Showing posts with label Norway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Norway. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Rethinking Marriage and Divorce in Scandinavia


Norway rethinks its acceptance of divorce

The News Story - Norway's mission reposition: state says date nights key to good marriage

At least one of the Nordic countries — that paradise of social progressivism — seems to be rethinking its earlier disregard for the institution of marriage.  Solveig Horne, the new Minister for Children, Equality, and Social Inclusion in Norway’s Populist government, recently suggested that to curb a 40% divorce rate, Norwegian married couples should institute “date nights.”

Reports the Guardian, Horne “said the government needed to cut divorce rates – and that encouraging couples to try date nights was a good place to start.”  “It is important to find small pockets of time where parents can be lovers," said Horne, who believes that she may have saved her own marriage through date nights and other similar efforts.

From a nation that has embraced cohabitation as a social norm, such enthusiasm for restoring marriages is surprising — and welcome.  Research indicates that nearby Nordic nations would do well to imitate.

The New Research - Sweden No Paradise for Young Adults
The progressive government of Sweden promises health and well-being, as well as economic security, to all. Yet a study by social scientists in Spain and Sweden finds not all is well in the socialist paradise. Documenting a “deterioration of psychological well-being” among young adults there—a decline related to increased rates of parental divorce—the study establishes that the link between parental divorce in childhood and psychological distress in adulthood remains as robust as it was forty years ago.

Using longitudinal data from two waves (1968 and 2000) of the Swedish Level of Living Survey, Michael Gähler and Anna Garriga compare the impact of parental divorce on the psychological adjustment of 19- to 34-year-olds from two generations of Swedes (the first born between 1934 and 1949; the second between 1966 and 1981). Their findings put to rest the notion—widely advanced among progressive scholars—that as alternative family forms have become more prevalent and accepted, as they are in this European haven, the negative impact of parental divorce on children has faded.

Reviewing their descriptive findings, the researchers found that the occurrence of experiencing parental divorce or separation was four times more likely among the younger cohort of Swedes (21 percent) than the older cohort (5 percent). Likewise, while only one-fourth of the older cohort reported psychological distress as measured with six variables in 1968, nearly one-half (45 percent) of the younger cohort reported such distress in 2000. Stating the obvious, Gähler and Garriga note: “Psychological problems have increased substantially among young Swedes during recent decades.”

Using multivariate analysis, the researchers are able to place the blame for this increased angst squarely where it belongs. Controlling for gender, age, country of origin, and parental education, they established that among respondents of each generation, those who grew up in a broken home were more likely to suffer from emotional problems in adulthood than were peers from an intact family. In the older generation, the risk of emotional pathology ran twice as high among the adult children from broken homes as it did among peers from intact families. In the younger cohort, the relative risk of such pathology fell almost by half among the adult children of broken homes. However, despite this sharp fall in the relative risk, the correlation between family structure and emotional pathology remained statistically significant (p < 0.01) for both age cohorts.

Moreover, a pooled-data analysis revealed no statistically significant reduction in the magnitude of the negative parental-divorce impact on young adults between the generation of 2000 and that of 1968. As the two sociologists write: “Individuals whose parents divorced during the period 1966–1997 do not report a higher psychological well-being as 19- to 34-year-olds, compared to individuals from an intact family background, than do corresponding individuals whose parents divorced during the period 1934–1965.”

Though it may disappoint those who think government programs can level the playing field, the researchers found that the economic disparities between both family types did not lessen between 1968 and 2000, a period when the Swedish welfare system stepped up its income-redistribution efforts. To be sure, respondents from both family types reported less economic hardship in 2000, but the decline among respondents from intact families who reported economic hardship in childhood (from 13 percent to 8 percent) was relatively greater than the decline among respondents from non-intact families (from 31 percent to 21 percent).

Given these outcomes, Gähler and Garriga have every reason to lament the “deterioration of psychological well-being” among young adults in Sweden. Now if only scholars and policymakers in America would do the same, and look to the strengthening of the family—not the welfare state—as the answer.

(Source: Bryce J. Christensen and Robert W. Patterson, “New Research,” The Family in America, Fall 2012, Vol. 26 Number 3. Study: Michael Gähler and Anna Garriga, “Has the Association Between Parental Divorce and Young Adults’ Psychological Problems Changed Over Time? Evidence from Sweden, 1968–2000,” Journal of Family Issues34.6 [June 2013]: 784-808.)
This article has been republished with permission from The Family in America, a publication of The Howard Center. The Howard Center is a MercatorNet partner site.
This article is published by and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/13055#sthash.k3CKOA4H.dpuf

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Royal Euthanasia: Who Knew?


by Michael Cook | Nov 05, 2011 |
You would think that having a personal physician would guarantee excellent health care. However, the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor for involuntary manslaughter suggests that this is not necessarily the case. Prosecutors have declared that Dr Conrad Murray conducted an "obscene" pharmaceutical experiment on the pop singer. (The verdict could come next week.)
Even royalty are not exempt. One of the sensational claims made in a new book about Norway's monarchs during World War II, King Haakon VII and Queen Maud is that the Queen may have been involuntarily euthanased. Norwegian author Tor Bomann-Larsen writes in his book "Æresordet" (Word of Honour) that "Queen Maud had left home strong and healthy and would return in a coffin, without Norwegian doctors having had any connections to what happened."

The evidence for this startling claim is largely circumstantial. Maud was English, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. It was reported that she died of heart failure in 1938 in England, under the care of the most eminent and respected physician of the day, Lord Bertrand Dawson.

However Bormann-Larsen has unearthed documents which suggest that the real cause of death had been cancer. Dawson wrote to his Norwegian counterpart: "When reading this account, you will agree that the Queen's sudden death was a relief and which saved her from these last painful stages of the disease both you and I know only too well."

In the light of Dawson's personal history, these words take on a sinister, if ultimately unverifiable, significance. For he was not only a strong advocate of euthanasia, but two years before he had euthanased the King of England.

This only came to light 50 years later when Dawson's personal papers were opened. On the day of the death of George V he wrote in his diary: "I therefore decided to determine the end and injected (myself) morphia gr.3/4 and shortly afterwards cocaine gr. 1 into the distended jugular vein."

Why? It appears that the King's death was imminent. However, if he had lingered on for a few more hours, the news would have appeared first in London's sleazy tabloids. Dawson felt that it was more fitting that the death of a sovereign be announced in The Times, the British paper of record. An early death also enabled him to return to his busy practice in London. "There is no reason to think that King George V was the only patient he treated in this way," wrote J.H.R. Ramsay in the BMJ. Why not Norway's queen?

Neither Buckingham Palace nor the Royal Court in Oslo has commented on the allegations. ~ The Foreigner, Nov 4; Dagbladet, Oct 31
Retrieved November 6, 2011 from bioedge@aweber.com; on behalf of; BioEdge [bioedge@bioedge.org]