This opinion piece appeared over the weekend in reference to a Sunday Mail feature that is unfortunately unavailable online.
In South Australia's Sunday Mail from the weekend just gone, even the most hardened reader will find the story of Emma Pawelski heartbreaking and incredibly tragic. We find ourselves in the unenviable position of a mother paralysed with the question of what could have been, that horrific state of limbo where no course of action can make any difference whatsoever to that which has already taken place. Emma's story is deeply upsetting and leaves this insignificant blog writer with the most bitter of tastes.
The kind of bitter that causes one to hunch over with sickness.
It is understandable that Sharon McKell, Emma's mother, has written a book on the subject, with an accompanying mission to educate the next generation about the dangerous "allure of drugs". We saw the same response following the loss of Sydney teenager Anna Wood to an 'Ecstasy'-related death, when her surviving parents reached out to the public. Of course it is understandable, but it certainly is not the only response available to loved ones, nor is it one based upon reflection and consideration. At the risk of seeming insensitive and callous, I think, as difficult as it may seem, it is vital for those who have lost people dear to them in such circumstances to take the time to really consider what has occurred before running with knee-jerk, emotional reactions; and I think it is important that the more experienced and wise amongst us reach out, where possible, to assist with the difficult process of learning.
In the Sunday Mail article, Emma's mother speaks of feeling "betrayed and disappointed" in her daughter, eventually "badgering" her to just stop. I can't help but think of two young people I know of. One is a young female who has just turned twenty-one, currently working daily on the streets of St Kilda to support an intensive heroin habit. Where does she live? At home with her mother. What are her mother's primary concerns? That her beautiful daughter is safe, uses sterile injecting equipment, eats decent food regularly and has a roof above her head; and above all else, is in close, daily contact. The second person is a young male who is just past twenty-five years of age, has been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, has previously attempted suicide and currently injects amphetamines and steroids. He has smoked cannabis in the past on a daily basis. Where does he reside? At home with his mother. What is her primary concern? That he is alive, safe and in close contact with her. Both of these young people are alive today and are reasonably healthy.
I am not blaming Sharon for her daughter's death, but I do find it frustrating that she seems to have chosen to completely externalise everything to do with her deceased daughter. She wants to know "exactly what happened" and wants young people who read the book to "think seriously about the choices they make, the company they keep and the consequences of their actions..." And in the article's brief moment of inward contemplation, Sharon explains that "I could have pushed Emma a lot harder but there were reasons that didn't happen." The reader subsequently discovers that one of those reasons is that Emma "hid a lot of things" from her mother. Shouldn't we be having the kind of relationship with our children that fosters openness, where young people can reach out to their parents for support no matter what the issue is?
And what kind of system allows young women to undertake sex work simply to maintain a drug dependence? What kind of judge sentences drug users by day and then hires the sexual services of drug users by night, as occurred with Emma? For people like this, is Prohibition a convenient way to channel pretty young women into the sex industry for their consumption? ("Gee, if it wasn't for illegal drugs, I'd never be able to buy sex from someone as young and delectable as you!") Like I said earlier, the kind of bitterness that sickens you to the core.
With all due respect to Sharon McKell, families of all walks of life may be better off spending more time considering the following:
a) why humans use drugs
b) the role of drugs in the evolution of humankind
c) the most suitable response regarding the affected family member/s that is based upon the individual involved rather than what is socially acceptable
d) why the family member uses drugs and what drugs mean to the person
e) reducing the most amount of harm to the person/s from their drug use
f) helping the person/s to stay alive
g) employing the appropriate expertise to support the person/s if and when they make a decision to move on from drugs
h) understanding the meaning of 'unconditional love'
I dare say that it was the hardness of Sharon's pushing that further entrenched Emma's isolation, alienation and increased risk. Think of the word 'push' - it means to increase the distance between yourself and someone else. Since when do we increase the distance for people we supposedly love? Shouldn't we be pulling such people towards us? Tragically, it must be easier at this point in time for Sharon to embrace the words of those who have themselves been misguided, for fear of the immense pain that would come from looking inward and genuine reflection.
Finally, I feel it is important to mention Tony Trimingham, the founder of Family Drug Support, who lost his son Damien to a heroin-related overdose. Trimingham has delved deeply into both his heart and mind to come to terms with the life that his son led. Since his son's passing, Trimingham has gone on to champion harm reduction (needle exchanges, supervised injecting facilities etc.), comprehend the complexity of drug use and support other families in need.
In South Australia's Sunday Mail from the weekend just gone, even the most hardened reader will find the story of Emma Pawelski heartbreaking and incredibly tragic. We find ourselves in the unenviable position of a mother paralysed with the question of what could have been, that horrific state of limbo where no course of action can make any difference whatsoever to that which has already taken place. Emma's story is deeply upsetting and leaves this insignificant blog writer with the most bitter of tastes.
The kind of bitter that causes one to hunch over with sickness.
It is understandable that Sharon McKell, Emma's mother, has written a book on the subject, with an accompanying mission to educate the next generation about the dangerous "allure of drugs". We saw the same response following the loss of Sydney teenager Anna Wood to an 'Ecstasy'-related death, when her surviving parents reached out to the public. Of course it is understandable, but it certainly is not the only response available to loved ones, nor is it one based upon reflection and consideration. At the risk of seeming insensitive and callous, I think, as difficult as it may seem, it is vital for those who have lost people dear to them in such circumstances to take the time to really consider what has occurred before running with knee-jerk, emotional reactions; and I think it is important that the more experienced and wise amongst us reach out, where possible, to assist with the difficult process of learning.
In the Sunday Mail article, Emma's mother speaks of feeling "betrayed and disappointed" in her daughter, eventually "badgering" her to just stop. I can't help but think of two young people I know of. One is a young female who has just turned twenty-one, currently working daily on the streets of St Kilda to support an intensive heroin habit. Where does she live? At home with her mother. What are her mother's primary concerns? That her beautiful daughter is safe, uses sterile injecting equipment, eats decent food regularly and has a roof above her head; and above all else, is in close, daily contact. The second person is a young male who is just past twenty-five years of age, has been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, has previously attempted suicide and currently injects amphetamines and steroids. He has smoked cannabis in the past on a daily basis. Where does he reside? At home with his mother. What is her primary concern? That he is alive, safe and in close contact with her. Both of these young people are alive today and are reasonably healthy.
I am not blaming Sharon for her daughter's death, but I do find it frustrating that she seems to have chosen to completely externalise everything to do with her deceased daughter. She wants to know "exactly what happened" and wants young people who read the book to "think seriously about the choices they make, the company they keep and the consequences of their actions..." And in the article's brief moment of inward contemplation, Sharon explains that "I could have pushed Emma a lot harder but there were reasons that didn't happen." The reader subsequently discovers that one of those reasons is that Emma "hid a lot of things" from her mother. Shouldn't we be having the kind of relationship with our children that fosters openness, where young people can reach out to their parents for support no matter what the issue is?
And what kind of system allows young women to undertake sex work simply to maintain a drug dependence? What kind of judge sentences drug users by day and then hires the sexual services of drug users by night, as occurred with Emma? For people like this, is Prohibition a convenient way to channel pretty young women into the sex industry for their consumption? ("Gee, if it wasn't for illegal drugs, I'd never be able to buy sex from someone as young and delectable as you!") Like I said earlier, the kind of bitterness that sickens you to the core.
With all due respect to Sharon McKell, families of all walks of life may be better off spending more time considering the following:
a) why humans use drugs
b) the role of drugs in the evolution of humankind
c) the most suitable response regarding the affected family member/s that is based upon the individual involved rather than what is socially acceptable
d) why the family member uses drugs and what drugs mean to the person
e) reducing the most amount of harm to the person/s from their drug use
f) helping the person/s to stay alive
g) employing the appropriate expertise to support the person/s if and when they make a decision to move on from drugs
h) understanding the meaning of 'unconditional love'
I dare say that it was the hardness of Sharon's pushing that further entrenched Emma's isolation, alienation and increased risk. Think of the word 'push' - it means to increase the distance between yourself and someone else. Since when do we increase the distance for people we supposedly love? Shouldn't we be pulling such people towards us? Tragically, it must be easier at this point in time for Sharon to embrace the words of those who have themselves been misguided, for fear of the immense pain that would come from looking inward and genuine reflection.
Finally, I feel it is important to mention Tony Trimingham, the founder of Family Drug Support, who lost his son Damien to a heroin-related overdose. Trimingham has delved deeply into both his heart and mind to come to terms with the life that his son led. Since his son's passing, Trimingham has gone on to champion harm reduction (needle exchanges, supervised injecting facilities etc.), comprehend the complexity of drug use and support other families in need.
Your response to the newspaper article was both supercillious and condescending and lacked any appreciation for the reason the article was published. Your lack of knowledge of both the background and Ms McKell adds to the shallowness and arrogance of your views. Any attack on a person without such knowledge and appreciation simply must be condemned. May I suggest that you read the book first rather than manufacture a diatribe of fictitious illusion.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the feedback pru3571. Apologies for my belated reply, but I only twigged to this today.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to accept your criticism as you are correct - I have not read the book, and nor do I possess an adequate knowledge of the McKell family. I was concerned during writing that this post would be interpreted as a callous attack, but that was most certainly not my intention. To quote Sarz Maxwell from the Chicago Recovery Alliance, "Dead addicts do not recover", and after knowing of many a seemingly needless death due to the misguided reactions from 'loved ones', I made a decision to examine the issue in a public arena in the hope of provoking deeper thought.
My primary, and maybe even sole, aspiration for this blog is not to be self-righteous or the infallible expert of every single issue and concern in the area of drugs, but rather to provoke thought and stimulate discussion based upon many years of experience, rather than misinformation. For people to even be thinking or talking about drugs from a different angle is a huge step forward in a national climate of apathy that is combined with distorted facts. Even if no minds are changed, at least readers might think about the matters discussed in a new and different way - mission accomplished.
Superciliousness is a trait that I struggle with in both others and myself - it is not completely surprising for me to have this criticism directed at me. I sincerely apologise if I have been offensive, as I worked solely from a media report. I hope to eventually read the book by Sharon McKell and genuinely appreciate the dialogue.
I appreciate your apology as it was hard to read your criticms of myself as the mother of Emma. The article in the Sunday Mail was just trying to get the message across as Emma paid the ultimate price for her addiction. She had a beautiful personality and heart and I miss her so very much. Some of my comments in the article were probably taken out of context as the media tends to zone in to one comment and it changes what I meant. I never pushed her away....I supported her at home through her rehab and she always came home on a regular basis to be part of her family again. She was very close to her younger sister and it is her that has suffered so much emotionally since Emmas murder. I just don't want anyone else to go through what Emma did.....thus the writing of the book...intended to be read by high school students and young adults.
ReplyDeleteI understand you worked solely from the media report and it is all food for thought.
Sharon McKell
Firstly can I just say that during my very young adult years, I saw a lot of young people who started taking drugs as what they considered 'fun' or 'partying' with a naive belief that even with parents warnings about drugs, that it wouldn't get to that stage for them, and that they almost had some sort of 'super power' that it just wouldn't happen to them, that it was just occasional weekend 'partying'.
ReplyDeleteIn the years that followed I saw many of them become full on drug addicts. Some died, some remained in that life and the lucky ones grew up and realised that it was not a life for them.
These young people came from loving,caring & close families that loved them very much.I just want to add also that having seen first hand what evil drug addiction can do to a person, their personality, their soul... I believe the evil of drugs can make that young person distant from their family,no matter how much the family fosters openness and support. I saw it from friends, that they were just caught up in an evil situation, the devils hold on their spirit.
None of those young people that made a wrong and naive choice to experiment with 'party drugs' would have imagined themselves to become full on drug addicts in a nasty world surrounded by evil people.
I know from reading Emma's story and knowing about this kind of life style that so many young people get caught up in; that Sharon Mckell was a very loving, open and caring Mother that desperately wanted her daughter to be well and free from the drug world.
I hope and pray that justice is done, and I'd like to conclude by saying that all young children should read this book. I have a copy and if I ever have children I will start with telling them all about a beautiful young vivacious woman with a bubbly personality who deeply loved her friends and family, and read with them, my friend Emma's story.
Emma's soul is free now in a beautiful place and I will continue my prayers for you my old friend.
Love Kirstin xoxoxo
So Kirstin, if those same young people spent the same amount of years sitting in pubs, drinking, smoking, and betting on horse races (and then dying of cancer at a later stage), you would put the same amount of passion into a letter to the three industries that drive those behaviours? Or if those same young people died in a car accident together, you would be campaigning against the motor industry? Look out the window Kirstin—the whole world is on drugs, day-in and day-out. The only difference is that the legally drug dependent have society "on their side", so to speak, and do not have to undergo the stigma experienced by the young people that you refer to.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you yourself are drug dependent? Caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol are all drugs and if they were illegal, you would see the same kind of "evil" people in those areas of life. Don't be like so many of the ignorant out there Kirsten—blame the scapegoating, not the drugs. To be a drug user is to be human; and if you don't believe me, I challenge you and your friends to never take another drug again for as long as you live. No caffeine, no alcohol, no nicotine, and no paracetamol—if you want to promote a "drug-free" lifestyle, then you best lead by example and be happy doing it. You might think, but I only have a whatever "now and then"—but is that how we treat illicit drug users? Do we tell them that it's okay if they use whatever, as long as it is only "now and then"? No, abstinence is always expected from illicit drug users. But who is leading by example and living a truly "drug-free" life??? Maybe you can be the first?