Opinion
To Bury or not to Bury: That is the Question
By M.C.M. Iqbal PhD
The decision to make cremation the mandatory form of disposing the COVID-19 dead in Sri Lanka was based on the premise that there was (i) insufficient evidence on the possibility of the virus leaking out of the buried bodies from the cemeteries, (ii) the possibility of the virus entering the water table, and (iii) as a consequent to (ii), transmission of the virus among the population. The cremation decision was based on precautionary principles, as the SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus with many unknowns.
During the last few months, considerable scientific evidence has been published in international peer reviewed journals on many aspects of the novel coronavirus and its environmental impact. It is now time to lift the veil of ‘unknowns’ and move towards making informed decisions.
Viruses and virology is the domain of microbiologists, more specifically virologists. However, some basic knowledge in biology can help us understand the present pandemic and the various precautionary measures.
The virus
Let us begin with the virus. The official name of the virus is SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes is called COVID-19. A single virus particle (called a virion) consists of an outer shell made of protein, enclosing and protecting the RNA, the genome or in layman terms the software that runs the virus. It is very tiny (20 to 400 nanometres) and cannot be seen through a microscope (see Figure). The genome is like an instruction manual for our cells and the entire body to function. Once the virus enters our living cells (called infection), it stops the normal function of a cell and hijacks the cell machinery to produce more copies of itself, causing the cell to eventually burst open, infecting new cells with virus particles and initiating a chain reaction. Thus, living cells are necessary for the virus to survive and make copies. The only mission of the virus is to make more copies of itself.
Viruses are broadly divided into Enveloped and Non-Enveloped viruses. The envelope is an outer covering on the virus composed of a fatty substance (lipids) and proteins (see Figure). The SARS-CoV-2 virus is an enveloped virus.
The Coronavirus that you see illustrated has knob-like spikes on the surface embedded in the lipid envelope. These spikes are vital for the virus to gain entry into our cells in the throat and lungs (respiratory tract): imagine this as the key (spikes) to open the door (cells in the throat and lungs). Fortunately, this envelope provides a soft target and is easily broken down by soap, detergents and other disinfectants such as alcohol. Without this envelope the virus cannot infect us – it has no key to enter our cells. Hence the emphasis on washing our hands with soap and disinfecting the environment with alcohol and detergents – this is sufficient to destroy the virus.
The Non-Enveloped viruses do not have this lipid layer. They have a hard protein coat resistant to common disinfectants, enabling the virus to survive in the outside environment. Examples are the Poliovirus and the viruses causing dysentery.
Stability of the virus in the environment
In the past few months, scientists all over the world have looked at the potential risks of the SARS-CoV-2 virus entering wastewater and serving as a source of infection. Untreated waste (particularly from hospitals) and surface waters are a potential source of disease transmission and research done in these areas are at the initial stages. The virus is shed from patients who are under treatment in hospitals or quarantined at home, through their daily ablutions, sputum, and vomit, which can enter wastewater. Besides, faeces and urine from infected patients are also sources for the virus to enter sewage channels and seep into the water table. How stable are they in the outside environment?
A study on the stability of the virus on different surfaces under different environmental conditions simulated in a laboratory was done by the School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong and published in a leading medical journal, the Lancet Microbe (Chin et al. 2020). The major outcomes of this study were:
Temperature:
The virus is highly stable at 4 °C (e.g. in the fridge) but sensitive to heat. When the incubation temperature is increased to 70 °C, the virus is inactivated in five minutes. At 22 °C virus is not detected after 14 days and at 37 °C it is not detected after two days. The last two are feasible temperatures in Sri Lanka.
Stability on surfaces:
Infectious virus could not be recovered from printing or tissue paper after three hours, from wood or cloth after two days. The virus is more stable on smooth surfaces. Infectious virus could not be recovered from day four from glass and banknotes, and from steel after seven days.
Disinfectants:
The virus did not survive common disinfectants such as household bleach, ethanol, etc. It survived soap for five minutes. It also tolerates a pH range of 3 to 10. i.e., it cannot tolerate very low (acidic) or high (very basic) pH. The RNA of the coronaviruses, in general, is extremely fragile and can be rapidly degraded by enzymes (called RNAses) abundant in the natural environment (Brisebois et al. 2018).
Can the virus leak into
the environment?
Theoretically virus particles can enter the soil environment after burial of a COVID-19 victim if the corpse is not isolated in the grave by a ‘leak proof’ plastic body bag, as decay and decomposition sets in gradually. However, what enters the soil environment is not an intact virus capable of causing an infection. Once the patient dies, the virus in the body cells cannot multiply and they begin to disintegrate. Viruses need living cells within which they can multiply.
We should remember that the virus is not an active living organism capable of defending itself and transferring to a new host. The decomposing body releases a range of chemicals and enzymes that would breakdown the virus. Other micro-organisms, either from the decomposing body or living in the soil environment, would consume these virus particles. Thus, they have a short survival time in the outside environment where detergents and other chemicals in the wastewater and enzymes produced by bacteria can damage the virus envelope (WHO 2020).
Many people have died in the past due to very infectious bacterial (Pneumonia, Tuberculosis, Typhoid, Cholera) and viral (Polio, HIV, Ebola) diseases. Cremation was never mandatory for those patients and there has never been any outbreak of epidemics attributed to cemeteries where these patients were buried. Disease causing pathogens are very specialized micro-organisms that can survive only in their living hosts. Once they leave their host and enter the natural environment, they cannot compete with the free-living microorganisms.
The question of the water table
The water table is a huge body of water below the surface of the soil. You can find this out by looking into the nearest well. In low lying areas, such as in Colombo, the water table is close to the soil surface particularly during the rainy season. In the up-country regions or the dry regions, the water would be several metres deep in the well.
What is the risk of the virus entering the water table and infecting us? First, chances of finding a complete virus particle capable of causing infection are very small, due to reasons given above. Second, those living in urban areas do not consume ground water directly. The water we consume is disinfected at the Water Treatment plants of the Water Board and we also boil the water at home. The WHO has indicated that the virus survives only two days in dechlorinated tap water and in hospital wastewater at 20 ºC, and that there is no evidence that coronaviruses have caused infections through drinking water (WHO 2020).
Thirdly, drinking water is not a source of infection: the virus has to enter through our mouth, nose or eyes to enter the cells in our throat and lungs (respiratory tract), which is the main point of entry. Thus, infection of humans by the corona virus found in the water table is very unlikely. To quote Prof. Malik Peiris ‘COVID-19 is not a waterborne disease’. Full stop.
Corpse handling during COVID-19
Few peer reviewed papers have been published on handling and disposal of corpses of people who died from COVID-19. A publication by Nanayakkara et al in October 2020 reviews practices worldwide and also the risk of infection after burial from bacterial and viral diseases.
They conclude that due to inadequate knowledge available of COVID-19, it would be prudent to follow the safe corpse handling guidelines recommended by the WHO. They also state that because virus multiplication ceases as there is no living host, the virus can only spread to other humans by touching the corpse as COVID-19 is a respiratory virus spread mostly by respiratory secretions. The publication refers to WHO guidelines (WHO 2020), which states that graveyards of those who died from highly infectious diseases should be at least 30 metres from groundwater sources used for drinking water, and grave floors must be at least 1.5 metres above the water table, with 0.7 metre unsaturated zone and that surface waters from graveyards must not enter inhabited zones. Similar guidelines are also available from the Centres for Disease Prevention and Control of the USA (CDC 2020).
Rajanikanta et al. 2020, in an Indian perspective on handling the dead, emphasize the importance of handling the dead with dignity for the deceased and the surviving family. They also underline that more precautions need to be taken to prevent spread of the virus during handling the bodies, as SARS-CoV-19 is a new virus whose virulence and period of survival in the dead body is not yet entirely known. They suggest prevention of infection can be done by disinfection of the dead body with chlorine-based solution, enclosing it in a puncture proof body bag, minimal contact with the body and using airtight boxes for cremation or burial.
A recent article in the British Medical Journal, Global Health, where the authors reviewed the available literature to scope and assess the effects of specific strategies for the management of bodies of COVID-19 victims, stated, “There is scarce evidence on the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other coronaviruses from the dead bodies of confirmed or suspected cases” (Yaacoub et al. 2020).
Finally, internationally renowned Sri Lankan virologist, Prof. Malik Peiris has unequivocally stated, in an interview with the BBC Sinhala (https://www.bbc.com/sinhala/sri-lanka-55348348) that COVID-19 is not a water borne disease and the negligible chances of this virus entering the water table. In fact, in a three-minute video he provides a simple explanation to a layman on the period of infection of the virus, and transmission of the virus from a dead body. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8ZYxZ-QajI&t=13s).
So, what does science tell us?
= The SARS-CoV-2 virus is fragile in the external environment and has a very limited period of survival (Firquet et al. 2015).
= Detection of the virus in the environment by PCR is an indication that the viral RNA is present; to determine if this is viable and able to cause infection, the suspected sample should undergo a cell culture test.
= The virus is not water borne: The present evidence is that the infection route into the respiratory tract is through the mouth, nose and eyes. The global pandemic in almost all the nations and millions of infected people, has not shown evidence of other routes of infection, such as by consuming food or water.
= The virus does not survive common disinfectants such as household bleach, ethanol, and hand soap solution (Chin et al. 2020).
The current pandemic, unlike other localised occurrence of diseases, is being played out on the global stage: almost all the countries are involved, under all conceivable climatic conditions. One cannot imagine a better scenario to draw conclusions. Science is a process, that makes deductions from rigorous sifting of evidence. Science would immediately jettison an inference if evidence is presented to the contrary. Since the outbreak of the pandemic this year, literally hundreds of peer reviewed publications have been published – that is available on the web for anybody to access.
How can we offer safe burials?
By taking the above into account, a safe burial protocol is suggested to prevent the virus from entering the environment.
Immediately after death, the body is surface disinfected and then place in a puncture proof, body bag with a disinfectant. This can be enclosed further in another body bag.
The body bags are transported from the morgue to the burial site in a plastic or aluminium box.
Burial sites should be located at least one km away from human settlements, and in a region where the water table is very deep (e.g., in the dry zone). A large block of land is available in Oddamavadi in the EP.
Finally, the grave could be lined with lime (calcium oxide- CaO), which would form calcium hydroxide in contact with moisture. This would provide an extreme basic pH, in which the virus would be destroyed.
Further guidelines stipulated by the WHO and the Health Authorities in Sri Lanka should be followed.
The stigma associated with Covid-19 and the fear of being cremated are now forcing some sectors of the community to avoid PCR/antigen testing. This could lead to uncontrolled eruption of new clusters. The cremation of Muslims dying of COVID-19 has polarized and created resentment within the community. As this article shows, the science is out there as is the evidence, to show that safe burial can be accommodated for this epidemic.
Legal, social, cultural and emotional views have been expressed in these columns and elsewhere. Except for a few courageous voices from others, the aggrieved community has been left without assistance. To quote Rev. Martin Luther King Jr, “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people, but the silence over that by the good people.”
One of our greatest attributes as humans is to empathise with fellow humans. Let us practise this!
(The writer does research in the Plant and Environmental Sciences. He can be contacted at mcmif2003@yahoo.com)
by Dr B.J.C.Perera
MBBS(Cey), DCH(Cey), DCH(Eng), MD(Paed), MRCP(UK), FRCP(Edin),
FRCP(Lon), FRCPCH(UK), FSLCPaed, FCCP, Hony FRCPCH(UK), Hony. FCGP(SL)
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Fellow,
Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Joint Editor, Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health
In an age of unprecedented global development, technological advancements, universal connectivity, and improvements in living standards in many areas of the world, it is a very dark irony that child food poverty remains a pressing issue. UNICEF defines child food poverty as children’s inability to access and consume a nutritious and diverse diet in early childhood. Despite the planet Earth’s undisputed capacity to produce enough food to nourish everyone, millions of children still go hungry each day. We desperately need to explore the multifaceted deleterious effects of child food poverty, on physical health, cognitive development, emotional well-being, and societal impacts and then try to formulate a road map to alleviate its deleterious effects.
Every day, right across the world, millions of parents and families are struggling to provide nutritious and diverse foods that young children desperately need to reach their full potential. Growing inequities, conflict, and climate crises, combined with rising food prices, the overabundance of unhealthy foods, harmful food marketing strategies and poor child-feeding practices, are condemning millions of children to child food poverty.
In a communique dated 06th June 2024, UNICEF reports that globally, 1 in 4 children; approximately 181 million under the age of five, live in severe child food poverty, defined as consuming at most, two of eight food groups in early childhood. These children are up to 50 per cent more likely to suffer from life-threatening malnutrition. Child Food Poverty: Nutrition Deprivation in Early Childhood – the third issue of UNICEF’s flagship Child Nutrition Report – highlights that millions of young children are unable to access and consume the nutritious and diverse diets that are essential for their growth and development in early childhood and beyond.
It is highlighted in the report that four out of five children experiencing severe child food poverty are fed only breastmilk or just some other milk and/or a starchy staple, such as maize, rice or wheat. Less than 10 per cent of these children are fed fruits and vegetables and less than 5 per cent are fed nutrient-dense foods such as eggs, fish, poultry, or meat. These are horrendous statistics that should pull at the heartstrings of the discerning populace of this world.
The report also identifies the drivers of child food poverty. Strikingly, though 46 per cent of all cases of severe child food poverty are among poor households where income poverty is likely to be a major driver, 54 per cent live in relatively wealthier households, among whom poor food environments and feeding practices are the main drivers of food poverty in early childhood.
One of the most immediate and visible effects of child food poverty is its detrimental impact on physical health. Malnutrition, which can result from both insufficient calorie intake and lack of essential nutrients, is a prevalent consequence. Chronic undernourishment during formative years leads to stunted growth, weakened immune systems, and increased susceptibility to infections and diseases. Children who do not receive adequate nutrition are more likely to suffer from conditions such as anaemia, rickets, and developmental delays.
Moreover, the lack of proper nutrition can have long-term health consequences. Malnourished children are at a higher risk of developing chronic illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity later in life. The paradox of child food poverty is that it can lead to both undernutrition and overnutrition, with children in food-insecure households often consuming calorie-dense but nutrient-poor foods due to economic constraints. This dietary pattern increases the risk of obesity, creating a vicious cycle of poor health outcomes.
The impacts of child food poverty extend beyond physical health, severely affecting cognitive development and educational attainment. Adequate nutrition is crucial for brain development, particularly in the early years of life. Malnutrition can impair cognitive functions such as attention, memory, and problem-solving skills. Studies have consistently shown that malnourished children perform worse academically compared to their well-nourished peers. Inadequate nutrition during early childhood can lead to reduced school readiness and lower IQ scores. These children often struggle to concentrate in school, miss more days due to illness, and have lower overall academic performance. This educational disadvantage perpetuates the cycle of poverty, as lower educational attainment reduces future employment opportunities and earning potential.
The emotional and psychological effects of child food poverty are profound and are often overlooked. Food insecurity creates a constant state of stress and anxiety for both children and their families. The uncertainty of not knowing when or where the next meal will come from can lead to feelings of helplessness and despair. Children in food-insecure households are more likely to experience behavioural problems, including hyperactivity, aggression, and withdrawal. The stigma associated with poverty and hunger can further exacerbate these emotional challenges. Children who experience food poverty may feel shame and embarrassment, leading to social isolation and reduced self-esteem. This psychological toll can have lasting effects, contributing to mental health issues such as depression and anxiety in adolescence and adulthood.
Child food poverty also perpetuates cycles of poverty and inequality. Children who grow up in food-insecure households are more likely to remain in poverty as adults, continuing the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage. This cycle of poverty exacerbates social disparities, contributing to increased crime rates, reduced social cohesion, and greater reliance on social welfare programmes. The repercussions of child food poverty ripple through society, creating economic and social challenges that affect everyone. The healthcare costs associated with treating malnutrition-related illnesses and chronic diseases are substantial. Additionally, the educational deficits linked to child food poverty result in a less skilled workforce, which hampers economic growth and productivity.
Addressing child food poverty requires a multi-faceted approach that tackles both immediate needs and underlying causes. Policy interventions are crucial in ensuring that all children have access to adequate nutrition. This can include expanding social safety nets, such as food assistance programmes and school meal initiatives, as well as targeted manoeuvres to reach more vulnerable families. Ensuring that these programmes are adequately funded and effectively implemented is essential for their success.
In addition to direct food assistance, broader economic and social policies are needed to address the root causes of poverty. This includes efforts to increase household incomes through living wage policies, job training programs, and economic development initiatives. Supporting families with affordable childcare, healthcare, and housing can also alleviate some of the financial pressures that contribute to food insecurity.
Community-based initiatives play a vital role in combating child food poverty. Local food banks, community gardens, and nutrition education programmes can help provide immediate relief and promote long-term food security. Collaborative efforts between government, non-profits, and the private sector are necessary to create sustainable solutions.
Child food poverty is a profound and inescapable issue with far-reaching consequences. Its deleterious effects on physical health, cognitive development, emotional well-being, and societal stability underscore the urgent need for comprehensive action. As we strive for a more equitable and just world, addressing child food poverty must be a priority. By ensuring that all children have access to adequate nutrition, we can lay the foundation for a healthier, more prosperous future for individuals and society as a whole. The fight against child food poverty is not just a moral imperative but an investment in our collective future. Healthy, well-nourished children are more likely to grow into productive, contributing members of society. The benefits of addressing this issue extend beyond individual well-being, enhancing economic stability and social harmony. It is incumbent upon us all to recognize and act upon the understanding that every child deserves the right to adequate nutrition and the opportunity to thrive.
Despite all of these existent challenges, it is very definitely possible to end child food poverty. The world needs targeted interventions to transform food, health, and social protection systems, and also take steps to strengthen data systems to track progress in reducing child food poverty. All these manoeuvres must comprise a concerted effort towards making nutritious and diverse diets accessible and affordable to all. We need to call for child food poverty reduction to be recognized as a metric of success towards achieving global and national nutrition and development goals.
Material from UNICEF reports and AI assistance are acknowledged.
By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
The colossal failure of not a single opinion poll predicting accurately the result of the Indian parliamentary election, the greatest exercise in democracy in the world, raises the question whether the importance of opinion polls is vastly exaggerated. During elections two types of opinion polls are conducted; one based on intentions to vote, published during or before the campaign, often being not very accurate as these are subject to many variables but exit polls, done after the voting where a sample tally of how the voters actually voted, are mostly accurate. However, of the 15 exit polls published soon after all the votes were cast in the massive Indian election, 13 vastly overpredicted the number of seats Modi’s BJP led coalition NDA would obtain, some giving a figure as high as 400, the number Modi claimed he is aiming for. The other two polls grossly underestimated predicting a hung parliament. The actual result is that NDA passed the threshold of 272 comfortably, there being no landslide. BJP by itself was not able to cross the threshold, a significant setback for an overconfident Mody! Whether this would result in less excesses on the part of Modi, like Muslim-bashing, remains to be seen. Anyway, the statement issued by BJP that they would be investigating the reasons for failure rather than blaming the process speaks very highly of the maturity of the democratic process in India.
I was intrigued by this failure of opinion polls as this differs dramatically from opinion polls in the UK. I never failed to watch ‘Election night specials’ on BBC; as the Big Ben strikes ‘ten’ (In the UK polls close at 10pm} the anchor comes out with “Exit polls predict that …” and the actual outcome is often almost as predicted. However, many a time opinion polls conducted during the campaign have got the predictions wrong. There are many explanations for this.
An opinion poll is defined as a research survey of public opinion from a particular sample, the origin of which can be traced back to the 1824 US presidential election, when two local newspapers in North Carolina and Delaware predicted the victory of Andrew Jackson but the sample was local. First national survey was done in 1916 by the magazine, Literary Digest, partly for circulation-raising, by mailing millions of postcards and counting the returns. Of course, this was not very scientific though it accurately predicted the election of Woodrow Wilson.
Since then, opinion polls have grown in extent and complexity with scientific methodology improving the outcome of predictions not only in elections but also in market research. As a result, some of these organisations have become big businesses. For instance, YouGov, an internet-based organisation co-founded by the Iraqi-born British politician Nadim Zahawi, based in London had a revenue of 258 million GBP in 2023.
In Sri Lanka, opinion polls seem to be conducted by only one organisation which, by itself, is a disadvantage, as pooled data from surveys conducted by many are more likely to reflect the true situation. Irrespective of the degree of accuracy, politicians seem to be dependent on the available data which lend explanations to the behaviour of some.
The Institute for Health Policy’s (IHP) Sri Lanka Opinion Tracker Survey has been tracking the voting intentions for the likely candidates for the Presidential election. At one stage the NPP/JVP leader AKD was getting a figure over 50%. This together with some degree of international acceptance made the JVP behave as if they are already in power, leading to some incidents where their true colour was showing.
The comments made by a prominent member of the JVP who claimed that the JVP killed only the riff-raff, raised many questions, in addition to being a total insult to many innocents killed by them including my uncle. Do they have the authority to do so? Do extra-judicial killings continue to be JVP policy? Do they consider anyone who disagrees with them riff-raff? Will they kill them simply because they do not comply like one of my admired teachers, Dr Gladys Jayawardena who was considered riff-raff because she, as the Chairman of the State Pharmaceutical Corporation, arranged to buy drugs cheaper from India? Is it not the height of hypocrisy that AKD is now boasting of his ties to India?
Another big-wig comes with the grand idea of devolving law and order to village level. As stated very strongly, in the editorial “Pledges and reality” (The Island, 20 May) is this what they intend to do: Have JVP kangaroo-courts!
Perhaps, as a result of these incidents AKD’s ratings has dropped to 39%, according to the IHP survey done in April, and Sajith Premadasa’s ratings have increased gradually to match that. Whilst they are level pegging Ranil is far behind at 13%. Is this the reason why Ranil is getting his acolytes to propagate the idea that the best for the country is to extend his tenure by a referendum? He forced the postponement of Local Governments elections by refusing to release funds but he cannot do so for the presidential election for constitutional reasons. He is now looking for loopholes. Has he considered the distinct possibility that the referendum to extend the life of the presidency and the parliament if lost, would double the expenditure?
Unfortunately, this has been an exercise in futility and it would not be surprising if the next survey shows Ranil’s chances dropping even further! Perhaps, the best option available to Ranil is to retire gracefully, taking credit for steadying the economy and saving the country from an anarchic invasion of the parliament, rather than to leave politics in disgrace by coming third in the presidential election. Unless, of course, he is convinced that opinion polls do not matter and what matters is the ballots in the box!
By Prof. Kirthi Tennakone
ktenna@yahoo.co.uk
Thoughtfulness is the quality of being conscious of issues that arise and considering action while seeking explanations. It facilitates finding solutions to problems and judging experiences.
Almost all human accomplishments are consequences of thoughtfulness.
Can you perform day-to-day work efficiently and effectively without being thoughtful? Obviously, no. Are there any major advancements attained without thought and contemplation? Not a single example!
Science and technology, art, music and literary compositions and religion stand conspicuously as products of thought.
Thought could have sinister motives and the only way to eliminate them is through thought itself. Thought could distinguish right from wrong.
Empathy, love, amusement, and expression of sorrow are reflections of thought.
Thought relieves worries by understanding or taking decisive action.
Despite the universal virtue of thoughtfulness, some advocate an idea termed mindfulness, claiming the benefits of nurturing this quality to shape mental wellbeing. The concept is defined as focusing attention to the present moment without judgment. A way of forgetting the worries and calming the mind – a form of meditation. A definition coined in the West to decouple the concept from religion. The attitude could have a temporary advantage as a method of softening negative feelings such as sorrow and anger. However, no man or woman can afford to be non-judgmental all the time. It is incompatible with indispensable thoughtfulness! What is the advantage of diverting attention to one thing without discernment during a few tens of minute’s meditation? The instructors of mindfulness meditation tell you to focus attention on trivial things. Whereas in thoughtfulness, you concentrate the mind on challenging issues. Sometimes arriving at groundbreaking scientific discoveries, solution of mathematical problems or the creation of masterpieces in engineering, art, or literature.
The concept of meditation and mindfulness originated in ancient India around 1000 BCE. Vedic ascetics believed the practice would lead to supernatural powers enabling disclosure of the truth. Failing to meet the said aspiration, notwithstanding so many stories in scripture, is discernable. Otherwise, the world would have been awakened to advancement by ancient Indians before the Greeks. The latter culture emphasized thoughtfulness!
In India, Buddha was the first to deviate from the Vedic philosophy. His teachers, Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputra, were adherents of meditation. Unconvinced of their approach, Buddha concluded a thoughtful analysis of the actualities of life should be the path to realisation. However, in an environment dominated by Vedic tradition, meditation residually persisted when Buddha’s teachings transformed into a religion.
In the early 1970s, a few in the West picked up meditation and mindfulness. We Easterners, who criticize Western ideas all the time, got exalted after seeing something Eastern accepted in the Western circles. Thereafter, Easterners took up the subject more seriously, in the spirit of its definition in the West.
Today, mindfulness has become a marketable commodity – a thriving business spreading worldwide, fueled largely by advertising. There are practice centres, lessons onsite and online, and apps for purchase. Articles written by gurus of the field appear on the web.
What attracts people to mindfulness programmes? Many assume them being stressed and depressed needs to improve their mental capacity. In most instances, these are minor complaints and for understandable reasons, they do not seek mainstream medical interventions but go for exaggeratedly advertised alternatives. Mainstream medical treatments are based on rigorous science and spell out both the pros and cons of the procedure, avoiding overstatement. Whereas the alternative sector makes unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy and effectiveness of the treatment.
Advocates of mindfulness claim the benefits of their prescriptions have been proven scientifically. There are reports (mostly in open-access journals which charge a fee for publication) indicating that authors have found positive aspects of mindfulness or identified reasons correlating the efficacy of such activities. However, they rarely meet standards normally required for unequivocal acceptance. The gold standard of scientific scrutiny is the statistically significant reproducibility of claims.
If a mindfulness guru claims his prescription of meditation cures hypertension, he must record the blood pressure of participants before and after completion of the activity and show the blood pressure of a large percentage has stably dropped and repeat the experiment with different clients. He must also conduct sessions where he adopts another prescription (a placebo) under the same conditions and compares the results. This is not enough, he must request someone else to conduct sessions following his prescription, to rule out the influence of the personality of the instructor.
The laity unaware of the above rigid requirements, accede to purported claims of mindfulness proponents.
A few years ago, an article published and widely cited stated that the practice of mindfulness increases the gray matter density of the brain. A more recent study found there is no such correlation. Popular expositions on the subject do not refer to the latter report. Most mindfulness research published seems to have been conducted intending to prove the benefits of the practice. The hard science demands doing the opposite as well-experiments carried out intending to disprove the claims. You need to be skeptical until things are firmly established.
Despite many efforts diverted to disprove Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, no contradictions have been found in vain to date, strengthening the validity of the theory. Regarding mindfulness, as it stands, benefits can neither be proved nor disproved, to the gold standard of scientific scrutiny.
Some schools in foreign lands have accommodated mindfulness training programs hoping to develop the mental facility of students and Sri Lanka plans to follow. However, studies also reveal these exercises are ineffective or do more harm than good. Have we investigated this issue before imitation?
Should we force our children to focus attention on one single goal without judgment, even for a moment?
Why not allow young minds to roam wild in their deepest imagination and build castles in the air and encourage them to turn these fantasies into realities by nurturing their thoughtfulness?
Be more thoughtful than mindful?
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
