We may not know that the capital of Bhutan the small Himalayan country is Thimphu but we more than likely know that it values and prizes happiness. Strange as it may be to our Western values, their secret, or at least part of it, is thinking about death. Most Bhutanese think about it 5 times a day. A while back I ran across an article by a travel writer for the BBC, Eric Weiner writing about all this. I somehow put it aside and only re discovered it a bit ago. The message is still fresh and certainly necessary so I am sharing it now. Weiner went to talk to a sage while visiting Bhutan. Uncharacteristically for him he writes, he confided his problems to him. The sage told him to think about death once a day. He did, and the advice worked. In his piece for the BBC Weiner cites recent studies in the US, one from the journal Psychological Science, which reports on the positive effects of taking the advice of thinking about death.
Western society and the
American culture in particular, shun notions of death. And what is important
about this study and about the case of Bhutan is that we do so at our own
loss. Despite a predominantly Christian
culture, a culture that stands for its message of life eternal, we think of death
as an end rather than a step, a bridge, a chapter. It’s not that we are focused on living, it’s
the way we prioritize our efforts to live, the way we ignore death, see our
life in the world as an end in itself rather than part of something larger. Several
years ago I was at a dinner party and the discussion turned to what would we do
if we had a year to live. Somehow ever since, I’ve incorporated the idea of
dying into much of my thinking, perhaps not daily, but often enough and I’ve
discovered that it guides my actions in rewarding and unexpected ways. I wish
you the same.
The Guardian newspaper recently made a style guide change in relation to how it is and will cover stories about abortion. This was in response to several anti-abortion bills which were either introduced or passed recently and which were called “heartbeat bills”. Fetal development is seen as a continuum and the president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology said that “What’s interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically induced flickering of a portion of fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops.” The Guardian wants to only use terms that can be medically defensible, so they will use the phrase “6-week abortion ban” instead of “fetal heartbeat bill”. Similarly for clarity they will use “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life.” We may remember when those opposing third trimester abortion called it “partial birth abortion”. Some and many articles call it late term abortion, but that too is not technically a medical term.
We too must be
careful about our language when we speak about abortion. We too ought to adhere
to terminology and phrases which are medically sound and clear, avoid language which The Guardian says is
motivated by politics and not science.
I first saw the story in the NYT and then on NPR and The Verge and other publications. I am sure you saw or heard it somewhere because it was one of these stories the media feels it has to cover. Originally published in the journal Science it dealt with an experiment that over 200 economists thought would go contrary than it did, would not reveal people’s capacity for honesty. Some 17000 wallets usually with money in them were dropped in places like banks and post offices in over 40 countries by people posing as tourists. What they found is that people did try to return the wallets, in much larger percentages than imagined. The name and email of the purported owners were included and efforts were obviously made to contact the owners. To note was that the names were changed according to the country. What’s more the greater the amount of money in the wallet the more likely the wallets were returned.
We have come to have a negative, if not cynical view of human nature, which of course can at least in part be substantiated by the amount of violence, greed, cruelty and meanness in the world. But to someone like me, someone thoroughly steeped in the existence and potential for good of our inner transcendent self, this finding only confirms what I’ve long known. I as so many have witnessed the manifestations of this good, this part of us that goes by many names, including spirit or Maslow’s positive instinctual core.
It’s time we change
our view of human nature, not with naiveté but with the knowledge that given
certain circumstances, the good does prevail.
There’s a database just about everyone should know about. It lists the name of a given doctor, and it will tell you how much the doctor has received from drug companies. It includes all doctors including dentists and it says that if your doctor’s name isn’t listed it is because either you have misspelled the name or the doctor has not received anything. Preliminary to the data base which is listed by state, which you have to enter, is a list of the doctors who have received the most: Stephen Burkhart, an orthopedic surgeon, $65.3 million, or those who have received payments most frequently, Ana Stankovic, an internist $3,623. There is also a list of all the companies who have received those payments. The database is from August 2013 to December 2016 and includes payments made to doctors and companies from drug companies and device makers. It is compiled by ProPublica, a non-profit investigative journalism site as part of a series called “Dollars for Docs” about the amount of money in the health care industry paid to various entities. Other articles for example, address “Opioid Makers, Blamed for Overdose Epidemic, Cut Back Marketing Payments to Doctors.” I was gratified that my primary care physician, is listed as having received $57, a nominal sum which may be reflective of being caught in a system rather than participating in it, and one that does not diminish my esteem or trust. It’s an instructive tool and you may choose to use it.