Dear Editor,
Professor Lear Matthews, of Guyana, working abroad, 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
