Dear Editor,
Professor Lear
Matthews, of Guyana, working in the United States, has
pointedly drawn attention in Stabroek News to the widespread
violence prevalent in Guyanese society, a land where he grew
up in another kind of atmosphere.
The title of the
article is ‘Social violence and mental health consequences:
Coping with the crime situation in Guyana.’ He has sounded
an alarm without raising his voice. Although he had at the
time commented on a major massacre, Jonestown, he points
with concern to Lusignan and Bartica. Since the publication
of his views, some of his statements bear repetition. Among
many things he writes, "Whatever the source of this
unprecedented assault on the citizenry, or the strategy
employed to curb it, the resulting stress and anxiety
permeate the fabric of the society and force individuals and
communities to contemplate ways of coping with what has
become a perennial public health issue."
Perhaps there were
editorials I have not seen, but generally we have taken
these strictures rather calmly. If there is knowledge
somewhere to dispute this finding by Dr. Matthews, it has
not been made public. No independent professional has
refuted the findings. The responsible ministry should state
its position on this matter. There is no commitment anywhere
to hold further discussion on this important finding.
Dr. Matthews has
done no less than declare that the widespread violent
assault on the citizenry has produced a public health
problem that will not go away. The consequences of violence,
as pointed out by Dr. Matthews, have not been noted in that
way by multilateral agencies reporting on Guyana, including
the World Health Organisation (WHO). Yet officials have
behaved as though Dr. Matthews had paid a compliment to our
public health regime and recommended that ignoring the
effects of the violent assault on the citizenry was the best
means of coping.
I have no training
in mental health – some have been saying that I have no
mental health – but a good way to begin may be in the
communities that have experienced the assaults at close
range.
The communities
near to the violence are of course at once affected in ways
we would not know. But all communities hearing the news or
seeing images in the newspapers and on the TV come close to
the incidents. Matthews selected children as specially
endangered. We may not be able to realize what the
population is going through until a child, after a few
uneventful days, asks her mother, "Mother, was there no
shooting last night?"
I hope that
physicians, social activists, psychologists and counsellors,
as well as ever present religious and women’s organisations,
and the Ministry of Health, hard pressed as they are, can
weigh the remarks made by Professor Mathews and begin to
plan a response.
Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana