
by Laurie Leitch, Associate Research Director
The following article appeared in the New
York Times, May 31, 2005.
Pairao, a 38-year-old Thai woman with vacant eyes, sits on
the dusty floor of her temporary house in a refugee camp for
tsunami survivors. Her face is dotted with cuts from debris
that struck her as she clung to four family members, all of
whom died in the waves. She has been having recurrent nightmares
and flashbacks.
I sit with her as she tells how her son had gone to market
that fateful day and, therefore, survived. I am there to work
with the traumatic stress symptoms of survivors like Pairao.
However, my first connection to her is as a mother, and I
feel a surge of gratitude that my own children are alive and
safe back home.
In the first days of disaster relief work, I wondered how
I could possibly make a difference when the magnitude of loss,
destruction and trauma was so huge. There is skepticism and
hot debate among some experts as to the suitability of Western-based
approaches to disaster mental health. I share this skepticism,
and I arrived with my own questions about whether there is
a place for mental health services in the immediate aftermath
of a natural disaster.
My experience with survivors like Pairao convinced me that
we need a new science of disaster relief - one that gives
immediate aid not just to the body or to the mind but to the
two together, as inseparable parts of the whole survivor.
The month I spent working in the Phang Nga Province of Thailand
convinced me that we should have arrived sooner. Thai Red
Cross personnel, nurses, doctors and Buddhist monks told us
how frustrated they were at how little they knew about the
symptoms and treatment of trauma.
Our nine-member trauma team's work was done under the auspices
of the Princess' Mobile Medical Unit, affording an access
and a legitimacy we would not otherwise have had. We worked
in medical tents, refugee camps, Buddhist temples and schools,
providing treatment and training.
The lack of information about traumatic stress meant that
medication was often prescribed in lieu of other treatments.
Children and adults had been given major medications for symptoms
like night terrors, headaches, weakness in limbs and stomachaches,
all symptoms of traumatic stress, which can often be successfully
treated without medication, particularly with early intervention.
In one case, a woman received an antidepressant for sleep
problems and then attempted suicide.
Mental health approaches that rely on "talking it out"
would not have been culturally appropriate, nor are they suited
to disasters. However, early interventions that ease traumatic
stress while restoring the body's resiliency are needed. The
term most often used for integrative treatments that link
the mind and the body is "holistic," a term too
broad to be useful and one that often generates suspicion.
A disaster's reach extends far beyond its immediate victims.
We know from long-term studies of post-traumatic stress that
the emotional aftermath can last far beyond a decade. Even
in non-Western countries where mental health services exist,
they tend to be used only in cases of the most extreme mental
illnesses, usually in combination with medication and hospitalization.
During our time in Thailand, we found few Thai relief workers
who knew about traumatic stress. Yet traumatic stress knows
no boundaries, political or cultural, and can lead to long-term
emotional disability, work-related problems, family strain
and dissolution, substance abuse and an array of physical
syndromes.
I could see the effects of trauma as I listened to a man
describe with despair his rages at his 5-year-old granddaughter.
I worked with a panicky 25-year-old in the medical tent who
reeked of alcohol. I heard the distress of a fisherman and
village leader who was afraid to go back to the sea.
There is a growing body of scientific evidence that what
we consider physical symptoms and what we consider psychological
symptoms are intertwined. The work of Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn,
an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Massachusetts,
on the effects of stress on the immune system, has helped
bring attention to the need for a new approach that rejects
the false dichotomy of mind and body. This has important implications
for work with disaster survivors.
Any traumatic event generates a cascade of physiological
and emotional responses. Dr. Gaithri Fernando, a clinical
psychologist born in Sri Lanka, writing in a newsletter of
the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, cautions
that Sri Lankans have never experienced this type of adversity
before and that the magnitude of the disaster may "overtax
the resilience" that often characterizes these people.
This can also be said for other countries devastated by the
tsunami.
A new science of disaster relief must include treatments
that go beyond the current models pitting one set of needs
against another. Instead, new models must link the mind and
body, recognizing that the resilience of one affects and depends
on the resilience of the other.
Pairao and hundreds of thousands of survivors - of this
and future disasters - are depending on it.
Dr. M. Laurie Leitch is associate director of research for
the Foundation for Human Enrichment.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
<< Back
|