Questões de Concursos: FIMCA

Dia mundial de prevenção de suicídio, 10 de setembro. De um tempo para cá todo ano voltamos ao tema. Mas ainda estamos encontrando o tom.

Após uma vida inteira ignorando o assunto os meios de comunicação resolveram finalmente abordá-lo. Mas, presos aos modelos de campanhas de conscientização habituais focaram-se nos números, taxas de crescimento, histórias individuais, entrevistas com pessoas afetadas pela questão. Tudo muito importante para que a sociedade fique mais esclarecida sobre o panorama local, nacional e até mundial sobre o suicídio. Mas inócuo para prevenção de fato.

O que é prevenção, afinal? A prevenção em saúde se dá em três níveis:

Prevenção primária: estratégias para evitar o adoecimento, retirando fatores de risco.

Prevenção secundária: detecção precoce de pessoas acometidas por um problema, se possível antes de ele se manifestar.

Prevenção terciária: intervenções para evitar sequelas depois que o problema acontece.

De trás para frente, quando se fala em suicídio, não é possível fazer prevenção terciária, a não ser tratar das feridas emocionais de quem ficou (na chamada pósvenção).

E o que seria a prevenção secundária nesses casos? Evitar que pessoas já com intenções ou planos suicidas cometam o ato. Tal situação normalmente se dá quando existe um transtorno mental que agrava uma situação de crise – por estar doente ela não vê outra saída que não a morte. É preciso então dissuadi-las disso, mostrando que o ser humano consegue superar qualquer coisa se tiver ajuda suficiente e se suas emoções não estiverem adoecidas. Não adianta apresentar números, contar histórias tristes. Ninguém nessa situação vai pensar “Puxa, quanta gente já se matou, né? Melhor eu não fazer isso”. Ao contrário, tais dados podem até normalizar para elas esse comportamento. Faremos prevenção se ensinarmos todo mundo a detectar sintomas de depressão, a diferenciar uso e dependência de substâncias; se combatermos o preconceito com psiquiatria, psicologia, estimulando em quem precisa a busca de ajuda e apresentando caminhos para atendimento em crises (como o CVV – fone 188). Se a sociedade inteira compreender que essas são formas eficazes de se buscar saídas para situações aparentemente insolúveis e insuportáveis, poderemos prevenir alguns casos.

Evidentemente o ideal é que a gente não chegue a ponto de considerar seriamente o suicídio. Como já vimos que isso normalmente ocorre quando crises parecem insuportáveis e insolúveis em função do adoecimento emocional, esse último deveria ser o alvo da prevenção primária. É ingênuo achar ser possível prevenir crises. Mas evitar o adoecimento é um alvo a ser perseguido com afinco. Atividade física regular, sono de qualidade, alimentação saudável, desenvolvimento de vínculos afetivos, criação de uma rede de suporte, tudo isso – de preferência ao mesmotempo – oferece boa proteção ao adoecimento ou ao agravamento dos transtornos mentais. Falar disso – que aparentemente nada tem a ver com o suicídio – talvez seja uma das formas mais importantes de prevenir novos casos.

Ah, e apesar de óbvio, vale a pena lembrar: não adianta voltarmos a esses temas apenas ano que vem, ok?

Já percebeu como diante das mesmas situações – mesmo as dramáticas – tem gente que desmorona, outros sofrem por um tempo mas seguem em frente, e ainda há quem não se abale? Isso mostra que boa parte do problema diante de eventos negativos não está neles, mas em nós – como nossa história, nossos pensamentos, pressupostos e crenças interferem na forma com que lidamos com as adversidades. Em O poder da resiliência (Sextante, 2019) o psicólogo Rick Hanson se uniu ao consultor Forrest Hanson para mostrar, baseado em pesquisas científicas e exemplos práticos, como resiliência vai além da capacidade de absorver os golpes e ficar em pé (o que já é bastante). Ela também coopera para termos mais qualidade de vida e um bem-estar efetivo. Habilidades que vêm muito a calhar tanto para prevenção primária como para secundária e pósvenção.

(Audrey B. Champagne.)

Science education in the United States of America is in the midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented because the movement is driven by national standards developed with support from the federal government. The standards for science education are redefining the character of science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the education in most countries of the world, education of students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United States is not the responsibility of the federal government but is controlled by the individual states. States have the right toregulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all students are expected to learn, the structural organization of programs across all grades, the structural organization of the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal government to exercise control over matters that are the responsibility of the states. The federal government's involvement in education has been to identify matters of national priority and to provide funds and other resources to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and its national safety were threatened, science education was identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the federal government's initiatives was to encourage and upgrade the science education of young people who would become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the science education of a relatively few students. The current situation is quite different.

The federal government's underwriting of the development of national standards for education has the potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the states to the federal government. This initiative, supported by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the poor quality of education across the nation and with the effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world economy. The goal of the standards movement from the prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to strengthen education so that the schools will produce graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to be productive in the workplace.

The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly motivated and highly intelligent students survived science courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers, are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is taught? While historically the answer to the question may well have been survival, the national standards are based on the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter people.

(Audrey B. Champagne.)

Science education in the United States of America is in the midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented because the movement is driven by national standards developed with support from the federal government. The standards for science education are redefining the character of science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the education in most countries of the world, education of students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United States is not the responsibility of the federal government but is controlled by the individual states. States have the right toregulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all students are expected to learn, the structural organization of programs across all grades, the structural organization of the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal government to exercise control over matters that are the responsibility of the states. The federal government's involvement in education has been to identify matters of national priority and to provide funds and other resources to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and its national safety were threatened, science education was identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the federal government's initiatives was to encourage and upgrade the science education of young people who would become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the science education of a relatively few students. The current situation is quite different.

The federal government's underwriting of the development of national standards for education has the potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the states to the federal government. This initiative, supported by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the poor quality of education across the nation and with the effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world economy. The goal of the standards movement from the prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to strengthen education so that the schools will produce graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to be productive in the workplace.

The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly motivated and highly intelligent students survived science courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers, are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is taught? While historically the answer to the question may well have been survival, the national standards are based on the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter people.