I've just finished filling one box and a half... that's all I've got to show for my three hours or so of packing. Sigh... and if last year is anything to go by, I'm probably not even 1/3 through everything yet... *screams*

And while packing, a thought, not a new one mind you, (re-)struck me... but first, here's a paragraph from my PDS notes:

"Culture shapes risk of illness
As already mentioned different behaviours and habits affect the development of illness. High fat diets, low levels of exercise and high levels of stress play a part in the development of much of the morbidity in the Western World. There are many other examples of cultural practices that increase risk of illness. For example sexual practices such as anal intercourse or multiple casual sexual relationships have been found to be a significant factor in the spread of HIV in parts of Africa. One of the most widely quoted examples of a culturally determined disease is Kuru amongst members of a tribe in Papur New Guinea. Kuru is a neurodegenerative disorder transmitted through eating the brains of infected individuals after their death

Culture defines normality, health and illness
Behaviours and beliefs related to health are usualy learned in childhood and passed on from one generation to the next. All cultures have ethnomedical systems or beliefs about illness. In sme cultures such systems are intimately related to their religious belief systems, in others not... what is considered normal in one culture may be considered highly abnormal in another. This is the case for both physical and mental symptoms.
In 19th century European society affluent women were encouraged to be inactive, housebound and delicate in their constitution. Illness behaviours were encouraged and reinforced. Many women, in response, used hysterical symptoms such as fits, faints and funny turns to give themselves a degree of control over their lives and that of their family by using such behaviours in a manipulative way. Such behaviours were quite common and seen as norma. Tday such behaviour would not be deemed to be either appropriate or normal...."

So what? So the reality we know today is just made up of social norms then. And social norms are changing and certainly not set in stone then.

And thinking back to paper 3 this morning, oddly one of the cases we were tested on was about anorexia. Sure, anorexia and bulimia carries with it perceived risks and so on, and as a whole society tends to view them negatively (despite hypocritically promoting the idea that women should be stick thin to be beautiful), and despite the boom in the number of pro- sites, I've chanced across some sites which are petitioning for the former to be closed down. So here the question is, if health is something so subjective, why then the negativity surrounding ED? It's all based on what society deems as normal, as healthy, as good and what not. And how would society know what's good and what's not? It once condoned those funny turns and 'odd' behaviours of those affluent European women. A mistake in the eyes of our present generation. And besides, what these two sides value as health-ful is clearly 'different'. One says that ana/mia is just another lifestyle choice, and the other saying that it's BAD BAD BAD and is something that needs treatment. Listening to all nana, and those at the plenary session for the Bulimia integrative day certainly tells me enough what the medical profession thinks of ED. But then it's clearly that both are practising (vastly!) different cultures here. And what gives one the right to force a different culture upon another? Is it right to make lifestyle choices for others?

On the same note, can't the same be said of smokers? I know for one that if I ever develop a ED or took up drugs, or smoking, the well-meaning people around me for one are going to start pressuring me to seek out treatment. Where does autonomy come in then? I'll be perceived as unwell, but am I truly? It's just a different culture in practice, no? Who are we to judge the culture of others? They aren't eve comparable in the first place.

That's all I can think of for that at the moment. And I've decided I'm going to try and not sleep tonight. We'll see how that goes.

Another thing, is it just me or some sections of society don't mind portraying traitors and scum as heroes? The classic one I can think of is that H. Tuah. Why can he be revered still as a hero I don't know. In the olden days, that's understandable. When unquestioned loyalty to your leader comes first. But times have changed. It's important we remain loyal to our leaders and country, but I am of the opinion that friends should come first. That was what H. Jebat did after all. Protect his knave of a friend's honour and stood up for him (though I can't say I totally approve of the way he did it). And as a reward, died by being stabbed to death by his 'friend'. And we cheer the murderer? Something smells fishy here. Or is my nose being too sensitive. Or is this another case of judging someone based on the observer's culture?

Another one that I never understood is that of the Moses's story. Sure, he stood up for 'his people', but then shouldn't he owe his loyalty to the Royal family? What the heck, did all those years feeding him and treating him as one of the family not count anymore? Is C right saying that adoption is a bad idea then? Why is he regarded as the good one when he turned his back on his benefactors? Yes, the idea of greater good sounds nice of course, but where's one's sense of loyalty gone? What if I found out that I'm actually an alien? So I'll just kick my family in the a**e and join my new alien family? Despite their care and love all this while? Is love this cheap then, that it means almost nothing? Then again, I do realise that my talk is biased... I'm all for the ancient Egyptians, I'm an extreme family-first person, and *blah blah blah* figure the rest out yourselves...

All a bunch of crap born out of boredom...