Monday, November 19, 2007

Of Heroes, Parity, and Economics

Last night's post only scratched the surface of the culturally accepted norm dictating that mental health is not on par with physical health when it comes to one's needs for rest and rejuvenation---especially where work is concerned.

Work is, for better or worse, part and parcel of our lives, a veritable necessity for putting food on the table and clothes on our backs. As we moved out of an agricultural society into an industrial---and eventually technological---society, it obviously became necessary for an astronomical number of individuals to become workers who performed duties under the auspices of companies and corporations which held our livelihoods in their hands. Granted, an agrarian society is no panacea---share-cropping and slavery are excellent examples of that scheme's miserable failings---yet the industrial age brought with it abuses and restrictions on individual freedom which, while not necessarily slavery in name, certainly have kept many segments of society in quite similar and dire economic straits.

So, when one has chosen to enter a field of work in which the vagaries of the economy and the edicts of one's employer shape one's destiny, there is a certain amount of freedom that is abdicated. That said, even the self-employed feel that they too must abdicate some freedoms in the face of restrictive tax codes and the high cost of health insurance and healthcare.

For myself, I have chosen to enter the "Medical Industrial Complex", to riff on a phrase originally popularized by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961. Within said Medical Industrial Complex, a hierarchy exists, similar to the hierarchies within other disciplines and professional societies. The members of such systems are rewarded for their work based upon algorithms which take into account such notions as experience, education, applicable skills, and other factors which make one a candidate for the assignment of various tasks and responsibilities.

As I stated in yesterday's post, certain segments of society are held in higher esteem than others, earning astronomically higher salaries and benefits than those of us who slog away in blue-collar, "pink-collar" and even many white-collar positions. Most of us would agree that celebrities---including many actors, some entertainers, as well as many professional athletes---receive remuneration for their efforts which far seems to outstrip the relative value and social import of their (cultural and economic) contributions to society. CEOs are another story, and the scale of their remuneration is also sorely out of balance (think Ken Lay, may his soul never rest).

I stated yesterday that the hypothetical baseball player who experiences occupational stress could be pretty certain that his salary---often in the millions, or at least hundreds of thousands---would not suffer in the face of a leave of absence for reasons related to stress.

In my post, I compared myself to that stressed-out baseball player. Let's imagine that I was a nurse who was experiencing incredible levels of stress and burnout by caring for the destitute, chronically ill, and elderly who live in that baseball player's hometown. Maybe several members of his extended family---saddled with substance abuse, mental illness, or other disabling medical conditions---were actually on my caseload. When I decide that I need to take a leave of absence due to stress related to my work, why is it that I---a person providing essential services related to the health, well-being and survival of members of that baseball player's family and community---must do so without pay and with risk of economic hardship, while the baseball player (who essentially swings a piece of wood at a leather ball and catches balls hit by others with the same piece of wood) rests on his laurels and fat bank account, taking a break from his on-the-job stress on Maui? What is wrong with this picture?

Teachers, nurses, police officers, EMTs, substance abuse counselors, social workers, senior center directors, outreach workers, AIDS workers, hospice counselors, homeless advocates, housekeepers, medical assistants, home health aides, daycare workers, laborers----we all experience on-the-job stress, yet it seems only the rich and famous can have respite without negative economic consequences. The families of people in the military live on food stamps in decrepit barracks for the enlisted, yet we say we "support the troops". Again, what is wrong with this picture?

Our measure of "heroes" is askew. Who truly are the heroes? Who should be celebrities? Where are the trading cards of famous nurses and home health aides? When will substance abuse outreach workers have their day? Something is wrong in a culture wherein those who care for the dying must themselves struggle to survive. This is an emergency of priorities, one for which parity and balance seem far beyond reach.

In essence, the true heroes go unsung, and the make-believe heroes take home the prize.
Post a Comment