be the expense and the potentially harmful side effects of unnecessary medical treatment. Because almost everyone recovers from grief, given time and support, this treatment would undoubtedly have the highest placebo response rate in medical history. After recovering while taking a useless pill, people would assume it was the drug that made them better and would be reluctant to stop taking it. Consequently, many normal grievers would stay on a useless medication for the long haul, even though it would likely cause them more harm than good.

The bereaved would also lose the benefits that accrue from letting grief take its natural course. What might these be? No one can say exactly. But grieving is an unavoidable part of life — the necessary price we all pay for having the ability to love other people. Our lives consist of a series of attachments and inevitable losses, and evolution has given us the emotional tools to handle both.

In this we are not unique. Chimpanzees, elephants and other mammals have their own ways of mourning. Humans have developed complicated and culturally determined grieving rituals that no doubt date from at least as far back as the Neanderthal burial pits that were consecrated tens of thousands of years ago. It is essential, not unhealthy, for us to grieve when confronted by the death of someone we love.

Turning bereavement into major depression would substitute a shallow, Johnny-come-lately medical ritual for the sacred mourning rites that have survived for millenniums. To slap on a diagnosis and prescribe a pill would be to reduce the dignity of the life lost and the broken heart left behind. Psychiatry should instead tread lightly and only when it is on solid footing.

There is still time to keep the suggested change from entering the D.S.M. 5, which will not be published until May 2013. The task force preparing the new manual could adopt a more cautious and modest estimation of the reach of psychiatry and its appropriate grasp.

For the few bereaved who are severely impaired or at risk of suicide, doctors can already apply the diagnosis of major depression. But don’t change the rules for everyone else. Let us experience the grief we need to feel without being called sick.

Allen Frances, an emeritus professor and former chairman of psychiatry at Duke University, was the chairman of the task force that created the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.









Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/opinion/15frances.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y