TO TELL OR NOT TO TELL? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

Hello:

One of the father's of a victim of the recent airplane crash in the Alps, made the following comment which I found in the local paper.   "If there was a motive or a reason [for the co-pilot's suicidal and/or homicidal behavior] we don't want to hear it.  It is not relevant.  What is relevant is that it should never happen again."

While I have the utmost respect for this father's grief and his desire for privacy, it is nevertheless impossible to try to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again, unless we know what the co-pilot's motives and reasons for committing this horrific act were   In this regard then, his motives and reasons are totally relevant.

Another aspect of this case involves the right to privacy for the patient and his or her psychiatrist.  While having the psychiatrist tell the airline of the co-pilot's psychological problems seems to make sense, the end result would find such individuals refusing to disclose such information to the psychiatrist in the first place.

I would like to be able to give you the correct behavior to follow in this incidence but I don't know exactly what it should be.   I do know this though, --- believing that mental illness is genetic in nature precludes the co-pilot, in this instance, from sharing his problems with someone who can damage his economic well-being.   Whether we like it or not, very few people are willing to turn themselves into economic failures for the good of society as a whole. 

The psychiatric profession, especially those who practice cognitive behavioral therapy are more successful than the public at large believes.  This difference of opinion stems from the simple fact that those who have been helped by psychology do not advertise such help.   They know that they will be stigmatized if they admit to seeing a psychiatrist.

Part of this stigmatizing is due to the hit and miss situation that occurs when someone seeks psychological help.  This is not the fault of the general public at large but rather it is the industry's own fault for not understanding the situation as well as they should.

It is probably impossible for me to avoid being labelled as arrogant when I say that I have discovered a deeper level of truth about how the human mind functions which I have put forward in my aforementioned book called,  The Human Mind.

It is important to realize that the human mind is too complex for anyone at this time to understand it completely, but without trying to sound arrogant, the difference between what is currently accepted as the gospel truth about the human mind and the ideas that I am putting forward will represent a significant step forward for the human race as a whole.  

Distilling the above words further, I am trying to say that no one can be expected to be perfect when trying to understand how the human mind functions. but deeper levels of understanding do exist and I have discovered some of them.

In my aforementioned book there is a story about a woman who had psychological problems but did not disclose them to her potential employer.   She got the job and was considered to be a well - adjusted and valuable employee.

One day her boss interviewed another young lady for a job who made the mistake of admitting that she had received psychiatric help in the past.  Although the boss was charming and upbeat with this new prospective employee, --- as soon as she left the room the boss came out into the work area and  ripped up the young woman's application; --- saying that they had enough problems in the workplace without adding a crazy person to the work force. 

On the other side of the coin is this following story.  When I was in my teens, about 60 years ago, no one would talk about cancer.  The fear level was so high, everyone was too terrified to talk about it.  How can you expect to acquire funds for research if you are not even willing to talk about the problem to begin with?    

In the Alps story mentioned above one of the victims had a grandmother who was in her nineties and not in good health.   Her family decided not to tell her the truth because they correctly thought that such news might end the elder ladies life.   

To tell the truth or not is not an easy decision but the more we talk about it, the closer we will get to a more appropriate response to each personal situation.   Thanks for reading this article. 

          

NATURE OR NURTURE? --- GENETIC OR A BEHAVIORAL PROBLEM?

Hello Once Again:

An even more important point is at stake here.  I believe that the co-pilot's belief that mental illness is genetic in origin made up a large part of the reason that he did what he did.

Facing the truth is always important but when what the most learned individuals in any profession believe is the truth, --- when it is not, --- can have horrible side-effects.

If the co-pilot believed that he had a behavioral problem that could be corrected, as I put forward in my book, I believe that he would not have opted out for suicide and horrific multiple murder.  

Another scenario in a totally different situation found a former acquaintance of mine coming up against this same dilemma.   Believing that mental illness was genetic in nature, helped to lead him to the conclusion that he might as well end his life.

WHEN IS THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CAUSE OF MENTAL ILLNESS GOING TO BE DISCARDED FOR A DEEPER LEVEL OF TRUTH??? 

MORE COMMENTS ABOUT THE CO-PILOT OF THE ALPS DISASTER

Hello Again: 

Once I got home yesterday I learned that two of my guesses were right.   The co-pilot did have problems with his girlfriend ending their relationship and he had been suffering from depression that he successfully kept from his airline employer. 

While this next idea of mine, in the form of a guess is not conclusive by any means, the fact that the co-pilot did not leave a suicide note provides further proof that he wanted this whole incident to be put down to an unknown cause rather than a deliberate action to end his own life.

An Iranian poet who lived long ago, whose name was Ferdosi I believe, made a statement that is appropriate in this situation.  It appears on the facade of the United Nation's building in New York city.  "We are all members of the human family."

This is indeed a touchy subject but to save any embarrassment or angst for his own family, the co-pilot was willing to take 149 other people with him to his death.   

Indeed, we are all members of the human family and while it is entirely understandable that one would favor ones own immediate family; to sacrifice others of the human family to save face for his own family is not exactly the most empathic behavior for anyone to embrace.  

In fact it is an example of the worst kind of human behavior.   I honestly believe that this co-pilot never believed that any of this would come to light.   I believe that he thought that the black boxes would both be disintegrated on impact at such excessive speed.

     

THE CO-PILOT'S DECISION

Hello:

Obviously I am just guessing here but sometimes in life that is all we get to do about reality.    I think the co-pilot of the plane that crashed believed that the black boxes would both be obliterated and no one would know what actually happened.  Maybe the second black box actually did disintegrate,

This scenario would have spared his family from knowing that he committed suicide and took 149 other people with him.   It just goes to show how important it is to try to understand the human mind on a deeper level than we do at the present time.

Not that such knowledge would always prevent something like this from happening again but perhaps it would happen less often.  I just hope it doesn't boil down to rejection from a female love interest in the co-pilot's life.  

Or some gambling problems or some unspoken level of depression that this co-pilot kept to himself.  Or perhaps it is some unknown problem that we will never figure out.