Has social media made passive aggressive idiots of us all?

Three incidents occurred this weekend to confirm my misgivings about the relative anonymity social media affords us when it comes to confrontation.

Once upon a time – and not that long ago – arguments were arguments and spats were spats and banter was banter and very often were a spectator sport, perhaps providing entertainment for some and/or uncomfortable moments for others, but remained within the four walls of any workplace.

Think about it, how unfunny would The Office have been had all those wonderfully real confrontations been carried out via email?

Suffice to say, we are all a little guilty of resorting to electronic communication (be it via text or email or other) in this world of high work output and little time.

But there is little to justify an outburst, a sneaky remark, a tirade or, indeed, a soliciting of support mid ‘falling out’ via any social media channel whilst we remain blessed with a voice, have the ability to travel to meet up with people and/or have access to a phone. 

Crouching behind the ‘safety net’ of social media or electronic communication, having vented in wild fury, then eagerly anticipating a reaction just as you press send or post, etc, is a terrible waste of energy – and not great for health and wellbeing, surely?

Equally, playing the cowardly game of ‘naming and shaming’ or displaying indirect anger in a 'cleverly worded' retort are akin to whispers behind backs and both display a level of passive aggressive behaviour that warrants some serious counselling.

Ranting emails, ‘poor me’ posts and sarcastic comments only fuel an increasing ineptitude in the communication skills of a nation whose eyes are already melted to laptop screens and whose noses are simple extensions of mobiles.

Expressing pent-up fury via social media is no more clever than wearing only a sandwich board whilst naked, shouting random abusive words to nobody in particular and walking along your local high street because, invariably, it’s THAT moment, THAT rant, and THAT image of you (especially if broadcast to an non selected audience) for which you'll be remembered. The best way to air any grievance is in a face-to-face discussion and not in a war of the written word.

The person who gets my vote is the one who says it and says it out loud and there are very few people among us who possess this talent and honesty – and us Brits are particular failures here.

Made from 50% Italian genes, my husband and his bold communication skills nail it every time. I frequently shudder at his 'neck', frank exchanges and audacia when dealing with ‘tricky’ customers and unreasonable people, but he is happy to confront, happy to say it how it is, happy to move on – and is happy. Oh, and he doesn’t ‘do’ social media’.

Three pieces of sound advice I’ve picked up along the way…

1.     Never put anything in writing you may regret.

2.     If you have something to say, say it loud.

3.     It’s no good moaning to others if you’re unhappy with someone. Speak to them!

‘Healthy, happy people are those who confront the facts of their lives directly’ – Brian Tracy. Well, you can’t argue with that… but, if you should wish to, don't email.

Get on your bike to lose weight, Brits told

Switching from driving to work to cycling, walking or even using public transport might help commuters shed weight within a couple of years.

That's the verdict of new research published online in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

Given that car use is high, the findings strengthen the case for incentivising walking or cycling to boost population health, suggest the researchers.

They base their findings on the responses of 4,000 people to three waves of the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) in 2004-5, 2005-6, and 2006-7.

The BHPS is a long-term annual study of a representative sample of adult Britons which began in 1991-2.

At each time point, respondents described their usual main mode of transport for their daily commute, and provided details of their height and weight (BMI) in 2004-5 and in 2006-7.

The researchers used a series of analyses to see if changes in mode of transport were linked to changes in weight over a two year period.

In the first analysis (that included 3,269 respondents) 179 people had stopped driving to work and were either walking or cycling (109) or taking public transport (70).

The ‘switchers’ tended to be younger and less likely to have access to a car than those who continued to drive.

Those who chose to walk or cycle instead tended to have a lower household income and a shorter commute—which became shorter still after making the switch—while those who opted for public transport were significantly more likely to be more highly educated.

Switching from a car  to walking, cycling, or public transport was associated with a statistically significant average reduction in BMI of 0.32 kg/m² after taking account of other influential factors – equivalent to a difference of around 1 kg a person, on average.

The longer the commute, the stronger was the association, with a reduction in BMI of 0.75 kg/m² (equivalent to a weight loss of around 2 kg) associated with journeys of more than 10 minutes, and 2.25 kg/m² associated with journeys of more than 30 minutes – equivalent to weight loss of around 7 kg, on average.

In the second analysis, which included 787 people, 268 switched from active to passive travel. Some 156 stopped walking or cycling and 112 switched from public transport (usually a bus or coach) to the car.

Once again, the ‘switchers’ tended to be younger than those who continued with their mode of transport.

Those who stopped walking or cycling to work were significantly less likely than those who stopped using public transport to be in a managerial or professional post. 

They also tended, on average, to have a shorter commute, which lengthened after the switch.

Those who had previously used public transport, on the other hand, had a short commute after the switch.

But switching to a car was associated with a significant weight gain of around 1kg per person (or 0.34 kg/m² ) after taking account of other influential factors.

This is an observational study, so no definitive conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect. Nevertheless, the analysis of individual level changes in BMI over time between the two groups of switchers, using data from a nationally representative survey, strengthens their findings, say the researchers.

If a larger proportion of commuters were able to abandon their cars for a more physically active commute, this could help drive down the average population BMI, they suggest.

'Combined with other potential health, economic, and environmental benefits associated with walking, cycling and public transport, these findings add to the case for interventions to promote the uptake of these more sustainable forms of transport,' they write.

IS THERE A RIGHT TIME TO ADDRESS A 'DO NOT RESUSCITATE' ORDER WITH AN OVER 75?

I will begin by declaring that I was once a newspaper reporter who saw all ‘issues’ and ‘events’ as potential front-page leads – each one bettering the previous in style, content and relevant parties successfully interviewed and quoted. The thrill of seeing my byline on the front page story as the printing press churned out the more prestigious Friday edition of a twice-weekly local London paper is a memory I still cherish.

Doorstepping

On the other hand, even at the age of 19, I baulked at the door stepping my job demanded when one morning a boy of 8, glue sniffing on the roof of flats in Hackney, tumbled to a tragic death and I had to go to the house and invite the family to ‘pay tribute’. I sympathised to some extent – I didn’t yet have children of my own – but feared more a loss of face (and job) if I failed to deliver. The truth is, beginning with ‘I am so, so sorry but I don’t suppose you wish to pay tribute to your little brother, do you?’ to a red-eyed and tearful teenager just a few years younger than me was a major cop out – I’m very happy to report.

Broken hip

Now, very much older, I’m ostensibly a health journalist who possesses, I like to think, a little more insight and sensitivity with regards to those ‘issues’ and ‘events’. But, today I am confused. This confusion focuses on the question: when is the right time to address DNACPR with an over 75? During a GP check-up when their health is not (at that point in time) severely compromised and there's already an on-going discussion about palliative care? Or, following serious haemorrhaging a couple of weeks into the road to recovery following a fall and a broken hip, as she lies in A&E devastated with this setback wondering if their life possibly hangs in the balance, her next of kin having stepped out of the room for five minutes?

Sneaky look

My mother (81 in July) is today in hospital awaiting the results of tests following this haemorrhage. A sneaky look at her records by my younger brother showed us the box had been ticked regarding DNACPR. Neither my brothers nor I have discussed DNACPR with medic or mum, but hope to chat further with a senior consultant sometime today, following a chat initiated by the ward sister who, independent of our discovery, drew my attention to my mother’s choice.

Kneejerk

Reading around the topic of DNACPR, Dr David Oliver writes about the Daily Mail’s typically kneejerk reaction to the drawing up end of life care plans for people over 75, published last month.

In his online article, Fear mongering headlines can harm end of life care, he rightly points out that: ‘I and many other clinicians try every day to help patients with incurable conditions and their families to exercise some choice and control, to try to die in the place of their choosing – generally, not in a hospital if they can help it. Good advance planning can enhance people’s chances of dying in their own homes or care homes or making it to a hospice.

Adding, ‘I don’t seek to defend insensitivity, poor communication and poor judgement by clinicians. I don’t approve of unthinking, blanket application of box ticking policies linked to performance incentives with no regard to the individuals they affect…’ and ‘Do not resuscitate orders discussed fully and sensitively with patients or their carers can also prevent an undignified and over-medicalised end to older people’s lives.’

Flipside

And, indeed, there is a flipside to all this angst of mine over what feels a little like insensitive timing on the part of the doctor because choosing to turn off the life support machine on behalf of an ailing parent who has suffered a long illness and has not made any end of life decisions is dreadful – with memories of it that can haunt and torture and depress.

Therefore, for all the reasons above, as I nudge 50, I will be addressing my own wishes and sharing them with relevant parties as soon as my mother is on the mend and I have the much-needed time to consider it all whilst still blessed with my health.

Bedside

And, perhaps, therein lies another question: why has NHS England limited this to the over 75s and younger patients with serious conditions? Is it not something we all should do – if not, when knocking at death’s door or speculatively hovering some miles away from it? End-of-life plans do need to be discussed to ensure dignity and to meet the expectations of loved ones – indeed, my mother has paid for and organised her own funeral and written a will. But I am pretty sure I didn’t see a funeral director with a clipboard and a form to fill sneak in as we left her bedside for one fleeting moment...

I remain ambivalent but know that, like so many things in life, an ‘end of life’ discussion is all about timing – and the delivery.

References

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3056621/Over-75-Sign-ready-death-GPs-ask-older-patients-ll-agree-not-resuscitate-order.html

http://m.hsj.co.uk/5084585.article