Seems like a specious argument to me. Civil damages aren't awarded to make people happy or to increase their well being, they are awarded to make the plaintiff whole in terms of their monetary loss.
________________________________________ From: Allen Esterson [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 1:03 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: re: [tips] Psychotherapy Can Boost Happiness More Than Money: Study - Yahoo! News ���Mike: Thanks for the clarification (and correction). I went searching for more info on Google, read through a couple of articles, then checked out the Cambridge Journals online, and thought I'd registered to view the articles. Checking back, I now see what I registered for was: "Register to tailor Cambridge Journals Online to your precise needs and to take advantage of all our services." (!) I then checked for the latest issue, and came up with the page I cited giving "Current Volume", which only went up to October 2009 – by which time I'd forgotten virtually everything that Mike posted. – Sorry Mike! I see that the Abstract reads: "Money is the default way in which intangible losses, such as pain and suffering, are currently valued and compensated in law courts. Economists have suggested that subjective well-being regressions can be used to guide compensation payouts for psychological distress following traumatic life events. We bring together studies from law, economic, psychology and medical journals to show that alleviating psychological distress through psychological therapy could be at least 32 times more cost effective than financial compensation. This result is not only important for law courts but has important implications for public health. Mental health is deteriorating across the world – improvements to mental health care might be a more efficient way to increase the health and happiness of our nations than pure income growth." It seems from this that one thing that Boyce et al are suggesting is that instead of monetary compensation for pain and suffering courts would be better advised to award some months of "psychological therapy". This, apparently, is on the basis of the alleged considerable effectiveness of the said psychotherapy in improving well-being. As it reads (and admittedly without seeing the article I can't tell) as if the pain and suffering that leads people to seek psychotherapy is being taken as equivalent to the pain and suffering that leads people to seek compensation in a court of law. If so, it sounds a doubtful comparison to me. And I would love to see the "studies from…psychology and medical journals" that Boyce et al have used to arrive that their conclusions about the remarkable efficacy of psychological therapy for achieving well-being within four months. Almost worth coughing up the £20 – were it not for my suspicion that the study – involving as it does studies over so many fields – is going to turn out to be full of holes. Anyway, that's my prediction. More here: "The researchers further draw on two striking pieces of independent evidence to illustrate their point - over the last 50 years developed countries have not seen any increases to national happiness in spite of huge economic gains. Mental health on the other hand appears to be deteriorating worldwide. The researchers argue that resources should be directed towards the things that have the best chance of improving the health and happiness of our nations - investment in mental health care by increasing the access and availability of psychological therapy could be a more effective way of improving national well-being than the pursuit of income growth." http://tinyurl.com/yd956z8 Phew! So many questions come to mind! For starters, I'd like to see the evidence that "mental health appears [sic] to be deteriorating worldwide". Then I'd like to see the evidence for the remarkable efficacy of four months of "psychological therapy". Again, what about the cost of providing the resources, particularly the education and training of a massive number of new counsellors and psychotherapists to take on this huge task of replacing increased monetary reward by inaugurating what would effectively be a therapeutic society. And what psychological theories and techniques are going to be used – can you imagine how all the different strands of psychotherapy would be competing for the Government monies made available for the new policy – or should I call it this brave new world? Seems to me like these are ivory-tower proposals emanating from Warwick University. Still, it keeps these academics off the streets. :-) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
