Swine Flu and the German way to cope

Is swine flu really a threat, or is it just another form of seasonal influenza? Why are people dying from it?

Until mid November, the number of people infected by swine flu in Germany were minimal, but the media blew it up to a real danger, being able to cause sudden death. Warnigs were issued, but nobody took it seriously.

At mid November, suddenly the number of infections increased dramatically. Physicians had to report every case to the health authorities, and every single case was diagnosed.

As swine flu is now a fact of life in every family, the attitude has changed, and there is a fierce discussion going on about the vaccination against this new sort of flu.

Authorities, some physicians, other professionals, and of course the pharmaceutical industry are drawing up a horror scenario and keep on promoting the vaccination. Actually, the debate became heated up when it became known that government officials and security forces get another vaccine than the ordinary population. The ordinary vaccine contains an API booster that might be dangerous to some people. The vaccine, so the argument goes, can be produced in larger quantities to meet the demand.

All of the supporters of the vaccination are actually behind time. Many people have already been infected (a big number)and are thereby immune to the H1N1 virus. For them, a vaccination is useless, or even dangerous.

All physicians I have talked to have a clear position about the problem. Swine flu only becomes dangerous if bacteria have settled in your lungs, or if your circulation is affected that much by the accompanying fever that it is on the brink of breaking down. If you stay in bed and fight the inflammation chances are that you are up and well again after a few days. A hospital doctor even confessed to me that she would have refused to be vaccinated if she didn´t work in the premature infants´ department. My family doctor said that it would be more sensible to be vaccinated against seasonal flu, as this type of flu takes much more lives than swine flu would take.

Even the health authorities seem on the retreat. The obligation to report swine flu cases was limited to those which cause serious complications. All infection statistics have become worthless with this decision. The same, diagnoses of swine flu only take place in case of complications. Hospitals and labs cannot cope any more with the huge amounts of infected to be diagnosed.

Oh, by the way: No physician takes responsibility for the vaccination. The decision is entirely to the patients.

German federal election: The great TV debate?

Boring, uninteresting, nothing new ...

These are the words for describing the tv debate between Chancellor and conservative party chairwoman Angela Merkel and Social-Democrat Chancellor candidate Frank-Walter Steinmeier who are tied up in the governing coalition of the two biggest parties in Germany. No wonder they praised the governmental work of the past four years more than stressing the differences between both parties. Is that possibly because there are not many differences between them?

Maybe this debate ended up in advertising government policies because none of them is really charismatic as a leader, and they stand for "going on as before". The only charismatic politician in the election is the leading head of the Socialist party, Gregor Gisy. "Die Linke", as this party is called, is a merger of the East-German PDS and a West-German citizens´initiative. The PDS has developed from the former East-German communist governing party, which is a reason for many not to elect them. Although they stand for a lot of popular views on politics such as nationalisation of banks and minimum wages, they are strictly atheist which is intolerable for many, especially West Germans.

It is amazing: The US have only two big political parties, but still a charismatic politician as Barack Obama has emerged from one of them. The Soviet Union had only one central party without having democratic elections or procedures, and it was possible for a great reformer as Gorbatchev to alter the whole political structure of the world.

Probably, it can be assigned to Germany´s past with its role in two world wars and a political leader who has abused political power so viciously that Germans are critical about any charismatic leaders. Germany has five major parties and dozens of smaller ones, but they aren´t able to generate an outstanding politician any more, such as Willi Brandt has been during the 60s and 70s.

So possibly, the Germans will get what they deserve and is best for them from the next election: Boring politicians with the charm of a paper clip, a political administration more than a government and a two-party coalition.

Who needs a clean Diesel car?

If you want to travel into Berlin city centre after Jan 1st, 2010 with your old Diesel car, you risk to be fined. What you need is a green badge attached to the windscreen from inside to show that your car has a soot filter. This goes for local as well as foreign cars.

So if you live outside the city boundaries or in the outskirts, as I do, there is no way of giving somebody a lift to the Brandenburg Gate or the British or American Embassies. Find the next fast transit train station, and drop him or her off.

Until last week, I was convinced not to have my car fitted with the latest technique. The price was the reason: 1300 Euro (= Dollar). But then, my garage made me an offer I couldn´t refuse: The whole bunch of catalyser and soot filter for 90 Euro, minus 330 Euro state subsidy.

So now I have a clean Diesel car. I must admit, I am a bit proud. But should I, really? I live near an airport with hundreds of planes taking off, every day, and the same local government doesn´t care a bit for the soot emitted from aircraft engines. Now that we have clean cars in Berlin, shouldn´t we stop travelling by plane, or at least reduce plane trips? What good is all environmental protection without it happening in all forms of transport?

Still, I also feel a bit tricked and deceived, in a world where I have to invest into the environment, but companies and states can trade their emission rights.

The benefits of civil aviation

It is one of the most modern and fashionable ways to travel and move about. Instead of getting into the car and going where it is nice at the weekend, even low-paid employees treat themselves to a weekend visit to London for shopping or Mallorca for a quick swim in the Mediterranian. Holidays are much cheaper anyway if you go on an all-inclusive holiday to Turkey or the Dominican Republic. So what?

Airports proudly announce constant increases in passenger figures and turnover, airlines sell out bargains of 19€-flights to who-knows-where, and if you refuse or just cut down on flying, you seem to be a kill-joy.

Have you ever imagined to live near one of these busy airports? I don´t have to imagine, I do. It´s a nightmarish experience if you can tell the age of the pilot in the cockpit when the aircraft hovers over your head and your ears go deaf with the noise from the engines. It´s not funny to be awakened in the middle of the night by aircraft taking off or landing and feeling shattered for the rest of the day because you couldn´t go back to sleep. Not to mention the fumes these monsters emit with every overflight.

Politicians and airport officials stay relaxed. The chosen few have to suffer for the benefits of the majority. Any lawnmower, they tell us, or the street or railway nearby emit more noise than an aircraft over your head. Well... how long do you use your lawnmower? Are you allowed and willing to use it at night? Or at noontime? Every city street is protected by speed limits at least it night for reasons of noise abatement. No chance for near-airport residents.

If we all would be willing to slow down life a bit, we would need only a fraction of flights. It would bring us nearer to the ideal which Mahatma Ghandi described this way:

"There is more to life than constantly increasing its speed."

This certainly would mean less profits for airports and airlines all over the world. But who cares?

Christian religion as a school subject?

A few weeks ago, a poll took place in Berlin about the introduction of Christion religion as a school subject. The initiators was an initiative of the Catholic and Protestant churches together with some VIPs, such as the tv moderator of "How to become a Millionaire", who is very popular in Germany. The idea was to be able to choose between the official subject Ethics and Chistian religion as an official subject.

The local Berlin government started a campaign against the introduction, and the initiative for the introduction of Christian religion failed in the end. There were only few people interested in the poll, and those who were voted against.

Religion combines historic facts, ethic rules, opposes violence in every day life and teaches understanding of other religions. It has nothing to do with fundamentalistic belief and old-fashioned ideas. It stands in the tradition of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King. So why not teaching youngsters about these ideas?

In Germany, there is a split going throught the country between north and south. In the southern federal states, religion is a normal school subject as Mathematics or languages, and there is no choice. Everybody has to take Catholic religion, no matter of his or her faith. In the rest of Germany, students and parents can choose, and it is only in Berlin that there is no choice between Ethics and Religion. Especially in Germany´s east, religion is classed as outdated. That is even though the churches in the former German Democratic Republic had a large part in criticising and finally doing away with the communist government. People forget fast.

Imagine the United States without its Christian roots or Great Britain without its Christian traditions. Certainly, a lot of ugly developments like crusades and slavery could have been avoided, but what about charity in the name of the churches?

Amongst my colleagues, the opinion is clear, and I am the absolute minority. Everybody is talking about tolerance, nowadays. Only, it doesn´t seem to apply to tose who think it worth believing in something else but consumption, superstition and the overestimation of the self and one´s own life and ideas.

That´s what every religion s about: Humility, the consciousness that men can´t influence everything and only live up to their own interests.

Is there a chance for kids traumatised in early childhood?

It seems that there are no chances for traumatised children. How much help can be provided, and how much help can foster families and authorities provide?

The problem with traumatised foster children is that foster families need professional support. Most traumatised foster children have never experienced a caring family or parents. They have been neglected and have experienced violence and evil situations before they have been removed from their families. They have never had the chance to establish a positive relationship to parents or relatives, and they have a deep mistrust against all adults. So they refuse to rely on any help offered, which is quite comprehensible. In situations which remind them of their former life they dissociate from the situation, and at the same time transfer their former reactions to their carers, believing that they represent the adults who have traumatised them. If they are not helped by trauma therapists, they will never lose this habit. This can make a child unbearable for a family. The family might have to put up with aggressive outbreaks, disruption of family life and other symptoms of early childhood traumatisation.

Still, living in a state-supported institution like children´s homes or housing groups is not necessarily better, and, worst of all, there are too few. It can take months or even years to transfer a traumatised child to a housing group which can cope with the behaviour of traumatised children and at the same time provide specialist help, so that these children have a chance of a good start into independent life after their coming of age. Precious time is wasted which might have been used for helping these children to lead a normal life.

This is what I have experienced during the past few weeks, and maybe it sounds clever, professional and reserved. But there is a development behind this which is hurting and seeing this development from a distance helps to cope and get things straightened out.

We had to put Sue, our younger foster daughter under the custody of the youth welfare office, which means that with her consent we took her to the nearest available children´s home. We were not able to cope with the symptoms of her traumatic experiences any more, and knowing that many institutions refused to accept her we don´t feel guilty or responsible for this pitiful situation. She lives there in a group of youngsters who all have been removed from critical situations in their families, mostly against their own will. Janet, her older sister, is still living with us. I visit Sue mostly once a week, but I noticed that she is trying to put up a distance between herself and me. Some say it is because she feels guilty, some say that this is the repeated break off of a relation. I don´t know how to judge this; I am not even sure that she ever has established a family relation to the rest of us.

The situation in this children´s home is far from ideal. The youth welfare office is trying to find a specialised housing group, but this seems difficult. So the situation still is quite unsettled. Our role as her family can only be to keep up contact to her and monitor her situation. There is only one chance to keep a relation. Visits to her must be well prepared with her by a therapist, and with us as well by a therapeutic supervision. This is what I am just discussing with the youth welfare office so that we get the support we need.

A new start for our foster family

It is six and a half years ago, when Sue and Janet came to live with us. We had many nice times, like holidays in France and Britain, our families had accepted both of them, they found friends and enjoyed their freedom.

But finally, every-day life got the better of us. The symptoms of the multiple trauma from which Sue is suffering made life in our family unbearable. Something had to happen.

So I searched for hospitals with a department and medical staff for traumatic therapies. I made dozens of phonecalls, wrote letters, talked to doctors. It was the same everywhere. Clinics have a special supply area which they are assigned to. The clinic for our supply area, however, is lacking experience with traumatised children. So we had to abandon that possibility of helping Sue and taking her into our family after six weeks´ of treatment.

The next chance was to find a therapeutic housing group to accommodate her. Endless phone calls again. But everybody told me that there was no chance of accommodating her for the reason of lacking offers.

This was the most disappointing moment for me in all the years we were trying to help Sue. There was not the least of a chance.

Meanwhile, the problems increased. Janet threatened to leave if we didn´t do anything about the situation.

So we decided a week ago to give Sue into the custody of the youth welfare office. We talked to Sue and told her that it would be better for all of us if she left. She agreed. She helped packing clothing and most of her belongings. She appeared in my study, and asked if she could choose something of my belongings, and I gladly agreed. She also took with her the photos of our last holiday to Britain and some photos of our family. It all happened very quietly, we took her to the childrens´ home where she was welcomed warmly, and we left after a short farewell.

So it´s us three now, Janet still staying with us. The situation is still distressing, but it is quiet and peaceful now. Our psychological supervisor sonfirmed that it was the right step to take. We ar e still keeping contact to Sue, visiting her, and we have a perspective for her, as we have found a therapeutic housing group for her where she can live. It won´t be the end, and we have the support of the youth welfare office official in keeping up the relationship. So it seems that everything might turn out all right. What a relief for all of us! The next step will be finding a special therapyy for traumatised children, and we think that we can do that, as well.