Keeping us fearful, keeping us divided

I am getting to the point where I almost loathe all television news channels, especially the ones that broadcast 24/7. Every time one of them is on in my house, the ire, the fury, the doom, the gloom (and sometimes the naivete) pervade the atmosphere. I would mostly choose not to watch them, and for the most part, I don't. But it's not always my choice. News channels are basically purveyors of fear. The interviewers and interviewees don't help matters. By the time a half-hour news show has come to an end, it is easy to conclude that the world is a complete mess. That the world is going to hell in a handbasket. That no one knows how to behave anymore with respect--for their fellow man, the elderly, the young--take your pick. That everything was better when we were young (some things were because we weren't inundated with garbage from tv and social media 24/7), but not all things. 

We don't have to watch the news. We can read about what is going on in the world in newspapers, where we can choose to read the articles we want. The key word is choose. The better newspapers still have fairly well-researched articles that give some background about world conflicts, key issues, etc. I would rather read one excellent article about a particular political conflict (in the NY Times or The New Yorker) than watch tv news shows give me their opinions ad nauseam on who is the transgressor or the aggressor, the victimizer or the victim. I just want the background and the facts and I'll make up my own mind. I don't want the opinions of the newscasters, I want the news, without all the interviews that don't shed any light on the issues at hand. I don't want tv newscasters lecturing to me or screaming at me in an effort to brainwash me. Yelling at me to 'think like me' or 'think like my tv station that is paying me millions of dollars to feed you untruths and garbage' (think Tucker Carlson). The more I am pummeled by such idiocy, the stronger my stance that it is such programming that is ruining the world--for ratings and for money. If there is a hell, I hope that the people who promote such programming end up there.  

My question is--what is gained by keeping us, the public, fearful and divided? Do we tune in more to these news shows because of fear? What is it we fear? The unknown? The darkness in humanity? Are we missing out on the latest atrocities, the latest who did what or said what to whom? Do we need to feel 'alive' by tuning in? Does that give people a thrill? Do we like conflict and division? Do we need to have an enemy? Do we need to feel fear in order to keep our lives from getting or being boring? I think for many people, the news is about 'what happens over there', 'outside my sphere'. So we can think, how horrible, what's going on over there. But it's not happening here, so I can relax. I can feel consoled. I can continue to live in my little bubble. I can't do anything about what is going on elsewhere except be a voyeur, a spectator (willing or not). Then I can turn the tv off and go about my life until the next time I sit down for my dose of appalling. Perhaps better not to tune in at all. Because we need to live, to go about our lives with the awareness that yes, bad things can happen, but we cannot live in paralyzing fear. We can choose to be aware of what we let into our minds, be aware of what is going on in the world without being brainwashed or intimidated, take the necessary precautions, and then choose to live. That is the healthier choice. 

Rage and fear in nursing homes

The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten published a rather unsettling article in its A-magazine this weekend about violence within elderly care centers/nursing homes in Norway. At first glance, I thought it would be about abuse of elderly residents by nursing home employees. This is not unheard of, and has been written about for a number of years now. No, this article was about abuse of elderly residents and nursing home caregivers by fellow elderly residents, and it is more widespread than one might think. The nurses and care workers do not report all of the incidents that occur, hence this type of violence is under-reported. Many of the violent residents have been diagnosed with dementia, and even though they are cognitively-challenged, they still retain their physical strength and their voices, both of which they use against their fellow residents and the caregivers. In some cases, the violence was directed against visitors, who ended up terrified. Most of the violence has to do with the rage some of these residents feel, most likely rage against their illness, their mental incapacity, the fact that they know they are in a nursing home and perhaps feel like prisoners, their sense of having lost their identity--the list is long. The point is that their dementia makes them angry, makes them rage, makes them act out, and when they do, much of it takes the form of physical violence, but also verbal abuse (yelling and swearing). Some of these residents throw glasses, cups, chairs; others hold others down, slap them, punch them, kick them, bite them, spit at them, and try to break the fingers of the care workers. Still others (men) were sexually abusive toward some of the elderly women living in the homes. In most cases, the care centers and nursing homes were understaffed, especially at night when some of the demented residents wandered through the halls and into and out of other residents' rooms. It is up to the residents to decide if they want to lock their doors or not; the nursing homes cannot make this decision for them without their permission unless violent situations such as described in the article arise. These situations cannot lead to any repercussions in terms of prison sentences either, since demented individuals cannot be prosecuted.

Any way you look at it, this is an impossible situation. If employees and non-violent residents end up terrorized by violent residents in nursing homes, it will not end well for anyone. I can envision a not-to-distant future where few to no young people will choose to work as nurses or aides in nursing homes. The number of elderly with dementia is predicted to double by 2050, thus need for round-the-clock care will only increase. I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that if something is not done to tackle the problem, it will not go away. I don't know what the policies are for tranquilizing such people, but it might be one way to proceed in order to keep them calm. I don't know how elderly with dementia are currently treated (with drugs), but at least if they are tranquilized they cannot be a danger to themselves or others. I know it sounds harsh, but the alternatives are harsher. If nursing homes end up being more understaffed than they are now, they will close, and then it will be up to individual families to take care of these violent demented individuals (most of whom were men in the Aftenposten article, but there were some few women). I feel sorry for them, but they cannot be allowed to destroy the peace that the non-violent elderly deserve after a long life. The latter deserve respect and the right to live out their lives in peace and without fear of being harassed or physically assaulted by fellow residents or anyone else. I applaud Aftenposten for raising this issue, which is most difficult to discuss and even more difficult to solve.

Apparently, this is a global problem, as I have seen online. In other countries, there are special nursing homes for elderly with severe (and aggressive) dementia. Anger is a part of dementia, and in other countries tranquilizers are often prescribed for such people. But they do not always take their medications. So it remains a problem--how to deal with these elderly, how to respect them but at the same time limit their aggression, and how to protect the non-violent residents and caregivers.