Do our leaders have brain fog? If so, why, and shouldn't we know?
It has been recorded that Prof. Neil Furguson thought, in March 2020, that lockdowns could not be imposed on the British people. Yet they were. Our leaders, and their advisers, were surprisingly quickly convinced of the need for this, and then thought there would be significant pushback, justifying a policy of behavioural management, nudge and coercion that, prior to 2020, would have been considered very un-British (Laura Dodsworh’s excellent book, ‘A State of Fear’ is worth reading, if you haven’t already.) . How might this have arisen? Were all government ministers fully aware of what was going on, had they thought everything through and considered the risks, I wonder, or were their faculties somehow impaired?
***
I’ve written before on the topic of the side effects of prescription medication (ref 1, ref 2).
It's not unknown for people to mess things up, we all do something less well than we might wish sometimes. There will often be a reason for what happens; in some business environments there might be a culture of ‘constructive review’, where failings are acknowledged in a blame-free way, and steps taken to avoid repetition. In others, seemingly including government, those involved just blunder on, sweeping the mess under the carpet, hoping no one notices, and never doing anything towards the prevention of problems in the first place.
In many circumstances cock-ups happen, and no-one ever knows why. One such I am trying to deal with at the moment involves my stepmother’s will; somehow she signed it when it really asked for something she would never have wanted. She was in her eighties and perhaps not quite aware of what she was doing; we have no idea what happened. It could have been due to medication, I don’t know, but if she were still alive and I’d found out about it I would have done something to try to mitigate the potential damage - perhaps discuss it with her. However, what about our leaders - those we elect, or are appointed, and their advisors, to manage complex negotiations and make significant agreements on our behalf? What if they have a bout of brain fog on a big day, and sign a document they shouldn’t? Shouldn’t we all know that our leaders are doing as much as they can to avoid brain fog, and shouldn’t we know if they are doing something - like taking certain medication - that might induce it?
***
Brain fog and strange decisions do seem to happen. In addition to the Covid lockdowns - which seemingly stemmed from computer modelling that was, at best, amateurish and had never been subjected to any formal review or testing (if that’s an example of what the government think is acceptable in IT then we are all surely doomed) - there was the Brexit treaty which seems to have been rushed through in desperation ‘to get it done’, without those responsible realising the implications of what they were signing. Did our leaders have a bout of brain fog on the day?
What do we risk if our leaders don’t quite understand what they are doing? Only economic collapse, war, and other unpleasant outcomes. This should be a serious concern for everyone, yet I don’t think I have ever seen or heard any senior politician being asked about medication they may be taking.
Shouldn’t we know if they are taking any medication that might affect their judgement, or encourage them to behave rashly?
***
As I mentioned, much of the decision-making for the Covid pandemic seems to have been undertaken without considering all the potential risks: the vast amounts of spending funded by printed money, the mask mandates for children undergoing education, the use of fear as a tool to control behaviour, all, with hindsight, seem to have involved decisions that could have been taken with a little more care. To me, it seems quite possible that a goodly number of the cabinet were suffering significant brain fog at least some of the time.
The subsequent (and consequent) problems with the economy, of high inflation and poor growth may have similar roots: perhaps Bank of England leaders were also suffering a similar affliction?
Shouldn’t we be doing more to ensure our leaders do not have brain fog, and that their cognitive faculties are firing on all cylinders, at any time when they are taking a decision on our behalf?
We do know that the Prime Minister himself was hospitalised for Covid early on in the pandemic; were there consequences from this - medication perhaps - that might have affected his judgement, his ability to spot weak arguments, or see through the limitations of ‘the science’?
***
I do believe that medication might be causing more ‘brain fog’ among our leaders than is generally imagined. A drug being prescribed does not mean that it doesn’t have side effects.
From what has happened post-Covid, we know that drug companies can be, shall we say in the language of the late Alan Clark, a trifle ‘economical with the actualité’ when it comes to side effects of their products. Is it possible that our leaders might suffer side effects from, say, antihistamines, or antidepressants, and their judgement, or their ability to make decisions, consequently compromised?
My previous articles raised questions on the effects on judgement and cognitive function of taking medication, and consequent effects on relationships and society as a whole. Researching one of them I found the following statistics on how these categories of drug, which can affect cognitive powers, enjoy wide levels of usage in the UK:
So, 21% of the population take OTC hayfever products - some of which will make them drowsy (ref 3.) - and 5% take prescribed sleeping tablets - the adverse effects of which include ‘drowsiness may persist the following day’, according to NICE , and ‘confusion’ and ‘memory problems’ according to MIND (ref. 4, ref. 5). Do any of our leaders ever seem confused or to have memory problems - or is that a stupid question?
And, with 17% of the population taking prescribed antidepressants - drugs that, quite frankly, can really mess with your judgement - is it possible that some of our leaders are taking them? If they are, are they fit to be taking the decisions that we entrust to them?
I can partly answer that, because, by ‘leaders’, I don’t just mean the government. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has been open about his problems with depression and (in the Radio Times for 19 February 2022) has admitted he takes antidepressants, which, he is quoted as saying, ‘work well, but it's a struggle’. Might his use of such medication have influenced some of his decisions, and the content of some of his statements - such as about the plans to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda, which he spoke about at Easter 2022 (ref. 6)? Might his willingness to allow the closure of churches for Covid in early 2020 - which, he seemingly regretted later - have arisen, at least in part, from a mindset influenced by prescription medication? Closure of churches was one of the most dramatic measures for covid, and may have affected the mental and physical health of millions.
Quality decisions are surely the one product we are entitled to expect from those in charge, especially those we elect; if they are not able to provide this, should they be in such a role? If they are on prescription medication, can we expect them to meet this requirement?
***
We do stray into challenging territory with this argument. If an ordinary employee has a medical problem the employer has at least a moral, if not legal, duty to seek to accommodate that problem within their organisation, but to keep the matter confidential. There will be times when it is easy to do this, and I would think that the idea of losing your job because you are taking antidepressants would be unacceptable to many. But some employees do have a duty to disclose medical conditions to their employer - airline pilots being a good example. Do not our leaders in Westminster (and elsewhere) have more by way of responsibilities than an airline pilot, and shouldn’t that fact mean that they should disclose anything that might limit their capabilities?
A government minister, or other leader, could do far more damage through making a rash decision than might an airline pilot. There’s a war going on in the Ukraine at the moment that, if you believe some of the stories, is a consequence of the ill health - or consequent medication - of the Russian leader; should those with the power to bring about death and destruction, or economic collapse, not be required to be open to their electorate (in a democracy) about their medical issues and related medication, and even, perhaps, be required to stand down, if they are medically unfit to make the kind of complex decisions that are involved in government today?
For example, if a government minister were to be on an antidepressant, it's not impossible that it might make them more inclined to take rash decisions. Antidepressants are designed to stop excessive caution. But if that minister were thinking of getting involved in a war, the last thing I’d want would be for them not to exercise sufficient caution.
***
A few years ago I went to a presentation about a construction project on a railway in France. Colleagues around me were appalled to hear that, at lunchtime, all the site workers adjourned to a buffet lunch including a glass of wine. To mix my languages, alcohol is absolutely verboten on construction sites in the UK - workers are even asked to submit to testing, as a measure to ensure they are as capable as they can be to do their jobs.
A cock-up on a building site can have unpleasant consequences - fatalities, of course (and the building industry has achieved huge improvement in site safety in recent years - including the aforementioned drug and alcohol testing). But cannot MPs, civil servants, government ministers make bigger mistakes? And if so, shouldn’t we do something to avoid it?
Should our leaders perhaps take drink and drug tests to prove they are up to the job? (It’s understood that Churchill was often half a bottle of brandy to the better during WWII; would that be allowed now?) If that’s unacceptable, what sort of controls should be in place to ensure the quality of their decision-making?
***
Some medication might make leaders more comfortable when carrying out the various tasks that elected leadership involves. For example, during an election campaign they have to cope with much by way of criticism and insults, some of which could be very personal; would you or I be able to handle that? Possibly not, we would have to be very thick skinned. I do not doubt at all that a little medical ‘helper’ might assist them to avoid excessive anxiety or depression caused by what is said about them, but that sort of ‘helper’ might also reduce their tendency to become anxious - or the quality of their decisions - at other times.
***
We’ve had enough leaders recently who seem incapable of getting a job done. We need leaders who can truly lead, and, I’m sorry, but someone taking antidepressants, or regular sleeping tablets or antihistamines, is unlikely to be at the top of their game.
None of us can be sure that either of the candidates in the current contest for leadership of the Conservative Party aren’t now, and won’t ever be, on some form of medication that impairs their ability to make sensible judgements. We'll then be stuck with their cock-ups for eternity. What a mess democracy is in.
***
References
https://thoughtsofacarer.blogspot.com/2022/02/and-you-wonder-why-im-sceptical-on.html
https://www.chemist-4-u.com/guides/hayfever/hay-fever-statistics-uk/
https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/insomnia/prescribing-information/z-drugs/
Comments
Post a Comment