मंगलवार, 16 जनवरी 2018

हरियाणा सरकार का प्रशंशनीय कदम है यह

हरियाणा की जेलों (कारवासों )में कैदी गाय की सेवा करें इसमें बुरा क्या है। सेवा से ही मेवा है। सनातन धर्म की मान्यता है गाय के शरीर में ३३ करोड़ देवी देवताओं का वास है। गाय की हर चीज़ पूज्य है उपादेय है। गोबर और गौ मूत्र भी अखाद्य नहीं है पंचगव्य में इनका इस्तेमाल होता है। पंचगव्य गौ दुग्ध ,गौ धृत ,गौ दुग्ध से तैयार दधि (दही ),गोबर ,गौ मूत्र को एक सुनिश्चित मात्रा में मिलाने से तैयार  होता है।

धर्म में शास्त्र को ही प्रमाण माना गया है यज्ञ बिना पंच  गव्य के संपन्न नहीं होता है। गीता में  भगवान् ने स्वयं को यज्ञ बतलाया है ,'होता 'भी हव्य सामिग्री भी यज्ञ करता भी और उससे प्राप्त चरु को भी। भगवान् राम की उत्तपत्ति (दशरथ नंदन राम )का जन्म पुत्रेष्टि यज्ञ का ही परिणाम है। अग्नि देव यज्ञ संपन्न होने पर स्वयं चरु(प्रसाद )लेकर उपस्थित होतें हैं।  भगवान् के जन्म की लीला देखने के बाद तमाम देवता जो विभिन्न भेष भरके इस उत्सव की शोभा देखने आये थे इस चरु में ही विलीन हो गए थे। राम के शरीर से ही सभी ऊर्जा प्राप्त करते हैं। विश्व की सभी आत्माएं उसी राम का शरीर हैं जो सबमें रमण करता है सब को आनंद देता है। गीता में भगवान् कृष्ण स्वयं कहते हैं मैं सभी आत्माओं का आत्मा यानी परमात्मा हूँ। सभी आत्माएं मेरा शरीर हैं।  

चैनलियों को ये शास्त्र प्रमाण समझ में नहीं आएगा -यह वैसे ही है जैसे कोई मनोविग्यानी आत्मा के अस्तित्व को नकारते हुए कहे -अगर आत्मा का अस्तित्व है तो लाओ उसे लेब में। प्रयोगशाला में। 

आत्मा पांच भूतों का जोड़ घटा नहीं हैं इनसे परे अशरीरी है देही है आत्मा देह नहीं है देह भौतिक है पंच भूतों की निर्मिति है ,आत्मा यानी देही इनसे परे है। आप उसे प्रयोगशाला में कैसे लायेंगे ?और फिर भौतिक साधनों से अभौतिक आत्म तत्व को कैसे देखियेगा ,जानिएगा। इसीलिए कहा के शास्त्र ही प्रमाण है। निर्दोष और अकाट्य है शास्त्र प्रमाण। भौतिक साधनों की सीमाएं हैं। चाहे वह रेडिओ -दूरबीन हो या दूसरे छोर पर इलेक्ट्रॉन  माइक्रोस्कोप या गामा रे अन्वेषी। लार्ज हेड्रॉन कोलाइडर हो या कोई अन्य साधन अभी तो उन कणों की ही टोह नहीं ली जा सकी हैं जो शेष द्रव्य कणों को  द्रव्यमान प्रदान करते हैं मॉस इम्पार्ट करते हैं। चैनलिये इसे जाने भी कैसे। गाय की महिमा तो बहुत बारीक बात है। हम हरियाणा सरकार के इस कदम की खुलकर और बेहद की प्रशंशा अनु-शंशा करते हैं सेवा व्यक्ति को शालीन निरहंकारी बनाती है। गाय की पूँछ पहकडके तो लोग वैकुण्ठ पहुँच जाते हैं वैतरणी को पार कर जाते हैं। कैदियों को और कुछ नहीं तो सेवा का सुख ज़रूर मिलेगा। 

शीषक :हरियाणा सरकार का प्रशंशनीय कदम है यह 

सोमवार, 15 जनवरी 2018

75% of India's air pollution-related deaths are rural, study finds


  • Exposure to pollution particles is roughly equal in rural and urban areas
  • However, rural Indians are disproportionately affected by air pollution, researcher says
(CNN)Rural Indians, who make up about two-thirds of the country of 1.3 billion people, are disproportionately at risk of breathing polluted air, according to new research.
India's air pollution has been making headlines for years, with attention focused on Delhi, the capital, once named the most polluted city in the world by the World Health Organization.
Yet research published Thursday by an international team of scientists, including experts from the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay and the Health Effects Institute, estimates that 75% of air pollution-related deaths in India during 2015 came in its rural areas.
    "Air pollution is a national, pan-India problem. It's not limited to urban centers and megacities, and it disproportionately affects rural Indians more than urban Indians," said Chandra Venkataraman, a professor at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, who was a member of the working group that conducted the study.
    The study found that exposure to the smallest and most dangerous airborne pollution particles, known as PM2.5, was roughly equal across rural and urban India. Part of the reason for the higher proportion of deaths in rural areas, though, is that about two-thirds of the population still lives there rather than in cities, the scientists say.
    The findings are the result of a comprehensive, state-by-state analysis of the sources of air pollution and what impact it has had on health in India.
    "This put all the pieces together," said Milind Kandlikar, a professor who studies air pollution at the University of British Columbia. He was not involved with the new research. "It moves from sources to human health effects. And it does this across the entire country."
    In 2015, over a million deaths could be attributed to air pollution in India, the study says: about 25% of the total deaths linked to air pollution around the globe.
    India's air pollution problem has steadily worsened over the past 25 years, as its economy has grown.
    According to the new research, residential biomass burning is the largest individual contributor to air pollution across India, with many poor residents relying on burning wood, crop residue or cow dung to heat homes or to cook food.
    The study also highlighted other sources of pollution, such as crop burning in parts of northern India -- an annual affair at the onset of winter that contributes to the toxic haze that settles over Delhi as temperatures drop -- and transport emissions.
    Follow CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter
    See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.
    Based on their findings, the researchers say that, unless Indian authorities commit to aggressive energy efficiency targets and clamp down on biomass burning, air pollution deaths could rise to as many as 1.6 million across the country by 2030.
    Aggressive and concerted policy action, on the other hand, could help India avert as many as 1.2 million air pollution-related deaths by the middle of this century.
    "I think we're starting to see the signs that things will start to get better," said Michael Brauer, a professor at the University of British Columbia who studies the links between human health and the environment and one of the scientists who led the study. "I think there's an understanding of what the solutions need to be. It's not rocket science, and more importantly, we know how to do this."

    Reference Material :http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/15/health/india-air-pollution-study-intl/index.html

    Expert unlocks mechanics of how snakes move in a straight line

    Snake research could advance robotics to move through narrow tunnels after a disaster


    Snakes are known for their iconic S-shaped movements. But they have a less noticeable skill that gives them a unique superpower.
    Snakes can crawl in a straight line.
    University of Cincinnati biologist Bruce Jayne studied the mechanics of snake movement to understand exactly how they can propel themselves forward like a train through a tunnel.

    "It's a very good way to move in confined spaces," Jayne said. "A lot of heavy-bodied snakes use this locomotion: vipers, boa constrictors, anacondas and pythons."

    His study titled "Crawling without Wiggling" was published in December in the Journal of Experimental Biology.

    Snakes typically swim, climb or crawl by bending their spine into serpentine coils or using the leading edges to push off objects. An extreme example of their diversity of movement gives the sidewinder rattlesnake its name.

    Jayne, a professor of biological sciences in UC's McMicken College of Arts & Sciences, already has unlocked the mechanics of three kinds of snake locomotion called concertina, serpentine and sidewinding. But the straightforward movement of snakes, called "rectilinear locomotion," has gotten less attention, he said.

    This coordination of muscle activity and skin movement was first examined in 1950 by biologist H.W. Lissmann. He hypothesized that the snake's muscles combined with its loose, flexible and squishy belly skin enabled it to scoot forward without bending its spine.

    "It's been almost 70 years without that type of locomotion being well understood," Jayne said.

    Jayne and his graduate student and co-author, Steven Newman, tested Lissmann's hypothesis using equipment unavailable to researchers in the 1950s. Jayne used high-definition digital cameras to film boa constrictors while recording the electrical impulses generated by particular muscles. This produced an electromyogram (similar to an EKG) that showed the coordination between the muscles, the snake's skin and its body.

    For the study, Newman and Jayne used boa constrictors, big-bodied snakes known for traveling in a straight line over the forest floor. They recorded high-definition video of the snakes moving across a horizontal surface hashed with reference marks. The researchers also added reference dots on the sides of the snakes to track the subtle movement of their scaly skin.

    When the snake inches forward, the skin on its belly flexes far more than the skin over its ribcage and back. The belly scales act like treads on a tire, providing traction with the ground as the muscles pull the snake's internal skeleture forward in an undulating pattern that becomes fluid and seamless when they move quickly.

    The snake's muscles are sequentially activated from the head toward the tail in a remarkably fluid and seamless way. Two of the key muscles responsible for this extend from the ribs (costo) to the skin (cutaneous) giving them their name costocutaneous.

    "The vertebral column moves forward at a constant rate," Newman said. "One set of muscles pulls the skin forward and then it gets anchored in place. And opposite antagonistic muscles pull on the vertebral column."

    The advantage of this kind of motion is obvious for a predator that eats rodents and other animals that spend time underground.

    "Snakes evolved from burrowing ancestors. You can fit in much narrower holes or tunnels by moving this way than if you had to bend your body and push against something," Newman said.

    The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

    Jayne said Lissmann's 1950 description largely was correct.

    "But he hypothesized that the muscle that shortens the skin was the mechanism that propels a snake forward. He got that wrong," Jayne said. "But given the time he conducted the study, I marvel at how he was able to do it. I have tremendous admiration for his insights."

    Industry has tried to mimic the limbless, serpentine movements of snakes in robots that can inspect pipelines and other underwater equipment. Newman said robots that can harness a snake's rectilinear motion could have profound applications.

    "This research could inform robotics. It would be a big advantage to be able to move in straight lines in small, confined spaces. They could use snake-like robots for search-and-rescue in debris and collapsed buildings," Newman said.

    Rectilinear locomotion is low gear for snakes that otherwise can summon surprising speed. They only use it when they are relaxed. The researchers observed that snakes reverted to traditional concertina and serpentine motions when they were startled or prodded to move.

    An avid cyclist, Jayne has studied the physiology and biomechanics of cycling in a lab in Rieveschl. He has ongoing studies of riders' cardiovascular fitness. He measures their oxygen consumption in one minute per kilogram of body weight to learn more about how cyclists can increase their muscles' ability to burn lactase.

    But he has always been most fascinated by snakes. His work has been published in more than 70 journal articles, most of them examining some aspect of snake behavior or biology. Most recently, Jayne has studied snake locomotion, particularly the amazing ability of some to climb trees.

    Jayne teaches vertebrate zoology and human physiology and biomechanics at UC.

    Jayne's lifelong interest in snakes has given science keen insights into many previously undocumented behaviors. He studied crab-eating snakes in Malaysia and is testing the acuity of snake vision in his own makeshift optical lab at UC.

    By testing the limits of its mobility, Jayne can learn more about the snake's complex motor controls. This can shed light on how humans can execute coordinated movements.

    "What allows them to go in all these different directions and deal with all of that three-dimensional complexity is they have a diversity or plasticity of neural control of the muscles," Jayne said. "Even if the animal had the physical strength to do something, it wouldn't necessarily have the neural control."

    Jayne wants to learn more about how this refined motor control contributes to a snake's amazing contortions.

    "They move in so many fascinating ways. Is that because they have such an incredible diversity of motor patterns that the nervous system can generate?" he said.

    "Even though all snakes have the same body plan, there are fully aquatic snakes, snakes that move on flat surfaces, snakes that move in a horizontal plane, snakes that climb. They go everywhere," he said. "And the reason they can go everywhere is they have so many different ways of controlling their muscles. That's pretty intriguing."

    Four Types of Snake Movement:
    Serpentine: Also called lateral undulation, this is the typical side-to-side motion used by snakes over rough ground or in the water.

    Concertina: Snakes coil into alternating curves before straightening themselves to propel themselves forward.

    Sidewinding: Snakes bend in waves both side to side and in a vertical plane to lift the body to form just a few contact points with the ground. This helps rattlesnakes traverse hot sand or climb dunes.

    Rectilinear: Specialized muscles move the belly skin of a snake, propelling it forward in a straight line. This allows snakes to slip through burrows not much bigger than they are.
    Story Source:
    Materials provided by University of CincinnatiNote: Content may be edited for style and length.

    Journal Reference:
    1. Steven J. Newman, Bruce C. Jayne. Crawling without wiggling: muscular mechanisms and kinematics of rectilinear locomotion in boa constrictorsThe Journal of Experimental Biology, 2017; jeb.166199 DOI: 10.1242/jeb.166199

    JAN 14 What happens when you give your kids a 'Yes Day'

    Story highlights

    • The concept appears in the 2009 children's book "Yes Day!"
    • Without a sense of autonomy, children and teenagers become less resilient to setbacks, experts say
    (CNN)Ask my son whether he needs another toy, and he will tell you, without hesitation, "yes." Ask my husband and me whether our son needs another toy, and we will emit a groan familiar to any parents who are sick not only of organizing toys but of organizing the various baskets, boxes and other vessels they've purchased to store the nevertheless-uncontainable toys.
    As such, for his birthday this year, we ignored his gift list and gave him the only non-stuff substitute we thought would pass muster with a 5-year-old: power. Specifically, we gave him a "Yes Day," a 24-hour period during which we couldn't say no.
    We didn't invent the "Yes Day." The concept appears in the 2009 children's book "Yes Day!" by Amy Krouse Rosenthal and Tom Lichtenheld, and it recently became a popular topic in parenting media after actress Jennifer Garner Instagrammed about her family's annual tradition in September. We will also be making it an annual tradition and recommend that other families do the same.
      The appeal of the day lies not just in the liberation it gives our child but, somewhat unexpectedly, in the liberation for us parents. In this age of intensive parenting, when children's calendars are so packed that they require color-coding and macaroni and cheese is cause for mild guilt or even panic, a break from "no" is also a break from the niggling fear that we are somehow failing our children. Free from our normal scripts, we realize things about one another and about ourselves.

      What happened when we said 'yes'

      The morning of my son's birthday, we watched as he tore through presents from three sets of grandparents and five aunts and uncles. (When I was a child, the only gift I received from a relative was a $15 check from my maternal grandmother that my parents never allowed me to cash.) When that was over and he had the physical evidence that this was his birthday, we gave him, verbally, our gift.
      His eyebrow peaked in part confusion, part skepticism. We threw some examples at him. "Can I watch another cartoon? Can I have another cookie? Can we go see otters at the zoo?" He nodded, eyebrows descending. "But if I asked you if I could jump in fire, you would say no, right?" he asked, in a quick reckoning of the necessary limits of his power. He was relieved when we said yes and then proceeded to brainstorm some of things he might do -- and not do -- on "Yes Day."
      Three weeks later, a Saturday, it arrived. He began the day with brio, confidently directed us through a breakfast of crepes with lemon and sugar for breakfast, followed by a Netflix session, all premeditated. After two hours of cartoons, he said he was ready to move on but didn't know to what. He had entered the portion of the day that required improvisation and briefly struggled to figure out what to do.
      The rest of the afternoon was spent around the house. We pretended we were a princess and an otter. We pretended we were ninjas. We had a pipe-cleaner craft competition. We also spent a lot of time talking about what other activities we might do. My husband and I made a litany of suggestions, the majority of which involved leaving the house. Our son, an indoor kid, demurred. Come late afternoon, the appeal of unlimited power had dimmed, and he ambled around the playroom, mildly distressed.
      With early evening, however, came redemption. We went to his favorite sushi restaurant, where he happily ate rolls and charmed the waitress into allowing him to take home a few pieces of origami on display near the sushi bar. After this, we went to a frozen yogurt franchise, where he finally cashed in. While modest in his dessert choices -- two small mounds of yogurt topped by a small fistful of assorted toppings -- he took advantage of the branded merchandise section. We went home with an anthropomorphized frozen yogurt cone stuffed animal and a package of sponge capsules that hit a cup of warm water shortly after we returned home.
      He ended the day content, arms coiled around his new yogurt cone pal. My husband and I, however, felt somewhat disappointed. We knew that if his "Yes Day" was enough for him, it should have been enough for us as well. And yet part of us was still surprised he didn't want more.

      More control over themselves

      Though most parents know they should leave some space, temporal and psychological, for their kids to be themselves, many of us appear to be struggling with it. In recent decades, anxiety has spiked among children and teens. Mental health experts attribute this spike to a rise in external pressures and feeling as though someone else is calling all the shots.
      In their upcoming book "The Self-Driven Child," Ned Johnson, the founder of PrepMatters, a tutoring and test preparation service in Washington, and Bill Stixrud, a clinical neuropsychologist, use scientific research and case studies to make a convincing argument for giving children more control over their lives.
      "People need a sense of competency," or learning a skill, "but also autonomy," Johnson explained. "Parents today are spending all kinds of time, energy and money trying to increase competency but often do it at the expense of kids' autonomy. So kids feel like things are done to them, instead of for them or with them."
      Without a sense of autonomy, children and teenagers feel helpless and are thus less resilient to challenges or setbacks. "They not only need to learn that they can make good choices but also that they can screw up and it would be OK," Johnson said.
      He added that while this sense of autonomy is most crucial in the teenage years, as children begin to make decisions with longer-lasting consequences, it's not something parents should wait to teach until their child gets her driver's license. Even toddlers should be encouraged to make their own decisions whenever their well-being isn't at risk.
      Stixrud explained that fostering a sense of autonomy helps children both reject the parts of their lives that aren't working for them and feel motivated to seek out interests and experiences that they might enjoy. Observing an annual "Yes Day" for young children can be a useful step in pointing children in the right direction.
      Yes Day "is a way to be respectful and to acknowledge, early on, that this is his life," he explained. "Kids have a brain in their head, and they have a sense of how they want their lives to work. Parents should start there and support that, instead of thinking we are supposed to make (our children) a certain way."
      Johnson and Stixrud aren't advocating for parents to abdicate to their posts as leaders of the family; this isn't about allowing children to ignore their bedtimes, eat exclusively pizza or stop bathing. Rather, it's about making sure our sons and daughters are spending some of their time in a way that is meaningful for them and have space in the day to pursue their interests. (Unless, Stixrud noted, their interests are video games or social media, which should be limited.) Pursuing their own pastimes allows their brains to enter a high-effort, high-energy, high-focus and low-stress state, which research shows is necessary for developing self-motivation.
      "You have to be working on something that is important to you to become self-driven," Stixrud said. "I (would) much rather have a kid who is working on something he is passionate about than dutifully but minimally doing his homework every night. This creates the wiring in the brain that helps you get good at something you love."
      Follow CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter
      See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.
      Giving our son control for a day allowed us to see how he still very much needs our direction. But is also showed us how we, with the best intentions, push him in ways we probably shouldn't. While we envisioned a Yes Day filled with out-of-the-house adventures, his idea of a good time didn't much involve leaving at all. He was most content when we would join him in his imaginary world without, importantly, us telling him of how long we had or what else needed to be done that day.
      Ultimately, we were reminded that, when it comes to our kids, sometimes we can give more by doing less. So less we will do, incorporating a little bit of Yes Day into every day, granting him the freedom to be an otter, a ninja or whoever else he wants to be.

      रविवार, 14 जनवरी 2018

      "The Dangerous Case of Donald TRump "-Dr. Bandy X Lee (HINDI PART I )

      जैसा इस आलेख के 'शीर्षक' से ज़ाहिर है -एक किताब का नाम   है यह जिसकी लेखिका  डॉ बैंडी एक्स ली है। आप येल में कार्यरत एक मनोरोगविद हैं। अलावा इसके जन- बैठकों को खबरदार करना चेतावनी देना आपका कर्म (धर्म )है।आप ऐसे आयोजनों की व्यवस्थापक हैं। 

      Dr.Bandy X Lee  is the organizer of the Duty to Warn conference and has written a book, "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump." 

      आपने कांग्रेस की एक ऐसी बैठक को सम्बोधित करते हुए जिसमें अधिकतर डेमोक्रेटिक मेंबर थे दिसंबर २०१७ में एक नै लेकिन चौंकाने  वाली शब्दवाली का प्रयोग किया - डैंजरसनेस। एक तरह से मेडिकलाइज़्ड ही कर दिया आपने इस शब्दावली को। 

      बताते चलें -J. C. Segens द्वारा लिखी हुई डिक्शनरी आफ मॉडर्न मेडिसिन के अनुसार dangerousness का अर्थ वह मानसिक अवस्था है जिसमें आप  खतरनाक साबित हो सकते हैं -दूसरों को संभवतया भौतिक और मानसिक नुक्सान  भी पहुंचा सकते हैं।

      उनका यह अनर्गल प्रलाप ट्रम्प साहब की  ट्वीट्स और भैंट-वार्ताओं ,चंद पब्लिक रिकार्ड्स ,वीडियो टेप्स ,ट्रम्प साहब की चंद पब्लिक स्पीचेस  पर आधारित है। कोई आर्म चेअर क्लिनिकल साइक्लोजिस्ट ही इस प्रकार की  टिप्पणी करेगा।

      मनोरोग विदों के अमरीकी संघ(अमेरिकन साइकिएट्रिक एशोशिएशन ) ने उन्हें इस बात पर फटकार भी लगायी  है उन्हें चेताया  है यह कहकर के यह १९७३ से लागू उस नीति एवं चिकित्सा -नैतिक -शास्त्र  सम्बन्धी क़ानून का उल्लंघन है जिसे गोल्ड वाटर रूल १९७३ कहा जाता है।इसके तहत जब तक आपने स्वयं किसी व्यक्ति का इलाज़ नहीं किया है और आपको उसके बारे में खासकर उसके मानसिक रोग के बारे में अन्यों को सूचना देने के लिए अधिकृत नहीं किया जाता है आप ऐसा नहीं करेंगे। 

      मज़ेदार बात यह है ट्रम्प साहब सिर्फ 'ली' क्या किसी के भी मनोरोगी (साइकिएट्रिक पेशेंट )नहीं रहे हैं।   

      ली १९७६ में लागू उस व्यावसायिक निर्देशिका ,आचार संहिता की दुहाई देती हैं आड़ लेती हैं जिसे  तरासॉफ रूल (Tarasoff Rule 1976 )१९७६ कहा  जाता है। इस विवादास्पद अनुदेशिका के अनुसार यदि किसी मनोरोगों  के माहिर को ऐसा लगता है के उसका मरीज़ अन्यों के लिए खतरा पैदा कर सकता है तब उसका  यह दायित्व है वह उन अन्यों को खबरदार करे। 

      गौर करने वाली बात यह है यहां पर 'रोगी' ट्रम्प को बतलाया जा रहा है और 'विक्टिम्स' उन सात अरब पचास करोड़ से ज्यादा  लोगों को बतलाया  जा रहा   है  जो दुनिया भर  में कहीं भी रहते हैं।  

      लगता है ली अभी वहीँ खड़ीं हैं जहां अमरीकी समाज १९७२ में खड़ा था जब डेमोक्रेटिक पार्टी के उपराष्ट्रपति पद के लिए मनोनीत उम्मीदवार को इस बिना पे हटा दिया गया था के वह अवसाद ग्रस्त रहें हैं। 

      १७७६ से १९७४ तक की अवधि में कार्यरत रहे अमरीकी राष्ट्रपतियों में से तकरीबन -तकरीबन आधी संख्या  में उम्र के किसी न किसी सौपान में मनोरोग सम्बन्धी नैदानिक साक्ष्य मौजूद रहें हैं।  इन आधों के आधों में ऐसे लक्षण तब भी मौजूद थे जब वह कार्यरत थे।

      इनमें से भी आधे अवसाद की चपेट में आये थे। अब्राहम  लिंकन तो मनोविक्षिप्ति (साइकोसिस )की चपेट में आ गए थे। इनका भी पांचवां हिस्सा बाइपोलर इलनेस से  ग्रस्त रहा है।शेष पांचवां हिस्सा शराब का लती रहा है। इसीलिए यह व्यवस्था रखी जाती थी के वह कोई महत्वपूर्ण निर्णय शाम को न लें  तब जब वह सुरूर में आ जाते थे। (स्रोत: जर्नल आफ नर्वस एन्ड मेन्टल डिजीज,२००६ ). 

      २०१२ में एक अन्य अध्ययन में इस बात का खुलासा हुआ था के जॉन ऍफ़ केनेडी साइकोपैथ (मनोविकृत रोग ग्रस्त -मनोविकृति )यानी ऐसे गंभीर रोग से ग्रस्त थे जो अपने तथा अन्यों  के साथ हिंसात्मक व्यवहार कर सकता है.लेकिन साथ ही ऐसा व्यक्ति अपनी निश्चयात्मक बुद्धि  ,अपने पक्ष के समर्थन में संलग्नता ,हठीलापन और सामाजिक सेटिंग और व्यवहार में बेहद कामयाब माना जाता है।निर्भय होकर  औत्सुक्य शून्य  रहते हुए जोखिम उठाने की उस में अपार क्षमता रहती है। वह अपने निःशंक प्रभुत्व पर कायम रहता है। यह व्यक्तित्व का अन्यतम गुण  माना गया है।

      यहां ये सारी रामकथा सुनाने का मकसद यह बताना है के भाई ट्रम्प में लाख दोष रहें हों भले वह बड़बोले रहे हों आप उनकी आड़ में तमाम मनोरोगियों की अवमानना कर रहे हैं अपने अनजाने में ही। 

      एक 'मधुमेह' या दिल की बीमारी या फिर कार्डियोवैस्कुलर डिजीज यानी हृदय एवं रक्तसंचरण समबन्धी हृदय रोग को भी पुख्ता करने के लिए अनेक परीक्षण न सिर्फ किये जाते हैं उन्हें आवधिक तौर पर दोहराया भी जाता है रिकार्ड रखा जाता है -तब जाकर रोगनिदान पुख्ता किया जाता है। 

      मनोरोगों का पता लगाना कोई आसान काम नहीं है। कई मर्तबा तो यह एक व्यवहार मात्र समझा गया है जैसे शिजोफ्रेनिक बिहेवियर। बला के जीनियस रहे हैं ऐसे लोग। बाइपोलर इलनेस के मरीज़ों ने अलग कीर्तिमान स्थापित किये हैं। आत्मविमोही -ऑटिज़्म -आटिस्टिक बिहेवियर की चपेट  में आये बालकों में अतिरिक्त प्रतिभा होती है ये हायर मेथ्स कर लेते हैं।यह व्यक्ति  का दुर्गुण नहीं है। सरकारी नौकरियों में आने के बाद व्यक्ति का आम कायिक मेडिकल चेकप होता है। बस।मनोरोगों के लिए परीक्षण इसीलिए नहीं होता है क्योंकि इनके होने न होने की पुष्टि करना खालाजी का घर नहीं हैं ली महोदया। 

      यहां मैं अपने व्यक्तिगत अनुभव का उल्लेख करना चाहूंगा। मैं ऐसे निकटतर संबंध के साथ गत २८ -२९ बरस से हूँ जो मनोविकारों से ग्रस्त रहा है। नए क्षितिज तराशे हैं इस महिला ने बस मैंने खुली छूट दी जो मरजी काम कारो ,जहां  जैसे दिल करे रहो कोई बंदिश नहीं। रोगनिदान पहले कहा गया -ऑब्सेसिव कम्पलसिव डिसऑर्डर फिर शिज़ोफ्रेनिक बिहेवियर और आखिर में बाइपोलर इलनेस। एक मर्तबा इंडिआ हेबिटाट सेंटर  में एक विस्तारित व्याख्यान और उसके बाद खुली चर्चा में मैंने इस रोग निदान की अनिश्चितता पर सवाल उठाया था -बेहतरीन ज़वाब दिया था पेनलिस्ट ने -कहा साइकिएट्री इस पर शर्मिन्दा नहीं है वह अपनी तरफ से अच्छा ही करती है। 

      साथ ही एक बात और कहता चलूँ -कोई दर्जन दो भर दवाएं हैं इनके ही कोम्बोज़ हैं जिन्हें दिमागी जैव -रसायनों को पुनर्संतुलित करने के लिए आज़माया जाता है। लाभ मिलता है अलबत्ता दवा धर्मनिष्ठ होकर खानी पड़ती है। कायिक रोगों में भी तो इससे भिन्न नहीं है। लक्षणों का ही इलाज़ और शमन होता है। कई जीवन शैली रोगों में उम्र भर दवा लो। कैंसर समूह के रोग पूरी काया  के रोग हैं कैंसर शरीर के एक से दूसरे भाग में चला आता है। एक स्तन की तराशी कर दो दूसरे में आ जाएगा। 

      मनोरोगों को इतना बड़ा अजूबा ये महबूबाएं क्यों बना रही हैं ?  

      मनोरोगों का वैसे ही प्रबंधन होता है जैसे किसी अन्य कायिक रोग का। इसे आज भी एक सोशल स्टिग्मा मानना नादानी है नासमझी है वाहियात बात है।

      मनोरोगों की तो अब  टैगिंग भी लेवलिंग भी  नहीं की जाती है। कायिक रोगों की तरह ही लक्षणों पर आधारित इलाज़ चलता है।कोई सीटी स्कैन ,एमआरआई दिमाग में मौजूद चंद जैव - रसायनों (न्यूरो - ट्रांस्मीटर्स )के कम रह जाने या ज्यादा  हो जाने की इत्तला नहीं दे सकता। 

      अल्ज़ाइमर्स के बारे में इत्तला भी मरीज़ रहे शव के दिमाग की गहन पड़ताल के बाद ही पुख्ता हो पाती है। 

      डिमेंशिया से ग्रस्त  व्यक्ति सामान्य  व्यवहार नहीं कर पाता है  याद रखना ,सोचना उसके लिए मुश्किल हो जाता है।यह मस्तिष्क रोग या दिमागी आघात ,दिमागी चोट से उत्पन्न एक स्थिति हो सकती है। अल्ज़ाइमर्स में दिमागी न्यूरॉन्स के विनष्ट होते चले जाने के बाद मस्तिष्क ही सिकुड़ता चला जाता है। एम्लोयड प्रोटीन प्लाक्स बनते चले जाते हैं। इसके परीक्षण का कोई तरीका आपके पास नहीं है।कोई ब्लड टेस्ट आपके पास नहीं है। यही बाद में डिमेंशिया की भी वजह बन जाता है। काहे ट्रम्प के पीछे पड़े हुए हैं लोग ?

      चंद दिमागी जैवरसायनों की घट- बढ़ का नतीजा होते हैं मनोरोग-गत व्यवहार। दवाओं से उस घट बढ़ का प्रबंधन कर लिया जाता है। नियमनिष्टता यहां भी काम आती है कायिक रोगों की तरह। अलावा इसके यहां एक मनोरोगविद अपनी तथा साथी क्लिनिजकल साइकोलॉजिस्ट की मदद के अलावा मरीज़ से सम्बंधित लोगों से ज्यादा से ज्यादा जानकारी जुटाता रहता है। पूरा भरोसा नहीं होता तब भी उसको रोगनिदान का अपनी तरफ से अलबत्ता वह कोई कसर भी नहीं छोड़ता है। 

      'ली' रिमोट कंट्रोल से ही रोगनिदान कर रहीं हैं। ड्राइंग में टीवी देखकर। यह क्या मज़ाक है खुद अपने साथ ही जो वह कर रहीं हैं ?कोई तो हमने बतलाये।    

        कुछ लोग ट्रम्प साहब को आत्मश्लाघा आत्मरति से ग्रस्त बतला रहे हैं। नार्सिसिस्ट कह रहे हैं। Narcissism से ग्रस्त कह रहे हैं। भाईसाहब आप में से कौन आइने  के सामने नहीं खड़ा होता कौन अपने पे नहीं रीझता है ? है कोई माई का लाल ? 
      अमरीकी साइकॉनेलिटिक एशोशिएशन और अमेरिकन साइकिएट्रिक एशोशिएशन भी परस्पर ट्रम्प साहब को लेकर  एक राय नहीं हैं।कुछ गोल्ड रूल के तरफ़दार कुछ तरसोफ्फ १९७६ (Tarasoff 1976 rule )के। आप किधर हैं अपनी राय दो टूक लिखें।टिपण्णी करें। 

      सन्दर्भ -सामिग्री :http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/12/health/presidential-mental-health-gupta/index.html

      मूल आलेख आप अंग्रेजी में भी पढ़ सकते हैं :

      The discussion around the health of President Trump has reached a new level of urgency this week because he will be an outpatient at Walter Reed Medical Center today, undergoing a battery of tests to determine whether he is "fit to lead," a colloquial term many use but with little clinical basis.
      Almost everywhere I go, including the hospital where I practice, nearly everyone wants to weigh in about the mental health of Trump, and perhaps because I am a neuroscientist and medical reporter, I have become a repository of these opinions (though I will tell you the mind is a much more difficult thing to probe than the brain).
      Some of the opinions have been cringeworthy, like the time a fellow physician asked whether I thought the president was "crazy" in a crowded elevator full of patients, any one of whom could be suffering from debilitating mental illness. Many of the armchair diagnoses have been misguided, even if well-intentioned, and all have been thus far unsubstantiated.
        Particularly bothersome is the commingling of the president's questionable behavioral traits with serious mental illness. It is, as Dr. Allen Frances, the chairman of the DSM-IV task force that defines the criteria of various mental conditions, said, an insult to the mentally ill.
        The point is, there can be major pitfalls with these sorts of distant diagnoses.
        For starters, they are typically wrong.
        An accurate diagnosis of mental illness is a serious and laborious undertaking. Many patients see at least three mental health care professionals over several months to arrive at any diagnosis.
        Even after sustained contact with a patient, most responsible psychiatrists will follow up with family members and close acquaintances to gather as much information as possible. They want to be as certain as possible, as any doctor would be with the diagnosis of, say, cancer or a stroke. Unlike those diseases, though, mental illness has no particular brain image or blood test that can easily make the case. It takes time and expertise by someone who has been trained to find the clues and avoid the traps -- and that excludes the vast majority of us, including me.

        Trump's 'diagnosis'

        Frances doesn't believe that Trump has narcissistic personality disorder, a popular amateur diagnosis on the internet. This is particularly important because Frances also happens to be the Duke University professor who wrote the criteria defining the disorder.
        I have often responded to those sharing their opinions with a smile and a shrug when approached by people wanting to have the "Trump is crazy" discussion. It is not out of lack of interest but because, after the umpteenth time, I know that the discussion often sadly leads to worsening misconceptions about the mentally ill.
        Point is, even if Trump was diagnosed with a mental illness, that is not necessarily a barrier to holding a job or even higher office. It was in 1972 when Thomas Eagleton was dropped as a Democratic vice presidential candidate after it was revealed that he had been hospitalized for depression. We seem hardly enlightened since then.
        Fully half of US presidents between 1776 and 1974 had clinical evidence of mental illness during their lifetimes (half of them while in office), according to a 2006 study in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. Half of those were depressed, including James Madison, Dwight Eisenhower and, perhaps most famously, Abraham Lincoln, who also suffered from psychosis. Lyndon Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt and John Adams were among the fifth of US presidents with bipolar disorder. And another fifth were alcoholics, including Richard Nixon, whose staff, according to an NPR interview with one of the study's authors, had to make sure he didn't make important decisions in the evening.
        A separate study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology from 2012 took it a step further when it concluded that John Kennedy was a psychopath but added that "certain features of psychopathy are tied to successful interpersonal behavior." In particular, it was the trait of "fearless dominance" -- a brashness accompanied by a compulsion to dominate social situations, a higher willingness to take risks and an immunity to anxiety -- that was "associated with better presidential performance, leadership, persuasiveness and crisis management," according to the study authors.
        Fearless dominance. When you consider the qualities of a good leader, trust, intellect, curiosity, empathy and discipline probably come to mind, but "fearless dominance" is a frightening term these experts think should be added to the list.
        Terms matter when we talk about mental health.
        When Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a Yale psychiatrist, briefed mostly Democratic members of Congress in early December, she raised a different term: "dangerousness."
        It is not a true psychiatric diagnosis but one that has been medicalized nonetheless. According to J.C. Segens' "Dictionary of Modern Medicine," it is "the state of being dangerous and possibly causing mental or physical harm to others."
        Based on "public records, tape recordings, video tapes and his own public speeches, interviews and 'tweets,' " Lee told congressional members, it is "obvious" Trump meets the criteria for dangerousness. And she feels compelled to inform the public. She is the organizer of the Duty to Warn conference and has written a book, "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump."
        That makes many of her colleagues uncomfortable, because they abide by the 1973 Goldwater Rule, which prohibits psychiatrists from opining about the mental health of an individual they have not personally examined. Lee, and a handful of other psychiatrists, instead seem to take cover under a separate professional guideline, the controversial Tarasoff Rule of 1976, which obligates psychiatrists to notify potential victims if they believe their patient is a real threat. It is that "duty to warn," Lee told me over the phone, that has motivated her to break from the rank-and-file psychiatrists.
        In this case, she is claiming that the patient is Trump and the potential victims are everyone else on the planet.
        Of course, Trump is not Lee's patient, and she has never examined him.
        For its part, the American Psychiatric Association offered a rebuke to Lee and others who continue to diagnose from afar. "A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets and public comments. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease," it said in a statement this week.

        What presidents are tested for

        When Trump is examined today for his annual physical, he will undergo a battery of tests. There's no guarantee which ones they will be and no requirement that results be released.
        Most presidents have released one- to two-page summaries including height and weight, blood lipid levels and even running speed. George W. Bush, we were told, smoked occasional cigars and ran 3 miles 4 times a week. Only candidate John McCain released his full medical records in 2008, and he invited me to review them in a secure room for a few hours. While McCain's records included detailed reports around his mental health, virtually none of the others I have seen in the past 16 years of reporting on presidential health made mention of the cognitive or mental health of the presidential patient. The current White House has telegraphed that mental health testing is probably not something the president will even undergo.
        If his doctors want to probe the brain and mind of Trump and he agrees, a few useful tests could be performed.
        The Mini-Mental State Examination is a five- to 10-minute validated exam that has been around since 1975. It consists of 11 questions that focus on five specific areas of cognitive function: orientation, registration, attention and calculation, recall, and language. A low enough score could indicate that the patient is cognitively impaired.
        A neuropsychiatric evaluation is much more thorough: up to eight hours, with many cognitive-based questions. The goal is to investigate any changes in the brain that might impact behavior. It can also help identify the early stages of dementia and make clear if a patient is able to conduct the normal activities of daily living.
        And although a brain scan, such as a CT or an MRI, would not be able to diagnose a mental illness, it would probably uncover an organic problem such as a tumor, hydrocephalus or types of dementia including vascular or frontotemporal dementia, which in certain locations can greatly impact the behavior, memory and judgment of a patient.
        Lee believes Trump should also have a capacity exam, by force if necessary. Capacity, a medical term, is mostly synonymous with the legal term competence. A capacity exam is not precisely defined, but it is one of the most common reasons a doctor like me, a neurosurgeon, will consult with a psychiatrist: I want help in determining whether a patient has the ability to provide consent for an operation.
        The question I am typically trying to answer: Can the patient make an informed decision about having surgery? The question Lee is hoping to answer: Can the president make informed decisions about the welfare of the population?
        Follow CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter
        See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.
        At no other time in US history has a group of mental health professionals been so collectively concerned about a sitting president's dangerousness, according to Lee.
        But other than a clear-cut diagnosis of dementia, it's difficult to see how a mental health diagnosis leads to removing a president from office, no matter his fearless dominance or perceived dangerousness.