Healing from what?

Share Button

Some new postings on New to the Site on the Home page.

Reading  Abuse victims deserve our support: Marsolais  yesterday set me thinking.  That old chestnut  of “healing”.

In the article Jamie Marsolais is quoted as follows:

It worried me from (the start of the inquiry) that as soon as the inquiry’s lights were turned off, the victims were not going to do as well… It took a tremendous amount of guts for them to come forward and say their stories.

And then to have the community make (negative) comments on the report, instead of focusing on healing.

Back on 28 April 2006 I blogged under “Tell me this makes sense”:

And in the end, when the tears are wiped dry, and Justice Glaude and his team fold their tent and silently steal away, and all the huggy-bear-kissy-face is over and done with Cornwall will be left with a raft of “alleged” molesters roaming the streets who are innocent until proven guilty, and considerably more “alleged” victims who will continue to be viewed by many as liars, and considerably still more children who will be taught about good touches and bad touches to protect their little bodies, and considerably even more people whose faith in the judiciary will be shattered forever.

And the stories and rumours and whispers about the paedophile ring and cover-up will abound. . .

And here we are, nearly four years and $60M later, and the tents are folded, and Justice Glaude and his team stole away  … and Jamie is concerned that the community is making negative reports about the report rather than focusing on healing!

I don’t understand where poor Jamie is coming from.

He wants “the community” to focus on healing.

Healing from what? 

For ages I have been trying to make sense out of all this “healing” talk.  I will try again.  Hopefully I can get my thoughts together in a  way which makes sense 🙂

I personally am of the mind that it’s hard to focus on healing when the patient’s symptoms have not been properly diagnosed.  I also believe that barring a proper diagnosis appropriate treatment can not be initiated, and that barring appropriate treatment critically ill patients can not and will begin to heal. 

For example, after a cursory examination  a patient with persistent vomiting might be told that he simply has a touch of the flu, and then, after a little intravenous in Emergency to take care of dehydration be sent on his way, perhaps with a bit of Gravol to counter the nausea.

If the patient indeed has no more than a bout of flu he will probably start to ‘get better,’ i.e., “healing” will probably ensue.  However, what if the cursory examination failed to hone in on the fact that the patient has a malignant tumour which is in reality the cause of the vomiting?  what if the tumour was not diagnosed because an incompetent doctor failed to ask the proper questions and/or conduct the proper tests and erroneously concluded it must be the flu? 

All of the intravenous and Gravol in the world will not heal a malignant tumour.  The cancer will continue to spread.  In short, barring a miracle, there can be no hope of healing unless and until the tumour is excised.

In similar vein, how then are victims of childhood sexual abuse to heal if, for whatever reason, the system fails to properly diagnose and treat them as sex abuse victims? For that matter, how are they to heal if, on one hand, the system insists they be referred to as “alleged” victims rather than victims, and on the other hand the same system advocates that they participate in the “healing” programs geared toward victims? 

Then there’s the other side of the coin.  What happens if perchance an “alleged” victim is in fact an outright liar?  That as we well know was implied and/ or stated time and again by various officials. How pray tell can a chronic liar be healed if “the system” decides to treat him like a victim rather than a liar?  Surely the treatment for liars can’t be the same as that for victims of childhood sexual abuse?

How can there possibly be “healing” under these schizophrenic circumstances? 

I believe the same holds true for paedophile rings. 

How can there be healing in a community which may be saddled with a paedophile ring  if no one ever bothers to investigate and hence perhaps diagnose the existence – or non existence – of such a ring? 

And if indeed there is a ring, and if there is no  diagnosis and therefore no treatment, what happens?  Seems to me if there truly is a ring ignoring it through ignorance, or brashly turning a blind eye to the possibility it may exist, won’t make it go away, any more than ignoring or turning a blind eye can make a malignant tumour disappear.

So, my question is, yet again, healing for whom? and from what?

In other words, what’s the diagnosis?  I have yet to hear it.

Enough for now

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *