And in the face of such a desolate statistic and reality , a tentative sense of hope is created at the very fact that this report was asked for.  We only ask for information when we know there is a problem and are generally ready to hear the answer.

That there is a problem is clear.  Are we ready to engage, however, with the difficult tensions that must be held to find a way through to stop this suffering?  That is a whole other question.

That makes me most anxious is seeing the report measure suffering against economic viability.  How much money is well being worth?  How much is the alleviation of suffering worth?  Are we really so lost or morally deficient that economic viability is the only factor we consider?

Where is our dignity?

How much must our young ones suffer before we say enough is enough.

Improving the Transitions for Adolescents, an extensive report compiled by an eminent group of researchers after reviewing the relevant literature, advises lawmakers that their job is to ‘strike a balance between protecting young people from harm and allowing them enough freedom to learn from their mistakes’.  A balancing act most parents will already be familiar with.

Whilst there is no new earth shattering news to report, the group may be hoping that, at the very least, the government heeds the recommendation that interventions must be evidence based rather than as the result of advocacy from pressure groups.

Evidence though, can come in a variety of forms.  Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, argue that what they call our broken societies and economies result not from the problems of any particular individual or group, but from the growth of inequality.

Take mental health for instance, a significant focus for the Improving the Transition group.  The Spirit Level shows that a much higher percentage of the population suffer from mental illness in countries where there is income inequality and New Zealand is high on this list.

Income inequality, where there are huge gaps between rich and poor, is a difficult issue to face when we have swallowed whole the notion of the individual being largely responsible for determining their own destiny.  It is tantamount to saying that the way we have been structuring society is fundamentally flawed.

Entertaining this idea leads to an examination of what constitutes a reasonable life for everyone, not just those that can fend for themselves through difficult times.  It raises questions about the authenticity of scapegoating groups that we consider particularly troublesome instead of considering that we might all be part of the problem.  A politically risky undertaking for any government.

Instead, what normally happens is that the problems of a particular group are highlighted, in this case youth.  Taskforces are formed, research undertaken and reports produced in the hope that their problems can be solved outside of the driving issue of inequality.

Wilkinson and Pickett say, ‘The unstated hope is that people – particularly the poor – can carry on in the same circumstances, but will somehow no longer succumb to mental illness, teenage pregnancy, educational failure, obesity or drugs’. (p239)

Being not right in the head is often solved for teenagers as they age and their brains develop.  Being not right in the head as a society takes longer to fix.

Among its findings, the report said New Zealand “has a woefully deficient number of mental health services that are aimed specifically at young people”.

“Furthermore, doctors, teachers, and parents are poorly trained to identify those young people who might be at risk,” the report said.

“Given that the opportunity for successful intervention is greatest when the intervention occurs early, it is economically sensible to increase the mental health work force in New Zealand, particularly those who are specifically trained to work with children and adolescents.”

It found there are capacity deficits for both mental health screening and treatment, although acknowledged in the current economic climate more cost effective ways need to be found to identify and treat adolescents who are at risk.

“Preliminary work, for example, has shown that therapy provided on-line, or e-therapy, holds some promise for treating adolescents with anxiety and depression. The other advantage of e-therapy is that the cost is low and there is little or no barrier to access.”

Better screening to detect those with mental health issues, and improved access to therapy are also recommended.

“Given the concerns about the possibility that antidepressants can increase the risk of self-harm, increasing access to psychological therapies for young people would be important.”

Read Article Paul HArper in NZ Herald

Image: new.stv.

Convening a night court to determine whether a health board’s decision not to do life-prolonging surgery on a terminally ill boy would amount to culpable homicide was important for transparency, a medico-legal expert says.

At the hearing on May 8, a judge ruled that the decision did not amount to culpable homicide, finding it was in accordance with “good medical practice”.

The seven-year-old boy died the next day.

Last October, he had a feeding tube inserted because he could no longer swallow food or medication. On May 4, the tube, which provided almost all of his nutrition and hydration, became dislodged. Surgery was required to reinsert it and doctors said that without it he would die within days or weeks.

Senior doctors, nurses and the boy’s mother were unanimous that the tube should not be reinserted

Otago University law professor and medico-legal expert Mark Henaghan said the court’s decision was consistent with past cases in New Zealand and Britain.

“The courts are looking for a very strong body of medical opinion. It’s got to strongly say that in this situation it would be just cruel and inhumane to perform this operation.

“It has to be a high standard because generally speaking the medical world is about saving lives, not letting lives go.”

It was a good decision to go through the court to get the decision vetted by the judiciary, not just the child’s parent and doctors, he said. “It gives it a public accountability which is quite important. You don’t want life-and-death decisions being made behind closed doors. ”

Read Article in DomPost

Read in CathNews

My response was “ Thank goodness commonsense prevailed.”  There is no moral obligation to continue supernormal ways of prolonging life.  It would be a totally different situation if he was denied natural food and medicine in the normal mode of intake.  But this was a case of halting  surgery to insert a piece of medical technology enabling him to get nourishment which caused him further pain.  As the Judge noted, “ it would prolong the dying period when death is closing in.”

My prayer is for his mother who has been torn apart in her love and care and concern.    She commented how you always want the best for your children. And during this terrible illness  her every breath has been dedicated to them

“Out of love,  you want them with you.  Out of love you want their pain gone.”  I pray she will receive the love and support  she so greatly needs.

The contrast between what we say we want and what we do irritates at an individual level most days. A white lie here, a cover up of behaviour we’re not proud of there are the inconsistencies of human existence. To see these enacted on the international stage makes us uncomfortable, as the Archbishop of Canterbury said this week.

Freddy edged up to his mum looking for the comfort her lap would provide. She held him close, breathing in his boy scent. This was her testosterone-fuelled rocket in the making who needed more than political side stepping right now.

‘You know that time when you were hitting Ben in the backyard because he’d tried to hurt you?’

‘Yeah’, he mumbled as she stroked his hair.

‘And you went on hitting and hitting even when I told you to stop?’

‘Mmm.’

‘What did you tell me about how it made you feel?’

‘It was awesome, cos I felt like I’d made him hurt for what he’d done to me.

‘And we talked about how there were other ways to fix problems didn’t we?’

‘Yep and then I got grounded and felt like it was kind of unfair seeing as he started it.’

Mary laughed. ‘Honey, you’ve no idea how much you sounded like the President of the United States just then.’

‘But mum that’s different. He’s the President. Can’t he do anything he wants?’

‘No he can’t. There are laws in the world that we’re all meant to go along with and if we break them we can be called to a court to explain our actions. A bit like we try and do at home when things go wrong. Everyone gets to tell their story and then we decide on what happens.’

‘Did the Osama man break those rules?’

‘Yes Freddy, he did and the right thing was to get him to court to explain why he hurt other people.’

‘Then why didn’t the President take him to court mum?’

‘I don’t know Freddy’, Mary replied. He slipped off her lap, content for now until the next confusing adult assault on his worldview.

Explaining to kids the irrationality of adult behaviour is challenging but in Obama’s case it’s almost an impossibility as the killing looks, according to Geoffrey Robertson, QC, ‘increasingly like a cold-blooded assassination order by a president who, as a former law professor, knows the absurdity of his statement that “justice was done”’.

The innovative Huffington Post looked at the question by asking a small sampling of American primary grade teachers how they decided to handle the rights or wrongs of his killing with their young charges.  It was interesting to read how they attempted to provide information and process class discussions without undue indoctrination or emotion.

President Obama in a somber and non vengeful manner announced that Bin Laden’s death was the end result of a firefight.  This indicated that death rather than capture was the only option. He concluded with the words “… one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.”  His demeanour was in contrast to the jubilation and delight of crowds across the United States.

Yet the fact remains that an unarmed man was killed in cold blood rather than captured and tried under the rule of law.  Was that the lesser of two evils?   Would his capture have resulted in greater retribution and terror than his killing would undoubtedly cause?  Mainstream Christian leaders, Catholic and Protestant, have been cautious in their comment.  While they have condemned terror and Bin Laden’s atrocities, I haven’t seen one public statement from them that the killing was morally wrong. Was it?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in dealing with the question of crime and punishment under the heading ‘Legitimate Defence’, tends to be somewhat nuanced and open to different interpretations.  But it states: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” (2267)

St Paul writes “Never try to get revenge; leave that my friends to God’s anger. As scripture says: Vengeance is mine – I will pay them back, the Lord promises.” (Romans 12:19)

A moral dilemma indeed.

Concern about bullying could be just a vote catcher when the use of power over tactics is glorified in John Key’s workplace. Any hint of scandal and the parliamentary hunting pack snap at the heels of the MP under suspicion, going in for the kill as the politician is left abandoned. The dismembered carcass is served up on social media channels for a quick snack before the evening news picks over the remnants.

Knowing how to kill is an essential skill for the defence force. Despite civil disaster assistance, sparkling uniforms, big boy toys and flash advertising campaigns, its central aim is to apply the maximum amount of force on the enemy. That’s why teaching soldiers to kill is a central plank in military training.

Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae, our new Governor General, was leading the army when it worked with government agencies to introduce service academies into new zealand schools. According to the ministry of education, these military focused programmes encourage students to stay engaged in learning by providing a motivating and disciplined programme.

Learning how to be self disciplined, to be able to recognise and manage your own emotional ups and downs while accepting the differences in others are important life skills. However, there’s a kind of alice in wonderland insanity at large when we expect anyone to develop these skills for life while being led by military role models.

John key is right; a conversation is needed about bullying. To be more than political game playing it will need to acknowledge that the use of power as a tactic to control others is so subtly threaded through every level of our society that it is valued without question at the highest house in the land.

I don’t know why we can’t see the horrific levels of violence that pervade every part of our society. Or why we refuse to acknowledge just how vulnerable the vulnerable are. I don’t know why when faced with violence we refuse to see the complexity of the situation and become vitriolic and determined to blame. I don’t know why we can’t see that that kind of response simply echoes and perpetuates the very violence it rages against.

I do know that through the recording of the incident with Sydney based Casey Heynes a response of outrage and clarity has occurred. Our common humanity has been sparked. The violence is wrong. Deadly wrong.

And I suspect, addressing this issue as John Key is requesting, will call us all, not just the punch throwers to conversion. So I agree John Key, lets talk. At least its a start.

And thank you Child with the Cellphone for helping us see. I pray we will have the courage to respond.

He wants a “nationwide conversation” on how to reduce bullying. He also expects that Education Review Office audits of schools will reflect schools’ anti-bullying plans. ”I worry about bullying,”  Mr Key said . “I worry about youngsters going to school and being intimidated by others and it’s thuggish-type behaviour that needs to stop and we want to send a strong message about that…I have very high expectations that youngsters will be able to go to school and enjoy being at school in a safe environment and if they are subject to bullying, I expect that to be dealt with.”

Br Patrick Lynch, the CEO of the New Zealand Catholic Education Office thinks that “bullying behaviours in schools are always unacceptable given the law and more importantly the emphasis modern society gives to the human rights of individuals. He believes, however “that in schools where there is a strong culture of respect for others and respect for differences, along with high expectations for positive behaviour put before students,  bullying is less of an issue”

“Unfortunately, students see too much violence in the media, which does affect their perception of what is acceptable and what is not.” said Brother Pat ” Nevertheless, trustees, principals and teachers all have a duty of care responsibility when students are at school.”

He agrees that “there needs to be robust policies and practices in place to ensure students are safe, within the bounds of reasonableness.”

Read Audrey Young in New Zealand Herald
Advice about dealing with bullying
The Peace Foundation -Cool Schools