Writer’s Block (Poem)

Pages, words, mind-maps galore;
One definite plan
Scratched out, scribbled, re-worked and researched:
A plan to end all plans, you see;
Writer’s block? It’s not for me!

Yet can I pick up a pen
Or open a laptop
To put this plan into place?
It’s fear of that first sentence, you see;
Writer’s block? Yep, sounds like me!

I planned to have a prologue
In this plan to end all plans
I prattled about; wrote one, typed one -
Flushed them down the pan.
Awful, drivel, rot and twaddle
Too much the perfectionist, you see;
Writer’s block? Nope, just far too critical of me!

So will I ever take the plunge
And make this plan a novel?
I think so, hope so, intend to, yes!
Procrastination over,
I’ll make it work, you’ll see;
Writer’s block? For heaven’s sake, stay away from me!

The Starvation Army: An Insight Into The World Of Fashion (Article)

A busy, not altogether positive and, to be brutally honest, unsurprising few weeks for the fashion industry: hot on the heels of New York, London, Milan and Paris Fashion Weeks, revelations by industry insiders – a leading magazine editor and the young girls themselves – into the cut -throat, unforgiving world of what it is to be a catwalk model.

Some weeks ago, Kirstie Clements, former editor of Australian Vogue, became one of the few of those involved in the industry brave enough to speak out against the fashion world’s callous cult of thin and the dangerous behaviours it drives its vulnerable young girls towards. In disclosures shocking but perhaps somewhat to be expected, she detailed the common practice by which starving models devour tissue paper to stave off hunger pangs and are regularly admitted to hospital requiring an emergency drip feed because they are so severely malnourished. “There are no questions asked, because the girls are fulfilling what the casting directors want and the designers require.” Her comments detailing the ravenous demand for emaciated models act as evidence that – despite the notorious anti-anorexia campaign which, five years ago, saw several countries ban the use of size zero models on their catwalks – attitudes in the fashion industry have not changed one jot. Clements cites personal experience of one model who, over a three day photoshoot, did not allow a single crumb to pass her lips. By the end, starvation had rendered her so weak she could barely keep her eyes open, much less stand and pose for the still clicking camera.

Sadly, this is far from an isolated case: twenty two year old former catwalk model Lauren Burnett is testament to that. Between the ages of thirteen and nineteen, from 2004-2010, on the outside she was living every teenager’s dream: featuring on the pages of high end fashion magazines, travelling and gracing the catwalks of starry-eyed cities such as Sydney and New York. But, take a closer look, and one spots the cracks in this façade: the dream was, in fact, a nightmare. Over the years when she should have been enjoying the happiest time of her life – living, changing, growing – Burnett was shrinking, starving, existing: hospitalised six times for emergency re-nutrition, she lost her hair, her periods and risked permanent liver and kidney damage…all in the name of achieving catwalk ‘perfection’. “No one cares what you do to yourself,” she stated in a recent interview with The Times. “You have to compete with the best and the best do all that, so you do too.” ‘All that’ transpired into a one-way ticket to self-destruction: with food out of the picture, Burnett joined the army of models surviving on a cocktail of drugs, neat vodka (mixers, of course, contain the ever-dreaded calories), laxative teas, diet pills and endless hours of frenzied exercise at the gym. Nobody outside of the industry would disagree that this torment and manipulation is far from the care and nurture that a growing teenager requires.

For me, there is one striking point concerning these cases that stands out above all others: none of this anything new. This insidious, internalised world of the catwalk has existed for years and, I predict, will sadly continue to do so. Burnett’s story was playing out at the same time as the anti-anorexia campaign; proof, if you like, that it was completely ineffective. Burnett is, arguably, one of the precious few lucky ones: three years on, she has escaped the toxic minefield of size zero and returned to fashion as a healthy, ‘plus size’ model (at 6ft 1inch, she is a respectable size 14). If only the rest of the industry would follow her lead. For that, I believe, is what it would take to instigate true change: a mass campaign by ALL models, a refusal to work until the dangerous status quo is altered. Until then, Burnett will certainly not be the last girl to be chewed up and spat back out by the ruthless machine that we call the modelling industry.

*All quotes and case stories gathered from ‘The Times’

Angelina Jolie: Bravery In The Face Of Breast Cancer (Article)

Angelina Jolie is no stranger to controversy. The announcement, in the early days of her career, of her bisexuality; the occasion in 1997 when she almost hired a hitman to kill her; the infamous kiss with her brother at the 2000 Academy Awards celebration…the list goes on and on. This week, however, she has hit the headlines with perhaps her most challenging issue yet: her decision to, after discovering that a faulty gene left her with an alarmingly high risk of developing breast cancer, undergo a double mastectomy.

How did Jolie find that she was at so great a chance of contracting the killer disease? Thanks to genetic testing; this has arguably saved thousands of lives since its launch in the 1990s. These tests identify mutations on the BRCA genes which increase the susceptibility of falling victim to inherited forms of breast or ovarian cancer: faults in these genes reportedly increase the risk of developing breast cancer fivefold.

Which is why, deciding “to be proactive and to minimise the risk as much as I could”, in April this year Jolie completed three months of medical procedures involved in a double mastectomy. The likelihood of her developing breast cancer has now plummeted from an almost sure-fire 87% to less than 5%.

Jolie is not naive. In 2007, after a decade long battle with ovarian cancer, Jolie’s mother Marcheline Bertrand died at just 56 years old. Who can criticise her daughter, with six young children of her own, for not wishing to follow in her footsteps and meet such an early end from a disease that, thanks to early detection, could have been prevented? In addressing the problem head on and not shying away from a reality that many of us would find too frightening to contemplate, Jolie displays a bravery that women should find inspiring and empowering, not worthy of public ridicule and scorn. Jolie has done what, for centuries, women were denied the right to do: she has taken control of her own body. The decision to have a double mastectomy is life changing and potentially life-saving in equal measure: if by sharing her story Jolie can encourage just one woman to do the same and take those first steps towards an early intervention, I am sure she will conclude that the media storm she has generated has all been worth it. Angelina Jolie is a role model. In her own words, “Life comes with many challenges. The ones that should not scare us are the ones we can take on and take control of.”

The Changeling (Poetry)

Once upon a far-off moon,
Beneath a starry sky,
An ancient kingdom slept in the shadows
Of a castle ever so high.

But within these crumbling walls
All was not as it seemed
For inside there lurked a Changeling
More fearsome than ever dreamed.

‘A Changeling?’ I hear you ask,
‘What’s that?’ – well, my dears
A Changeling is an ugly beast
That feasts on your hopes and fears…

On this night the Changeling woke
With a yawn that shook the ground;
It slunk from room to quiet room
Until the Princess could be found.

Beside the bed of the sleeping girl
The Changeling cackled with glee:
He wrung his hands, whispered a spell;
Summoned the evil fairies three.

There they stood in a dead straight line
And by the light of the early day,
In a flash of dust and a flurry of wands
They stole the Princess away.

In her place they left the Changeling
Oh, what could now be done?
To ensure that, once and for all,
The war against evil was won?

The King and Queen tried everything
To fix this ghastly mess:
Healers, potions, begging, wishing
‘Til hope grew less and less.

Upon the people the Changeling released
A reign of deadly terror;
Swiped their dreams in the black of night -
He was evil, yes; but clever.

Until one day a handsome Prince
Heard the plight of this far-off land:
He would rescue the poor Princess;
Grabbed his sword and shield in hand…

The Prince arrived on the sandy shores
And, in a move that was bold and brave,
He slaughtered the shrieking Changeling -
The Princess he had saved!

From that day on, the kingdom rejoiced
As the return of children’s laughter
Meant that the people’s new hopes and dreams
Led to a happily ever after.

Lose The Pounds, Gain The Dollars (Article)

A US study has found that people who are encouraged to lose weight for cash prizes in competition with colleagues shed the pounds faster than individuals who are paid to reach dieting targets on their own.

Under President Obama’s healthcare reforms, American companies will be given incentives for group weight loss schemes. Although the NHS does not pay British residents to lose weight, the closest equivalent would perhaps be the discount that some UK insurance companies offer to customers who regularly use the gym or purchase healthier foods.

The researchers, who published their findings in the journal ‘Annals of Internal Medicine’, discovered that, after six months, a group losing weight competitively “overwhelmingly” beat those striving to lose weight alone. Jeffery T. Kullgren – from the institute leading the study, the University of Michigan – said: “we found that these incentives were substantially more powerful when delivered in groups, which has important implications.”

However, I am sure I am not alone in expressing doubts as to the true effectiveness of such schemes. Certainly, the weight situation of many may be improved in the short term by these undertakings: if you fit the mould for a potential cash prize, losing weight could be considered an easy way to make money in a world struggling with recession, debt and extortionate living costs. Nonetheless, the long term scenario must be considered. The fact of the matter is, just as an anorexia sufferer will only recover when he/she truly wants it, when the craving for a life of freedom and flexibility overrides the compulsion to lose weight and the addiction to self-destruction, an overweight person will only lose the pounds when he/she is fully determined and willing to put the effort in. Such a person will want to see these results for themselves, to benefit their self-esteem and overall health; not to see their bank balance rise temporarily. In many ways, losing weight is the easy part: it is maintaining the healthy lifestyle once this is achieved that is the challenge. Those who will be successful in this vein will be the people who continue to fight to keep their weight down once the effects of the cash prize – the holiday, the new clothes, the upgraded mobile phone – have disappeared. Those who are only in it for the money will, I would predict, soon find themselves back to square one. It is a well-known cliché that money does not buy happiness. Try as we might, I doubt it can – in the long term – buy good health either.

The Trouble With Television (Article)

Parents, rejoice! Scientists have revealed that watching large amounts of television does not trigger psychological problems in children. Finally, the suspicions of us rational thinkers out there have been confirmed: there are “probably more important things to be worrying about” than plonking your youngster in front of the Disney channel for a couple of hours.

Researchers of the report concluded that, whilst behavioural problems reportedly worsened in children exposed to more than three hours of programmes per day, this is more likely to be due to the parents rather than the TV. Scientists studied 11,000 five year olds and their television viewing habits, tracking how their behaviour changed by the age of seven. Only a slight increase was found in problems for children who watched TV for more than three hours per day. This increase all but vanished when results were adjusted to allow for parental background. Published in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood, the study contradicts findings that prompted US doctors to recommend limiting children to two hours of TV per day.

It seems to me that these results further confirm what many of us have long held true: it is not how much children watch that needs to be closely monitored, but what they watch. Age and overall impressionability must also be taken into account. On a large and tragic scale, we have the example of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the ten year old killers of two year old Jamie Bulger, whose defence lawyers claimed that their gruesome murder ploys came about at least in part through exposure to inappropriate television such as the ‘Chucky‘ movie series. On a much smaller scale, my two year old nephew proves that even the tamest programmes can have a huge influence on a mind that is simply not mature enough to distinguish fact from reality, right from wrong: after watching Disney’s 2011 movie ‘Tangled‘ (over and over and over again) he has faced numerous reprimands for copying the crashing and bashing of the aptly named criminal Stabbington brothers.

In this multitude of ever changing and seemingly contradictory advice, what, then, is the correct approach to television? Surely one of life’s most frequented proverbs can here also be applied: everything in moderation. A few hours of television here and there, interspersed with other activities: reading, homework, arts and crafts, outdoor play. And perhaps, just to be on the safe side, parents of very young children should vet their chosen movies/television before exposing them to their offspring; we do not want an entire army of mini Stabbington brothers wrecking their way across British nurseries.

A New Age Of Nursing? (Article)

Aspiring nurses will lose their NHS funding if they refuse to spend time in what is traditionally the role of a healthcare assistant, engaging in tasks such as washing and feeding patients, announced Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt a few weeks ago. Under these new plans, students will have to spend up to a year working as hands on carers before they qualify, extending a nursing degree – the only route into the profession after the phasing out of the diploma – from three to four years. The proposals come in light of the Mid Staffordshire scandal which threw under scrutiny the appalling lack of basic care and compassion afforded to vulnerable elderly patients. It is hoped that the overhaul will “change deep-rooted cultural problems within the NHS”.

Mr Hunt outlined his belief that “frontline, hands-on caring experience and values need to be equal with academic training.” Officials seems to back his new propositions, stating that if nurses are required to spend time washing, feeding and helping patients use the lavatory they will qualify with a greater understanding of the realities of the job. This will lead to fewer cases of dropping out after qualifying.

So, what to make of this? On the one hand, it is extremely welcome news: anything that affords those who need it most that all important dignity and comfort in what could be their most desperate days cannot possibly be a bad thing. As any regular readers will know, I am not one to sit and criticise our strained NHS staff: generally, they do a stellar job. Yet neither am I one to lie and profess that our healthcare system is perfect when it clearly is not. From the eleven years spent in and out of various hospitals visiting gravely ill grandparents, I have horror stories that would – and rightly should – shame those professionals involved: the elderly gentleman left trapped between his bed and cabinet having fallen in an effort to reach the lavatory when nurses were ‘too busy’ to help him; my grandfather, left to soak for hours in his own faeces and urine after nurses were ‘too busy’ to clean him, a responsibility which later, through desperation, fell to my mother. Plain and simple, this is unacceptable; this should not be allowed to happen.

But here we have a case of ‘spot the problem’. Take another look at the aforementioned scenarios. In both cases – and, I suspect, many others, as I am all too aware that these are far from isolated incidents – the ability of the nurses is not under question. Their training has prepared them for dealing with the issues; what is may not prepared them for is the demandingly pressurised and hugely understaffed conditions in which these issues are presented. Nurses have the knowledge and indeed want to properly and compassionately deal with the care of their patients; they simply do not have the time to do so. No amount of extra training is going to change that. In fact, there is a considerable part of me that fears that these new proposals will only worsen the problem: how many would-be nurses will be dissuaded by the prospect of a four instead of three year course? How many, faced with the prospect of spending a year in a job they do not wish to pursue, will choose an alternate career path? Worst case scenario, this new system could leave us with fewer nurses than ever before, a situation that would – regardless of separate problems such as funding – only worsen the problems as the NHS becomes even more understaffed. Yes, the system needs an overhaul; but we need to think very carefully about what this entails, rather than rush into any decisions and pluck out the ‘magical’ solution of extra training. Health officials out there, you have been warned.