Relationships and health

Feeling insecure in a relationship takes its toll on the immune system. Those who struggle to form close, trusting relationships may have weaker immune function, since, according to Italian research, "natural killer" immune system cells do not function as well in those who struggle to form close, trusting relationships (Psychosom Med 2007 69: 40-46).

Furthermore, there is an increasing body of evidence that stress has an adverse effect on our health. According to US researchers, the stress caused by a 30-minute row with a spouse is enough to slow wound healing by a day (Arch Gen Psychiatry, Dec 2005; 62: 1377-1384). A physical basis for this finding is suggested by the research which shows that levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), a key immune system chemical that controls wound healing, are also particularly elevated in hostile couples.

Our emotional life is deeply linked to our physiology, our minds to our bodies, and our relationships to our health. The tendency of many in medicine to take a reductionistic view of humans and health should take note of this burgeoning field. It is not enough to simply pay lip-service to a holisitic approach to human health. Undue emphasis on the 'bean-counting' tactic exemplified by the contemporary obsession with targets will prove to be woefully inadequate at improving health. Cholesterol can be measured and treated easily enough, but it is the quality of our relationships that makes all the difference.

Teenage delinquency

According to a report by the think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, UK teenagers are among the most badly behaved in Europe.

British youth are in a poor way. They are on the verge of mental breakdown, at risk from anti-social behaviour, self-harm, drug and alcohol abuse. One in ten teenage girls has self-harmed. And kids hanging around is considered one of the greatest social nuisances.

Statistically, children brought up by two married, biological parents do better than those from single-parent families or people cohabiting. With the rise in divorce, single-parent households and working parents, connections between the generations are weakened and children are increasingly left to their own devices. Children lack a sense of identity that is provided by family and wider community, and with it self-esteem and direction in life.

The most important thing in human life is the quality of our relationships, and without deep, secure relationships, we are left with an unfulfilled longing and heightened risk of mental disease. We attempt to fill that gap with other things, such as drugs or alcohol to give us a buzz, or things to entertain and distract us (see my post on debt), or the hope of intimacy and excitement through sex. But all of these things, without good, deep relationships, are ultimately unsatisfying.

Delinquency is the all too evident symptom of a deep underlying malaise: the lack of committed, loving relationships that demand an investment of time and effort. It is that which our teenagers need, not Playstations, Reeboks and condoms.

Child well-being

This is the worst news I have heard for some time.

A UNICEF report shows the UK to at the bottom of a league table for child well-being across 21 industrialised countries. The report looked at things such as poverty, peer and family relationships, and health. The research found British children regard themselves as less happy, and that they drink more alcohol, take more drugs, and have more underage sex than children overseas. They are also more prone to failure at school, to experience violence and bullying while suffering a greater number of unhappy relationships with both their families and peers.

The authors said there was a well-established link between family breakdown, educational failure, poor health and reduced life chances. According to one of the study authors, Professor Jonathan Bradshaw from York University, under-investment and a "dog eat dog" attitude in society were to blame.

That British children were found to have the worst relationships in the developed world with the second highest proportion of single-parent families of the countries examined and the second highest proportion of children living in step-families is is to my mind clearly linked with the finding that they are also the unhappiest. Statistics suggest these factors can lead to a greater risk of dropping out of school, of leaving home early, of poorer health, of low skills and of low pay.

Family life and relationships are clearly central to children's sense of happiness and the health of our society (see my post on Teenage delinquency). It is about time that we, as a society, took the importance of marriage and family life seriously (see Gay adoption).

Breast versus bottle

Yet more evidence for the benefits of breastfeeding...

It is not only better for Mum's health (e.g. reducing the risk of breast cancer and diabetes) and Baby's health, IQ, and ability to cope with stress in later life, but it seems that breasfeeding also increases the chances of moving up the social ladder.

But breasfeeding isn't always easy and doesn't come naturally to many mothers. Furthermore there are real advantages to bottle-feeding; it gives the mother more freedom to leave the baby with someone else, for example if she needs or wants to work, and can also increase the involvement of the father or other relatives or friends who can take a turn feeding the baby.

So for many women it is not the obvious choice it might first seem. More on this later...

Debt and the dream

More than half of all schoolchildren have been in debt by the time they reached 17, an education charity says.

Debt is very bad news. One of the major contibutors to depression, ironically debt is fuelled by a society that says that you need stuff to be happy. But chasing the materialist's dream for so many often turns into the debtor's nightmare.

The BBC's word to Tom Stephens

The BBC have behaved shamefully by breaking their word to Tom Stephens not to broadcast an interview he granted them for 'background' purposes only.

The BBC claim that they did this 'in the public interest'. As others have observed - but which the BBC has failed to appreciate - 'public interest' is not merely 'what may interest the public'. What is in fact in the public interest is for a fair trial (which could have been prejudiced) and for standards in journalism to be upheld. It seems that on this occasion the commercial concerns of the BBC have trumped ethical ones, for whom ratings are deemed more important than integrity.

The BBC - which should be leading the world in quality journalism - should review the ethical framework within which their journalists and editors operate. At the very least, they should apologise to Mr Stephens. Sadly, they seem to have no intention of doing either.

Gay adoption: ideology trumps child welfare

The Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs), which are due to come into effect in April (2007), outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and include in their remit the provision of adoption services by Catholic Adoption Agencies. This issue is as complex as it is emotive, but here is one thought on it.

What is often forgotton in this debate is the child. First and foremost, adoption agencies should be pro-child. This principle has been enshrined in Childcare law since the Children Act 1989: "the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration." Whether they are pro-gay or anti-gay, pro-communist or anti-communist, pro-rock-and-roll or anti-rock-and-roll may be important, but are nonetheless subsidiary issues.

And to do the best for the child, agencies need to evaluate every prospective adoptive parent or parents, according to reasonable, evidence-based criteria; to take an uncontroversial example, physical violence in the home. To judge that it is in the best interests of the child to have a male and a female parent rather than just one parent or two parents of the same sex is a judgment that the agency makes according to the evidence available. The debate around the regulation of adoption agencies should therefore be focused on those criteria, on what constitutes good evidence, and on whether any given adoption agency can be trusted to make that judgement.

Catholic adoption agencies over the years would seem to have demonstrated competence in this, and should be allowed to continue to make this judgement, free of politically-correct interference, at least until there is good evidence that the children they place are suffering as a result of such policies. To my mind the needs and rights of the child trumps the needs and rights of the would-be parents. There is already provision for gay couples wanting to adopt since most (non-Catholic) adoption agencies seem to have few if any qualms about placing children with gay couples. This, taken together with the fact that the available evidence suggests that children do best with both a father and a mother (see here), strongly suggests that the ideological convictions of politicians are taking priority over the interests of needy children. This is why they are interfering in the valuable and child-centred work of the Catholic Adoption Agencies.