Messages To Karl About the  Fibromyalgia Article

Karl,

 

What I agree with totally is the fact that an upset mind can readily cause a huge spectrum of 'physical' diseases. I could hardly argue with this, as my entire thesis on heart disease is that dysfunction of the neurohormonal system is the primary causative factor.

 

I also agree that a great deal of unhappiness and somatic symptoms are caused by bad relationships - in my experience primarily abusive husband and beaten wife and/or children.

 

I further totally agree that the 'medicalisaiton' of social ills is a way of the medical profession pretending that a: they have a cure and b: sweeping problems under the carpet. A bit like Russia under communist rule whereby anyone who objected to the communist system was defined as 'mentally ill' and could be put in a high security mental hospital.

 

I found myself a little uncomfortable with the sex, drugs and alcohol part. It sounds a bit 'moral majority' to me. A bit condemning and judgmental. A wise man once said to me that it is not the sex and drugs and drink that is the problem, per-se, it is how you 'use' them. One can drink happily, or unhappily. One can use sex and affairs as a weapon, or expand you sexual horizons in such a way that everyone has fun. I'm not so sure about drugs, especially highly addictive drugs, as they are bound to screw you up in the end.

The "moral majority" is a good phrase even if it is in bad repute just now.  Whether we like it or not, "morals" are what people have agreed on.

The Jews all agreed that pork was "ungodly" or whatever they said.  We may now say that pork, in those early years, contained trichinosis, and that this "moral code" was laid down as a religious matter but more practically as a health law.  Now that pork can be safe, this "moral law" ("religious law") would no longer be very necessary, but it may well persist as a part of the Jewish culture.  It is a "law" nonetheless.  And a Jew who eats pork has violated that moral (religious) code.

So, the "moral majority" may not always be "right" in any useful sense, but it is still the "majority," and is always "right" in a moral sense.  (There can be false representations of the "moral majority" also!)  I have found a "common sense moral code" and describe it on my web:  www.happinessonline.org

Thus, promiscuous sex is a moral taboo.  How "promiscuous" does promiscuous sex have to be?  There is no rigid definition on this, but a man who has sex with a dozen different women every week, or a woman with a man, the same, would be violating a pretty easily observed moral code in most of Western culture.

It is the violation of the usual moral code by one person in a relationship that brings about the "wrong relationship." 

Even if two people "agree" that casual or promiscuous sex is OK in their group of two, they cannot avoid the truth that it is still a violation of the community moral code -- so they still have a "wrong relationship" with their neighbors.  And, when each of them has a "wrong relationship" with the neighbor, they would then, ultimately, have a wrong relationship with each other -- since a couple cannot live in isolation.  Each of them would suffer from being out of agreement with their neighbors, and therefore each of them is reducing the survival of the partner in the group of two.

There may well be whole large groups where casual sex is OK in a moral sense.  As long as they have relatively little contact with the larger world society, they would appear to not suffer the fate of "wrong relationships," but then casual sex is very probably "unethical" since it leads to children without a helpful family to grow up in, and thus dooms the race.

So, society has laid down some moral laws that, when violated, are the basis for "wrong relationships."

Morals should not be confused with "ethics." They are quite different. 

Homosexuality is very much still a violation of the usual moral code.  It happens, also, to be unethical since if everyone were homosexual, there would be no children, and no future for the race of man.  Morals and ethics are often in alignment, but not always.  No amount of "Gay Pride Parades" can change the immorality of homosexuality.

I had not seen your view on "relationships" as part of the cause of heart disease. But, of course, you are right on this.

I would say, then, within "our" concept of heart disease, that a person suffers a "wrong relationship" which then triggers some mechanical/chemical/biologic action within the body -- bringing about what we then call heart disease.

The wrong relationship is senior in importance. The fact that so many people die of heart disease means only that so many people are in violation of common moral codes.

I would agree with that -- and say that the mechanical action would be the action of free radicals on the individual cells in the body.  You might well agree with this.

We may be left only with a possible disagreement on the makings of a "wrong relationship."

Stress, then, in my mind, is nothing more than the "tension" created by realizing that you have violated some agreement -- the most important agreements always being between those who are closest in relationship.  A married couple may well have the closest form of usual agreement, and there is definitely tension (stress) when either of them violate their moral code.

He "cheats" on her.  She gets sick.  He may well also.  This wrong relationship breeds illness and disease.

The more easily observed "moral code" would be that of an employer and employee.  The boss has certain rules for working in the place.  The employee may well come in late, or goof-off on the job.  He has violated the moral code.  Perhaps he didn't, personally, agree with it?  Well, it is still the commonly expected agreement in that group, and the employee who violates that (even unspoken) agreement will experience stress.  Yes!  And, then heart disease or any of whatever other number of ills.

 

Perhaps to put this another way. I could punch you on the street, and get arrested, and it would all be horrible and unpleasant. I could punch you in a boxing ring and we would both go out for a night out afterwards, as best friends. Actions must be put into context. Very few things are all bad, or all good. It depends to a great extent on how you go about doing them.

Obviously I agree with this.  But, then, you are simply saying that the "morals" of the boxing ring are different from the "morals" of the neighborhood.  They are different.

Consider the cannibal who, in his tribe, has agreed to kill and eat the enemy.  He goes into battle and decides to NOT kill some enemy child.  He has broken the moral code of that tribe.  That broken agreement will have consequences for his relationship in that tribe.  To avoid those unwanted consequences he will likely leave that tribe -- thus you see the source of most divorce.

 

Generally however, you make some very good points, worth having people pay attention to them.

Signed,

(Medical Doctor)

---