Archive for August 14th, 2009

Boycott Whole Foods; CEO against healthcare, and food and shelter, as a right

I have never been a fan of Whole Foods [aka, "Whole Checkbook"], formerly Bread and Circus [or "Bread and Ripoff", as I called them then]. When they first opened in Cambridge, my then wife got a job there. Her job, as she described it, was to recommend various food supplements to people who had particular ailments or health concerns. The thing was, she knew nothing about nutrition and was given no training. When she asked her supervisor how to field the questions of the customers, she was told “Just make it up.” So she did.

She also told me that the produce section was spayed with insecticide every morning, to deal with the usual Cambridge roach infestation. Thus, it seemed, the food may have arrived organic but it certainly wasn’t when it left the store in customer’s baskets.

Further, the owner made no secret of his total disdain for labor unions or any other expressions of workers’ rights.

I am therefore not surprised to find out that the Whole Foods CEO John Mackey has come out against real healthcare reform and in favor of Republican “free market reforms” to aid the wealthy in a Wall Street Journal op ed:

T]he last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction”"toward less government control and more individual empowerment.

Among his brilliant ideas are allowing insurance companies to search for the least regulated state to operate from:

Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

He advocates cutting Medicare, by making seniors more “responsible” for their care, meaning they must pay a larger share of the costs:

Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

Fortunately, he has solved the healthcare financing riddle that has eluded so many others. Healthcare will become a step-child of publicly-funded elections:

[R]evise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Mackey also informs us that we have no right to healthcare, or to food or shelter:

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America.

After all, if you get sick, it’s your own fault:

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending”"heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity”"are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Finally, Mackey suggests that voluntarily spending your money at Whole Foods is a major part of the solution to our healthcare problems. :

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

In the spirit of voluntary activity, why don’t people voluntarily refuse to spend a cent at a company run by someone who uses his position to attack healthcare for all. That’s called a boycott. Surely that’s the responsible response to a company whose CEO shows little respect for the needs of his fellow citizens while working so hard to keep the rest of us from having a decent healthcare system.

[For more on the Whole Foods boycott see here, and here.]

August 14th, 2009

Chocolate reduces death risk in heart attack survivors

And now for some good news. A recent study finds major drops in mortality [dying] among those heart attack survivors who ate chocolate at least twice a week. Usually I caution about waiting for replication of research findings before acting on them. But in this case….

Chocolate ‘cuts death rate’ in heart attack survivors

By Marlowe Hood

PARIS (AFP) – Heart attack survivors who eat chocolate two or more times per week cut their risk of dying from heart disease about threefold compared to those who never touch the stuff, scientists have reported.

Smaller quantities confer less protection, but are still better than none, according to the study, which appears in the September issue of the Journal of Internal Medicine.

Earlier research had established a strong link between cocoa-based confections and lowered blood pressure or improvement in blood flow.

It had also shown that chocolate cuts the rate of heart-related mortality in healthy older men, along with post-menopausal women.

But the new study, led by Imre Janszky of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, is the first to demonstrate that consuming chocolate can help ward off the grim reaper if one has suffered acute myocardial infarction — otherwise known as a heart attack.

“It was specific to chocolate — we found no benefit to sweets in general,” said Kenneth Mukamal, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and a co-author of the study.

“It seems that antioxidants in cocoa are a likely candidate” for explaining the live-saving properties, he told AFP in an exchange of e-mails.

Antioxidants are compounds that protect against so-called free radicals, molecules which accumulate in the body over time that can damage cells and are thought to play a role in heart disease, cancer and the aging process.

In the study, Janszky and colleagues tracked 1,169 non-diabetic men and women, 45-to-70 years old, in Stockholm County during the early 1990s from the time they were hospitalised with their first-ever heart attack.

The participants were queried before leaving hospital on their food consumption habits over the previous year, including how much chocolate they ate on a regular basis.

They underwent a health examination three months after discharge, and were monitored for eight years after that. The incidence of fatal heart attacks correlated inversely with the amount of chocolate consumed.

“Our findings support increasing evidence that chocolate is a rich source of beneficial bioactive compounds,” the researchers concluded.

The results held true for men and women, and across all the age groups included in the study.

Other factors that might have affected the outcome — alcohol consumption, obesity, smoking — were also taken into account.

So should we all be loading up on cocoa-rich sweets?

“To be frank, I’m pretty cautious about chocolate because we’re working on weight problems with so many individuals,” said Mukamal, who is also a practising physician.

“However, I do encourage those who are looking for healthier desserts to consider chocolate in small quantities,” he said.

“For individuals with no weight issues who have been able to eat chocolate in moderation and remain slim, I do not limit it,” he added.

The researchers caution that clinical trials are needed to back up the findings of their study.

In the meantime, however, a bit of chocolate may not be amiss, they suggest.

August 14th, 2009

Jancis Long, Psychologists for Social Responsibility President, resigns from APA

During the American Psychological Association Convention in Toronto last week, Jancis Long, made her last act while President of Psychologists for Social Responsibility [PsySR]. That act was to resign her 30-year membership in the APA. In this resignation she joins many other distinguished psychologists, including Ken Pope, the former chair of the APA Ethics Committee; Bryant Welch, the founding Executive Director of the APA’s Practice Directorate; and Beth Shinn, former President of several APA divisions, among hundreds of others.

Dr. Long sent the following letter to Dr. James Bray, President of the APA. [In it she refers to APA ethics standard 1.02. For background on this standard and why it matters, see my article Will the American Psychological Association Renounce the Nuremberg Defense?]

8th August, 2009

Dr. James Bray, President
Dr. Stephen Behnke, Ethics Director
American Psychological Association
First Street NE, Washington DC 20002

Dear Drs. Bray and Behnke:

This is to let you know that I am resigning today from APA.   I have been a member since around 1980, and would have expected to continue for many more years.  I am resigning now because of the decision of the Ethics Committee in June to postpone indefinitely rewording Ethics Code 1.02 and 1.03, and the agreement of the Board to let this go out as APA policy.   This decision came four years after the Council of Representatives had requested the Ethics Committee  to consider revisions to these items, now termed the APA’s “Nuremberg Defense” clauses.    The recent developments of the Substitute Motion and apparent commitment to reopen the Ethics Committee’s decision (to be handled, presumably, by the same body that delayed a decision for four years, and decided against revision two months ago) with a reporting date six months hence, to me do not mitigate the June decisions taken at the highest levels of APA.    “Too little, too late, too slow” remains my opinion.

Although I have been deeply disturbed over the past four years at learning of APA’s policy toward psychologists’ involvement with torture and mistreatment of illegally held foreign prisoners, I have not resigned before because I do not expect either people or institutions to be perfect, and am well aware that positive social change is often complicated and shockingly slow.  I also recognize that APA performs many services to psychologists, psychology and social wellbeing.  But the decisions in June told me that APA is no longer a place for a responsible humanitarian psychologist.

I write you this on the last day of my Presidency of Psychologists for Social Responsibility.  I shall continue as an active psychologist, and will add the sad lessons I have learned from APA in my teaching and activism.

Jancis Long Ph.D.

President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility

JLong@psysr.org.

August 14th, 2009

Essig: The APA leadership got just the result they wanted, torture complicity

On his blog, Todd Essig describes his personal involvement in analyzing the American Psychological Association’s PENS [Psychological Ethics and National Security] task force listserv documents. The conclusion of his analysis:

The APA leadership controlled the Task Force process and the agenda. They got just the result they wanted to get.

The whole article:

Organized psychology also to blame for well-intentioned torture: A personal story

By Todd Essig

An article in the NY Times today, titled INTERROGATION INC.: 2 U.S. Architects of Harsh Tactics in 9/11’s Wake can leave the false impressions that a pair of renegade psychologists were solely responsible for our collective involvement in torture. The article leaves out how organized psychology was fully complicit in perpetuating this evil, evil done in our name.

The article tells the compelling story of Jim Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, a couple of renegades motivated by greed who

… had psychology credentials and an intimate knowledge of a brutal treatment regimen used decades ago by Chinese Communists. For an administration eager to get tough on those who had killed 3,000 Americans, that was enough.

via Interrogation Inc. – 2 U.S. Architects of Harsh Tactics in 9/11’s Wake – NYTimes.com.

Motivated by a desire to cash-in on military careers spent training American military how to survive, evade, resist, and escape (SERE) from “unscrupulous foes”  they reverse engineered SERE techniques for use by American interrogators. They became highly-paid consultants who dragged us down to the level of the most unscrupulous. The article notes that

At the SERE graduate school, Dr. Jessen is remembered for an unusual job switch, from supervising psychologist to mock enemy interrogator.

Dr. Jessen became so aggressive in that role that colleagues intervened to rein him in, showing him videotape of his “pretty scary” performance, another official recalled.

via Interrogation Inc. – 2 U.S. Architects of Harsh Tactics in 9/11’s Wake – NYTimes.com.

They sure seem like bad guys, which I believe the record shows they were. But they did not act alone. The American Psychological Association (my APA!) was fully complicit in torturing prisoners.

A grass-roots referendum did pass last year specifically stating that it is a violation of basic professional ethics to work in a setting in which basic human rights are not protected. But it has yet to be implemented.  Today, many dedicated psychologists are still trying to get the APA leadership to effect the reforms necessary to protect psychology’s honor and prevent sanctioning future violations of inviolate human rights.

The fight goes on. And it is a fight that had an interesting start, a start about which I have a personal story to tell.

In the Spring of 2006, I have no record of the exact date, I got a call from Steven Reisner, who has been a leader in the fight against torture from the beginning. Last year Reisner ran as a reform candidate for APA President but he unfortunately did not win. He and I had been students together 20 years earlier doing research requiring linguistic analyses of psychotherapy session transcripts.  More recently, for the past 10 years or so, he had been a member of an online community for mental health professionals that I ran. These details are important because these details are why he called me; he knew I knew my away around both transcripts and email/listservs.

He made a request in hushed conspiritorial tones. Jean Maria Arigo, one of the members of the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) had become suspcious that the supposedly independent task force had been anything but. Rather than a debate about the role professional psychology can and should have in national security issues, the more she thought about it the more it seemed like the PENS Task Force was an elaborate set-up designed to quell public dissatisfaction and support APA authorities.

They wanted me to take a look at the listserv transcripts and see what, if anything, the data actually showed. But there was a confidentiality rule in place supposedly to protect the military members of the Task Force. Reisner wanted to know if I’d be willing to do the analysis anyway. Arrigo now believes, as she told me today “that the PENS confidentiality agreement was not binding because it was secured in a context of many undisclosed conflicts of interest. For example, the Director of the APA Practice Directorate, Russ Newman, whose wife was a BSCT psychologist, led the agenda of the PENS meeting” (note: BSCT stands for behavioral science consultation team, i.e., the psychologists who work with the interrogators). By now, the full transcripts have been posted on the propublica.org website for all to see.

I agreed to do the analysis, but asked them to keep my name off the documents. I was willing to provide some of the ammunition they would need in the battle ahead, but I decided not to got to the front lines with them.

I analyzed the first month of postings on the listserv and found ample support for Jean Maria’s sense that the Task Force was not independent of APA authorities. Then APA President Gerald Koocher, who was supposed to be in a quiet observers role, was clearly in the leadership role structuring the conversation and stifling dissent from the party line as espoused by the military members of the Task Force.  The APA leadership controlled the Task Force process and the agenda. They  got just the result they wanted to get.

The positive side to the story is that people like Reisner and Arrigo, and many others, are continuing to keep the pressure on the APA for long delayed reform that will bring organized psychology closer to the ethics of most of the membership.

1 comment August 14th, 2009


Pages

Calendar

August 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category