Here I have read criticisms to the Lancet open letter, to religious debate, religious wars. And that’s okay because whereas my proposition may have been inspired by the letter, it is certainly not about the letter or its specific contents. Its not about Arabs, Jews, or any other ethnicity.
I am neither proposing a critical appraisal of the "two sides" nor a legal evaluation of their righteousness (or lack thereof). I am also not proposing we start with Gaza or restrict to Gaza.
Given the broad definition of health, I am proposing a new topic for healthcare research based on the principles of EBM and Ethics of do no Harm: human and environmental disasters associated with armed conflicts. Or may be the topic is not new…but whatever it is, it is not well known or very effective. To this end, I am imagining an international collaboration in form of a multidisciplinary research group. Any rational or ethical objections?
Provisional research questions could include:
There are certainly psychological and social factors that underlie conflict, whether engaged in by individuals or groups.
I have been preparing a book on why humans perpetually engage in conflict and war and suggest the following:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.
<!--[endif]-->Current aggressive feelings will initiate or sustain aggressive behaviour (if we are upset for whatever reason, we are likely to act aggressively)
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.
<!--[endif]-->Problem-solving ideas, which appear first as intuitions, are influenced by prior beliefs and experience (solutions first arise intuitively, and violent events cue violent solutions)
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.
<!--[endif]-->We ‘understand’ others actions by experience-based simulation as opposed to reasoning (if we don’t have the experience of another group we misconceive their actions, when if we were them
we would do the same )
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.
<!--[endif]-->The way in which we construct explanations is that all are incomplete. Individuals and groups cherry-pick the parts that suit their favoured explanations, scientists do it too.
(We construct a preferred explanation for an event and then stick to it in the face of contrary evidence)
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.
<!--[endif]-->We perpetually adapt explanations in our personal lives to maintain hope and self-confidence, eg. 'I did not do the wrong thing when drunkenly offending my colleague because it was a xmas party and we had all been drinking
and he should get over it' (explanations are adapted to maintain positive feelings)
Training politicians and policy advisers to understand the role of such factors could be part of a health policy targeting reduced conflict.
Such a program would take a systems approach to reducing conflict, the aim would not be to pick bad guys.
Groups concerned with evidence-based health (as on this LIST-SERV) could be involved in developing such principles and programs.
Best wishes,
Rod
_______________________________________
Rod O'Connor BSc(Hons) CHEc PhD
Consultants in 'How we feel, think and decide'
Also Conjoint Associate Professor, School of Public Health &
Community Medicine, University of New South Wales
Sydney Australia
ph. +61-2 9555 9916 mob. 0413 60 70 73
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.RodOConnorAssoc.com
'Peace
cannot be kept by force; it can only be
achieved by understanding' - Albert Einstein
________________________________________