Thank you to all those who contacted me with their comments on the previous column.
Some people were surprised at my interest in things spiritual. After all, shouldn't an orthodox trained psychologist be basing her ideas on logic, science, and properly conducted trials? Well, let me reassure you that I still like my studies placebo-controlled and my ideas firmly evidence-based. Perhaps some of you were confused by the terms? To cut a long story short, spirituality concerns the soul: the rational, moral, emotional, non-physical side of man. Spirituality is not the same as spiritualism (defined in the OED as the belief that the dead can communicate with the living), nor does it relate to a specific religion (i.e. belief system linked to faith and worship). In other words, one can be spiritual without being religious. One can also be spiritual and scientific. Spiritual healing is a form of therapy which, according to healers, manipulates the energy fields around the body (e.g. the aura) and specific areas (chakras).
The main reason for the current scepticism about healing is the lack of evidence for these energy fields. It's all still just a theory. Admittedly, some people say they can see or sense the outer field or aura; some even claim to be able to photograph it. However, scientists haven't been able to confirm its existence, nor do we have any evidence that specific defects ('blocks') correlate with a specific disease. It is therefore tempting to dismiss all the anecdotal reports as hocus pocus or the product of overly fertile imaginations. However, I think that's premature. There may not be a great deal of evidence but that doesn't mean that there is none to collect. In fact, some of the ideas of the healers are perfectly testable. For example, we could take aura photographs of 10 people with cancer or MS and ten healthy controls. Then we can ask ten healers to analyse the results. Can they distinguish between the patients and controls? Can they tell what's wrong with the patients?
It is also important to know that there have been several well-designed studies which showed that patients who had healing improved to a greater extent than controls (e.g. JRSM, April 1998). In other words, we can no longer dismiss this treatment as 'unscientific', and it's clearly not a placebo.
Aside from the benefits of spiritual healing, there's another reason why this subject interests me. In the past, spirituality and religion were thought of as a crutch for the inadequate; as 'opium for the people'. However, times have changed. More and more psychiatrists and psychologists have come to believe that an interest in spirituality is a healthy thing which should be encouraged. So, where does one begin?
Well, there's a new book which not only covers spirituality, spiritual healing and spiritualism, but has links with football as well. I mean, how could I, a Manchester United fan, resist?
The book in question is Eileen Drewery's 'Why Me'? (Headline, £16.99). For those who missed my last column, Mrs. Drewery was the spiritual healer to the England football team under Glenn Hoddle. Last February, Glenn was sacked because he expressed the view that disability is a learning experience for the soul. As you know, that theory didn't make a lot of sense to me, but when I heard that this book had a more detailed explanation, I thought I'd give it another go.
Well, I deliberated, cogitated and digested, and it still doesn't make much sense! If anything, the book made me realise that the able-bodied often have a very skewed idea of what disability entails. Admittedly, having one or more organs malfunction is rarely a barrel of laughs. However, the degree of suffering is not always directly related to the degree of impairment.
The fact is that most disabilities today can be compensated for, to a large extent, by aids, adaptations, wheelchairs and drugs. What makes life such a bitch for most of us is not the limits imposed by illness but the prejudices we have to deal with, and the various obstacles which society puts in our way. Of course, it's frustrating not to be able to walk normally but I don't think that's half as distressing as being treated like a malingerer, and having to fight for months to get the wheelchair and/or the benefits one needs. Disability therefore doesn't only teach us about our bodies but also about the callousness of man! And if there's one thing we tend to learn, it's to accept and forgive other people's stupidity and intolerance.
My own response to disability has been to try and educate others, through my archive work and my writing. However, in addition to disseminating knowledge about specific conditions, I've also decided to focus on the more general issue of prejudice. In fact, the latter has played a significant role in my own life and career. As the child of two Dutch holocaust survivors, I grew up with the consequences of anti-Semitism*. And like many members of the 'second generation', I became very interested in human behaviour and mental health.
My career in research began in 1975 when I read some terribly sexist articles on PMS. A desire to challenge prejudice also influenced the work on ME, and more recently, the articles on psychologisation and editorial bias. My last essay (cf. the June Update for doctors), discusses how and why physicians sometimes forget their scientific training and back theories based largely on ignorance and conjecture. (The latest implies that CFS is an excuse to escape the rat-race). If you haven't seen the Update, here's how such views evolve:
1. Someone writes something which is not based on reasonable evidence, but on opinions, misinformation, speculation etc.2. Editors of the publication then print those views but do not correct factual errors and do not give space to anyone with a different idea. (We may have freedom of the press, but it's the freedom to lie!)
What makes such theories attractive? I think it's because we humans like to feel in control. We don't like uncertainty and we don't like spending scarce resources finding the answers. If you can blame people for their own predicament, all well and good. There's also a need to feel that this is a just world, where bad things only happen to bad people. Again, this gives us a sense of control and reduces the anxiety that we too could get cancer, MS and the like.
Anyway, back to the book. Forget what the reviewers wrote about it. They're journalists, not experts in the field. As someone who's been studying the subject, I found it readable, thought provoking and even entertaining in parts. Admittedly, some of Mrs. Drewery's ideas seemed a little odd, but she came across as both well-meaning and honest.
Perhaps you'll disagree with Mrs. Drewery's explanation for disability. And like me, you may not be persuaded about life after death (actually, I hope there isn't anything more. I wouldn't like to see my loved ones suffer, and I don't want my family seeing what I've had to go through in recent years). Still, if you're mentally up to philosophising, why not get a copy and use it to formulate your own ideas.
Till next time,
Ellen Goudsmit
*(If this topic interests you, see A. Hass. In the shadow of the Holocaust.
Be sure to see the many other valuable articles at our Main M.E. Home Page