![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
things I don't dare share in public (aka facebook)
Wednesday, 20 November 2013 01:09...because I don't want to hear people's dissent and judgement and having to deal with trollers and flamers who do not know how to read and who suck in reading comprehension. But I just have to write something about these two posts:
I. On calls for continuing the "giving culture" even without a calamity
source: http://ph.she.yahoo.com/bayanihan-spirit-and-our-culture-of-giving-091433369.html
comment: I disagree on two points.
1) the quote: “We should have continued Bayanihan spirit. We need to develop a habit of giving even when there’s no disaster.”
- bayanihan is not equal to charity (which is usually defined as giving materially). if you see pictures of bayanihan, you will see people carrying a house on their shoulders, usually with the owner of the house, to transport the said kubo from one place to another. It's about helping out in the sense of empowering the beneficiary (in this case the house owner) to move his house. It's not about giving him money to hire movers or buying him a house (lousy comparison but hey, it's midnight. It's been a long day.). What the survivors need is something like that: a helping hand (service, not merely goods/dole-outs/donations) to be able to rebuild their lives. The Bayanihan spirit should never be contained to such a temporary act as "giving."
2) the quote: “Historically, Filipinos only give when there’s a calamity. That’s what we have observed. But we want to promote a culture of giving,” Tiangco says.
- Giving continually would do more harm than good because it promotes mendicancy and dependence. We want to help them stand on their own two feet as soon as they are able, so eventually relief efforts should stop and be diverted to efforts in rehabilitation and reconstruction. Instead of relief bags, we give them housing materials and stuff for livelihood (fishing boats, seedlings), opportunities to work for food, involve them in activities such as cleaning their houses and the community. Kaya nga "relief" ang tawag. It's supposed to be temporary.
Another point, there is such as a thing as "donors fatigue."
Pero in fair, gets ko naman kung anong gusto niyang sabihin. And opinion lang naman ito at hindi official statement.
II. Concern about a christian group offering training on "stress debriefing"
source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151992154483058&set=a.10150234598643058.337758.682513057&type=1&theater
cause for concern:
1) stress debriefing is so passe and in fact my professors in psychology involved in disaster mental health say we should not even use the term. There are numerous studies that show that critical stress debriefing does more harm than good. The preferred method is Psychological First Aid. In fact that's what the PAP is giving trainings on. I didn't want to express my concern in public because I would look like a know-it-all and give the training (which is a free social service and done with good intention) bad press.
2) Concern ko rin na bakit stress debriefing pa rin ang alam at tinuturo ng "College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy-Philippines" (CPSP), the group who would be conducting the free training? Now, I'm starting to doubt the competency of this group because they don't seem to be updated on the rest of the psychosocial training world. Or am I merely being elitist/biased of what I have been trained as a psych MA student? What if the PFA-CISD "debate" is just politics?
3) Another concern is that the training is open to anyone who wants to be a "good gift" to Yolanda victims, and aside from stress debriefing, they also offer a basic and practical training on trauma counseling, grief and mourning, self-care for volunteers--all in one day. Naisip-isip ko, "Wow ha. Talaga lang? Isang sem nga di sapat para sa trauma counseling, isisiksik mo pa yung grief and mourning and stress debriefing in one day?!" And fear ko lang is that some lay people who come to the training may feel that kaya na nilang mag-counsel ng mabibigat na concerns even without sufficient background in counseling/therapy, or even psych. They might do more harm than good. And mega-church pa ang nag-ooffer nito. Parang irresponsible lang. Are they under-estimating the difficulty of handling these cases? Are they under-estimating what it takes to do therapy and counseling?
Ayun lang. Got it off my chest.
EDIT: After talking with Ate Kath, I've become less critical about this training. She said that lay men may still use the term "stress debriefing" when they really refer to PFA. Because that is the term people are familiar with. I'm hoping that really is the case.
I. On calls for continuing the "giving culture" even without a calamity
source: http://ph.she.yahoo.com/bayanihan-spirit-and-our-culture-of-giving-091433369.html
comment: I disagree on two points.
1) the quote: “We should have continued Bayanihan spirit. We need to develop a habit of giving even when there’s no disaster.”
- bayanihan is not equal to charity (which is usually defined as giving materially). if you see pictures of bayanihan, you will see people carrying a house on their shoulders, usually with the owner of the house, to transport the said kubo from one place to another. It's about helping out in the sense of empowering the beneficiary (in this case the house owner) to move his house. It's not about giving him money to hire movers or buying him a house (lousy comparison but hey, it's midnight. It's been a long day.). What the survivors need is something like that: a helping hand (service, not merely goods/dole-outs/donations) to be able to rebuild their lives. The Bayanihan spirit should never be contained to such a temporary act as "giving."
2) the quote: “Historically, Filipinos only give when there’s a calamity. That’s what we have observed. But we want to promote a culture of giving,” Tiangco says.
- Giving continually would do more harm than good because it promotes mendicancy and dependence. We want to help them stand on their own two feet as soon as they are able, so eventually relief efforts should stop and be diverted to efforts in rehabilitation and reconstruction. Instead of relief bags, we give them housing materials and stuff for livelihood (fishing boats, seedlings), opportunities to work for food, involve them in activities such as cleaning their houses and the community. Kaya nga "relief" ang tawag. It's supposed to be temporary.
Another point, there is such as a thing as "donors fatigue."
Pero in fair, gets ko naman kung anong gusto niyang sabihin. And opinion lang naman ito at hindi official statement.
II. Concern about a christian group offering training on "stress debriefing"
source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151992154483058&set=a.10150234598643058.337758.682513057&type=1&theater
cause for concern:
1) stress debriefing is so passe and in fact my professors in psychology involved in disaster mental health say we should not even use the term. There are numerous studies that show that critical stress debriefing does more harm than good. The preferred method is Psychological First Aid. In fact that's what the PAP is giving trainings on. I didn't want to express my concern in public because I would look like a know-it-all and give the training (which is a free social service and done with good intention) bad press.
2) Concern ko rin na bakit stress debriefing pa rin ang alam at tinuturo ng "College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy-Philippines" (CPSP), the group who would be conducting the free training? Now, I'm starting to doubt the competency of this group because they don't seem to be updated on the rest of the psychosocial training world. Or am I merely being elitist/biased of what I have been trained as a psych MA student? What if the PFA-CISD "debate" is just politics?
3) Another concern is that the training is open to anyone who wants to be a "good gift" to Yolanda victims, and aside from stress debriefing, they also offer a basic and practical training on trauma counseling, grief and mourning, self-care for volunteers--all in one day. Naisip-isip ko, "Wow ha. Talaga lang? Isang sem nga di sapat para sa trauma counseling, isisiksik mo pa yung grief and mourning and stress debriefing in one day?!" And fear ko lang is that some lay people who come to the training may feel that kaya na nilang mag-counsel ng mabibigat na concerns even without sufficient background in counseling/therapy, or even psych. They might do more harm than good. And mega-church pa ang nag-ooffer nito. Parang irresponsible lang. Are they under-estimating the difficulty of handling these cases? Are they under-estimating what it takes to do therapy and counseling?
Ayun lang. Got it off my chest.
EDIT: After talking with Ate Kath, I've become less critical about this training. She said that lay men may still use the term "stress debriefing" when they really refer to PFA. Because that is the term people are familiar with. I'm hoping that really is the case.
Tags:
