Does Republishing Articles AGAINST SODOMITES Violate My Host’s ToS?

A call to stand for Kedusha

by Rabbi Chananya Weissman

Where are our leaders?

I’m writing the article that other rabbis don’t want to write because they are afraid of backlash and controversy. I am less afraid of backlash and controversy than being challenged by the Heavenly Court for not writing it. My rabbinic colleagues should be as well, or they are in the wrong profession. Positions of leadership should not be staffed by followers, no matter how scholarly or pious they may be.

To those who find this mussar offensive enough to react to it, I ask one simple question: why does the previous paragraph offend you to the point of reacting, while gay parades through the streets of Jerusalem do not? Why does criticism from an insignificant person like me raise your ire, but the foisting of perverse relationships and gender distortions into our society, media, schools, and legal system doesn’t seem to bother you at all?

If you believe that by ignoring these threats they will eventually go away, the opposite has proven to be true. If you believe that responding to those attacking Torah norms will grant them legitimacy, they have profited far more from your cowering silence. If you are worried about losing your job, I ask you to reconsider what your job actually is. If you are afraid that you will be prosecuted simply for speaking out, I assure you that you still have that privilege, for now. Your ability to speak out has already been eroded, and criminalizing the expression of Torah-true views is definitely on the agenda of those pushing the envelope. It will be much easier to maintain this privilege if you fight for it now than it will be to regain it when it is taken from you.

You also fail 100% of the times you choose not to try.

Why should we care?

This brings me to the following Midrash Rabbah from the introduction to Eicha, section 22. Reish Lakish derives from pesukim throughout the neviim that the rampant avoda zara which was the main reason for the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash was a movement that gradually took over the nation. At first some people worshiped avoda zara in secret, and no one objected. They proceeded to worship avoda zara behind the door, and no one objected. The avoda zara movement spread to the roofs, then the gardens, then the mountain tops, then the fields, then the intersections, then the public squares, then the cities, then the main streets, and ultimately into the Holy of Holies itself.

Every time the envelope was pushed further, there was an opportunity for the leaders and concerned citizens to protest, and each time they were silent. It is for this reason that the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, our people were exiled, and we have been lamenting our fate ever since.

This idol worship “movement” bears more resemblance to the traditional-family-destruction movement than you might realize. Chazal teach us that the Jews knew full well that there was no substance to avoda zara, and they only desired it as a ploy to permit sexual immorality in public (Sanhedrin 64A). Indeed, avoda zara was often associated with redefining such behavior as a sacred act, much as today’s “progressives” rename and reframe abhorrent acts to make them sound noble. There is nothing innovative about today’s version of the movement; Koheleth teaches us that there is nothing new under the sun, and today’s gender benders and family deconstructionists are no exceptions. This sort of thing has been going on since the earliest generations.

In the times of the Beit Hamikdash the leaders looked the other way as avoda zara spread throughout the land. When it was still considered a shameful act, they dismissed the practitioners as trivial outcasts, hardly a threat worth their attention. When it emerged from the closet, they still didn’t bother addressing it. They had their shuls, their shtiebels, their Batei Midrash, shiurim to prepare and ceremonies to attend. When it became a full-fledged movement that gradually overtook society, they no longer dared protest. They huddled in their shuls, their shtiebels, and their Batei Midrash and convinced themselves that dealing with matters of national concern was not their job and not worth the consequences.

Before long the tables were turned, and those who dared object to avoda zara found themselves in the crosshairs of those who had taken over, and they suffered the consequences. Message sent to everyone else who might have a problem with it, and message received.

Not only was the Beit Hamikdash destroyed because of this, but also the 480 shuls in Jerusalem, each of which had a seminary (Midrash Eicha, introduction section 13). The rabbis who stayed silent and excused themselves from what went on in society lost their shuls and their positions anyway.

With very few exceptions, the rabbis of our time have followed this erroneous course of inaction while this hefkeirus movement has spread throughout the land, growing more bold and insatiable as the voices of protest have become few and faint. Shall we suffer the same fate again?

Responding to the accusations

Those who dare to speak out against the hefkeirus movement are typically accused of hypocrisy and hatred. These accusations should be easy to deflect, but those standing for Torah-truth tend to be ill-equipped to deal with criticism, and come across as foolish when placed on the defensive. The media has a never-ending thirst for opportunities to make observant Jews look foolish and hypocritical, and unfortunately we play into their hands time and time again.

Worse still, those who allow themselves to be interviewed by the secular press tend to be oblivious to the fact that behind the smiling faces are one-sided vultures on a mission to destroy them. Our people are seduced by the glory of the cameras and microphones, and fall right into their hands. We have to understand that these are not really interviews, but disputations against the Torah before a hostile court. They hunger for the fifteen seconds out of an hour-long interview that they can use to manipulate their audience and push their agenda. Those who cannot arm themselves with proper responses had best not provide sound bites to these sharks, and even those who can had best think carefully before indulging them.

Here are some of their favored accusations, and suggestions for how we should be responding to them. (More suggestions are welcome; this is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment.)

1. Why are you protesting this, but you don’t protest those who speak lashon hara or some other sin?

What they are really suggesting: Our motivations are not pure. Our protest is not really based on the Torah, but raw hatred. Hence, not only are we hypocrites, we are hate-filled people who should be demonized and, when they can further hijack the legal system, imprisoned. They hope to watch the religious Jew flail and stumble in response, proving that he really is a hate-filled hypocrite with no good reason to be objecting.

Response:

a) We don’t condone anyone who violates the Torah. We are protesting this group in particular because it is an actual movement. There is no movement to legitimize lashon hara, child abuse, spousal abuse, etc. While some sins, particularly lashon hara, are rampant and must be addressed through education and other communal measures, there is no movement to legitimize lashon hara, encourage those who are curious about lashon hara to explore it and join a popular movement celebrating it, or to otherwise grow and expand in the name of progress. Conversely, the hefkeirus movement has a far-reaching agenda that seeks to undercut the foundation of the Jewish people, it is organized and well-funded, and it is aggressively trying to take over our society.

b) The Chafetz Chaim is famous for addressing the sin of lashon hara. While that is far from his only contribution to the Jewish people, it was a mitzva he paid particular attention to. Does it make him a hypocrite for choosing one widespread sin to especially address over others? Would anyone call him antisocial or hypocritical for “specializing” in lashon hara when there were other communal issues that received less attention? Of course not. The very notion is absurd, and those who would make such an accusation would only do so as a sinister ploy to delegitimize voices of opposition – just as you are attempting.

2. Why does it bother you if two people love each other?

Response: What you are doing is reframing and redefining an abhorrent act by focusing on a very narrow aspect of this act and disregarding the inconvenient details. Just as selecting a 15-second sound bite from an hour-long interview to promote an agenda is technically accurate but in reality a sinister distortion of the truth, so is rebranding sexual perversity as simply “two people loving each other”. What you are attempting to do is a shameful distortion of the truth.

We have no objections in principle to people loving each other, of course not! But when these expressions of love go against the very foundations of God’s nature and God’s law, then we must object. The mere fact that an act is committed out of love does not purify the filthy or sanctify the profane. The same is true about adulterers who might love each other, or adults who might express their love for children or animals in inappropriate ways. The Torah is our moral guide, and God is the arbiter of proper boundaries for love and everything else.

3. But God made them that way. God must want them to be this way. They don’t have any choice.

Response:

This assertion is fundamentally wrong on so many levels! Let’s take it piece by piece.

a) Let us assume for the moment that there is a gene that determines sexual preference. We will do this simply for the sake of argument, as there is enormous evidence that homosexuality and other such behaviors are learned, often stemming from abusive childhoods.

To claim that because God made someone a certain way absolves them of responsibility for their behavior would mean the death of civilization. By your reasoning, every thief, every murderer, every rapist, every abuser can blame God for wiring him that way and earn the sympathy of his accusers. It’s God’s fault. God made him do it.

No society on earth, religious or secular, allows a genetic predisposition for any behavior or personality trait to be used as an excuse for behaving in an unacceptable way. There is also no other class of people that makes this argument to rationalize their behavior. So this is really nothing more than a sinister attempt to blame God – a God you don’t really believe in and whose authority you don’t accept – for the fact that you do as you please.

In so doing you have amputated the moral conscience from the human being. A sinner who feels remorse and guilt has hope for rehabilitation. A sinner who believes he has no choice, that God made him do it, nay, that God wants him to do it, no longer has hope. You act as if you are doing the sinner a favor by removing his guilt and separating him from his conscience, but you are in fact his greatest enemy, robbing him of his only chance to reconnect to his spiritual source. Your crime is greater than his. We can easily pity those who submit to their temptations, for all of us stumble at times, but how can we pity those who encourage sinners that they have no choice in the matter, and thereby to give up any hope of doing better?

b) You also assume that just because God made someone a certain way, He expects him to remain that way and follow all his natural impulses. How absurd! Were that the case, why would the Torah even need to be written?

Shall we assume that because a child is born uncircumcised that God wants him to remain that way? Shall we assume that one who is born and raised a miser shall refrain from giving charity? Shall we assume that one who has a cruel nature shall commit cruel acts, in accordance with God’s supposed will? You don’t really believe any of this, and if this is the best defense you have for those who engage in forbidden sexual acts, then you had best stop arguing on their behalf.

c) You claim they don’t have any choice. Not only does this fly in the face of the fundamental principle that all people have free choice, it is easily disproven. It is so easily disproven that you surely know it is a lie, and you don’t really believe it.

If gay people really cannot control themselves, how is it that they generally manage without any difficulty to commit their sexual acts in private, in accordance with the secular laws on decency? Why do they not impulsively commit sexual acts the very moment the urge strikes, wherever they may be and with whomever may be the target of their “love”? How do they manage to restrain themselves until they are alone together?

Clearly, they can control themselves. Someone who truly lacks any self-control had best be locked up, for they would be a danger to themselves and all they encounter.

The question, therefore, is the extent to which we can expect them to control themselves. The Torah has expressed God’s expectations on this matter quite clearly. Being that God created the sexual impulse, God created the world and all that is in it, and God has perfect knowledge, we must trust that God would not demand someone to control that which is uncontrollable, nor punish him for failing to do so. Hence, the only logical conclusion is that those with homosexual tendencies can most certainly control their behavior, they are expected to control their behavior, and they are responsible for their actions.

We do not deny that the challenge may be overwhelmingly difficult for some people, and we will lovingly support them and assist them however we can in dealing with the challenges they face. However, we can only do this for those who recognize that it is their responsibility, it is within their capabilities to rise to the challenge, and this is what God demands of them. We cannot support those who blame God for their behavior and reject any sense of personal responsibility and accountability.

4. But really, what’s the big deal what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom, so long as it is consensual and no one is being hurt?

Response:

This challenge is also based on false assumptions, and is nothing but an attempt to minimize the severity of the sin and cast us as religious predators.

First of all, as noted, this is not simply two people doing something in the privacy of their bedroom. This is a movement with a far-reaching agenda, celebrating perverse behavior, encouraging it, aggressively seeking to change social norms, hijack the education system, persecute and prosecute all those who stand in their way. If only this were two people doing something in the privacy of their bedroom! In light of this, we categorically reject your attempt to disarm us from defending all that we hold dear against this onslaught.

Second of all, as Jews we are responsible for one another. Even if this sinister movement disbanded, we would still be concerned about immorality inside the home, just as you expect us to be concerned about other sinful acts that are committed behind closed doors. Indeed, the argument that a crime was committed inside the home does not hold up in secular court. Spiritual crimes cannot be ignored simply because they are kept out of public view, especially those that by their very nature normally occur behind closed doors.

The laws of arayos are particularly emphasized by the Torah because they are the foundation of the Jewish family and all of society. You challenge us why we should care. How can we not care?

Furthermore, Chazal teach in multiple places that wherever gay marriage is enshrined in the law, God brings plagues and destruction that do not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. We find this by no other commandment. We count on God to protect us when thousands of missiles are raining down upon our cities, that they should strike empty fields instead of causing indiscriminate destruction. We pray to God to protect us from plagues and pandemics that turn every breath we take into a potential death sentence.

This same God has some expectations of us as well. We want God to watch over us and protect us both inside and outside the privacy of our homes. Why should He do so if we allow all manner of wanton behavior to be committed in public and private, contaminating His land and corrupting His people?

Indeed, to turn a blind eye to behaviors that drive God’s protection away would be truly hateful toward those who engage in these behaviors and all those affected by them – which is everyone.

Just as the family and friends of alcoholics, drug addicts, and gamblers intervene to urge their loved one to stop engaging in behavior that is harmful to himself and others, we must do the same. This intervention is not always met with appreciation – quite the contrary – but we recognize it as a loving act by people who care.

It is the same here. Our intervention is not an act of hatred, but an act of love. We care about the people engaging in these behaviors and the impact it has on others. It would be convenient in the short term to let them do as they please without any objection, but knowing the destruction this brings on them on others, we simply cannot do so. If there were no consequences to their behavior, we truly wouldn’t care, but the consequences could not be more severe. We have no moral choice but to intervene.

Conclusion

Our ancestors allowed avoda zara to spread throughout the land, and they excused themselves from objecting. Their indifference led to the destruction of all we had.

Today, while thousands of people march through our streets celebrating the obscene, the overwhelming majority of rabbis and ordinary people are silent, uninterested and unwilling to stand for what is right.

I have no position of authority, no following, and little influence beyond the persuasiveness of my words. I have nothing material to gain from writing this, have no axe to grind, and derive no particular pleasure from inviting enmity upon myself for airing unpopular views. I can easily absolve myself from speaking up about this issue, as most others have done. If it were about me, I would not write this.

But it is not about me. It is about all of us, everything we have, and everything we wish to have. Preserving what we have and achieving what we desire does not come automatically.

I call upon my rabbinic colleagues to rouse themselves and spread Torah truth without shame or fear. I call upon my brothers and sisters to object to any attempt to spread a modern version of avoda zara in our holy land.

Finally, I call upon those who have been lured into perverse lifestyles and corrupt ideologies to take responsibility for their behavior and return to the Torah.

Let us truly be – as God declares us – a kingdom of kohanim and a holy nation.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rabbi Chananya Weissman is the founder of EndTheMadness and the author of seven books, including “Go Up Like a Wall” and “How to Not Get Married: Break these rules and you have a chance”. Many of his writings are available at www.chananyaweissman.com. He is also the director and producer of a documentary on the shidduch world, Single Jewish Male, and The Shidduch Chronicles, available on YouTube. He can be contacted at admin@endthemadness.org.

Is Meta-Halacha a Fact?

May 1, 2020

How do Poskim decide? What do they take into account? And more

***Guest Hosted by Rabbi Avrohom Kahan *** Founder, Bais Din Vaad Hadin V’horaah, Rav, Congregation Khal New City

with Rabbi Moshe Kaufman – Founder and Posek in Chicago Beis Horaah –  10:14
with Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz – Rebbe in Yeshiva Rabeinu Yitzchak Elchanan and Rabbi of Beis HaKnesses of North Woodmere – 34:08
with Rabbi Shmuel Weiner – Rav of Zichron Nosson Tzvi in Ramot Eshkol, Yerushalayim –  53:47

Continue reading…

From Headlines, here.

אשרי המלך שמקלסין אותו בתוך בית המקדש

הרהורים על סגירת בתי הכנסת

מה עשה זאת אלוקים לנו? • למה אינו רוצה בתפילותינו בבית הכנסת ואפילו ברחובה של עיר? • האם הוא רוצה משהו אחר?

הרב מאיר גולדמינץ יום ראשון, י”א ניסן ה’תש”פ

כולנו כואבים את סגירת בתי הכנסת והישיבות.

מכל גזירות הקורונה, בעיני רבים הן הגזירות הקשות ביותר.

אך עם ישראל לא נכנע. תורה אנו לומדים בבית, ותפילות במניין מתקיימות באוויר הפתוח, תוך שמירה על מרחק של ארבע אמות בין איש לרעהו.

אך כעת, גם זה נאסר עלינו. נאסרת כל התקהלות ציבורית, אפילו לצורך תפילה, וגדולי ישראל מורים לנו להתפלל ביחידות בבית.

והכאב גדול, והזעקה בוקעת מלב כולנו: הרי כל כך הרבה מעלות נאמרו על אמירת “יהא שמיה רבא”, וכעת הדבר נחסר מאיתנו!

הנה הגמרא במסכת שבת דף קיט: כותבת: “אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, כל העונה אמן יהא שמיה רבא מברך בכל כחו קורעין לו גזר דינו”.

ולבנו זועק: כמה אנו זקוקים כעת שיקרע גזר דיננו!

ובגמרא בסוטה דף מט. נאמר, שהעולם מתקיים על קדושה דסידרא (ובא לציון), ועל “יהא שמיה רבא” דאגדתא (של הקדיש אחרי לימוד).

וכעת, כאשר העולם כולו בסכנה, איך נוטלים מאתנו את אמירת “יהא שמיה רבא” שמקיימת אותו?

האם לא נותר לנו אלא לחלום על אמירת “יהא שמיה רבא”, ולקוות שאנו נרמזים שנזכה לחיי העולם הבא (ברכות נז.)? מתי נוכל לממש את החלום, ולומר “יהא שמיה רבא” כראוי?

אנו פונים לקב”ה בכאב: גזרת עלינו גזירה כה קשה! רבש”ע, האם כה עלובים אנו בעיניך, עד כי מרחיק אתה אותנו מבתי הכנסת, מתפילה במניין, ואינך רוצה אפילו שנשבח אותך?

האם לך לא כואב, שאנו לא אומרים את התפילה החשובה כל כך, למען שמך הגדול?

 

כדי להעמיק בעניין, נתבונן בדברי הגמרא, מה אומר הקב”ה בעצמו, כאשר בניו עונים בבתי הכנסת “יהא שמיה רבא מבורך”?

מה הקב”ה “מרגיש”, כאשר אנו מתפללים בבתי הכנסת?

הגמרא בברכות דף ג. מלמדת לנו מעשה, שהמסר המרכזי בסופו:

תניא אמר רבי יוסי, פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בדרך, ונכנסתי לחורבה אחת מחורבות ירושלים להתפלל. בא אליהו זכור לטוב… ואמר לי, בני, מה קול שמעת בחורבה זו? ואמרתי לו, שמעתי בת קול שמנהמת כיונה, ואומרת, אוי לבנים, שבעונותיהם החרבתי את ביתי, ושרפתי את היכלי, והגליתים לבין האומות. ואמר לי, חייך וחיי ראשך, לא שעה זו בלבד אומרת כך, אלא בכל יום ויום שלש פעמים אומרת כך. ולא זו בלבד, אלא בשעה שישראל נכנסין לבתי כנסיות ולבתי מדרשות ועונין יהא שמיה הגדול מבורך, הקב”ה מנענע ראשו ואומר, אשרי המלך שמקלסין אותו בביתו כך. מה לו לאב שהגלה את בניו, ואוי להם לבנים שגלו מעל שולחן אביהם.

מסביר רש”י: “אשרי המלך שמקלסין אותו בביתו כך. אשרי כל זמן שהיה קלוס זה בתוך בית המקדש”.

כלומר, כאשר הקב”ה שומע את בניו אהוביו אומרים בבתי הכנסת “יהא שמיה רבא מבורך”, הדבר אינו גורם לו שמחה, אלא צער. צער על כך שתפילה כה חשובה נאמרת רק בבתי הכנסת, כי מן הראוי שנקלס כך את הקב”ה בביתו – בבית המקדש.

“יהא שמיה רבא מבורך” זו תפילה חשובה ונשגבה עד למאוד. ודווקא משום כך, מקומה הראוי הוא במקדש.

אמירתנו אותה בבתי הכנסת, מלבד מעלתה הגדולה, גורמת היא צער לקב”ה על העדרה ממקומה הראוי. ולכן, כאשר אנו מתפללים אותה:

הקב”ה מנענע ראשו ואומר, אשרי המלך שמקלסין אותו בביתו (כלומר, במקדשו) כך. מה לו לאב שהגלה את בניו, ואוי להם לבנים שגלו מעל שולחן אביהם.

כן, כעת בתי הכנסת נסגרו.

הקב”ה אומר לנו שאינו מעוניין בתפילותינו בבתי הכנסת. הוא אפילו אינו מעוניין שנתפלל במניין בשווקים וברחובות.

נתפלל ביחידות, ולא נאמר את התפילה הנשגבה שבקדיש.

ואולי, הקב”ה רומז לנו, שהגיע הזמן שלא נסתפק בתפילה בבתי הכנסת, אלא נעביר את השבח הנפלא הזה למקומו הראוי.

מאתר חדשות הרב הבית, כאן.

‘If You Don’t Work, You…’

Losing life and livelihood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of unemployment and all-cause mortality

Authors:
ROELFS David J., et al
Journal article citation:
Social Science and Medicine, 72(6), March 2011, pp.840-854.
Publisher:
Elsevier

Meta-analyses of data from 42 studies from developed nations revealed that unemployment is associated with a significant increase in overall mortality, especially in males and those at the beginning, or middle stage, of their careers. Future studies should continue to investigate mediating, moderate and confounding factors, especially in terms of those that may be modifiable risk factors.

Extended abstract:
AuthorROELFS David J

Losing life and livelihood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of unemployment and all-cause mortality.

Journal citation/publication details

Social Science and Medicine, 72(6), March 2011, pp.840-854.

Summary

Meta-analyses of data from 42 studies from developed nations revealed that unemployment is associated with a significant increase in overall mortality, especially in males and those at the beginning, or middle stage, of their careers. Future studies should continue to investigate mediating, moderate and confounding factors, especially in terms of those that may be modifiable risk factors.

Context

The number of unemployed people worldwide has risen steadily over the last decade, prompting an increase in research on the health effects of unemployment. Most studies have found that unemployment is associated with decreased longevity, but there is no consensus on the degree to which longevity is reduced in population sub-groups, or on the most important mediating, moderating, and confounding factors involved. The aim of this study was to focus on these factors by: evaluating the impact of pre-existing health status and health behaviours on all-cause mortality; comparing the potential moderating effect in countries with and without national health care systems, and; assessing the potential moderating roles of gender, age, time, duration of follow-up, and case-control group composition on the association between unemployment and mortality.

Methods

What sources were searched?
The electronic databases Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched in June 2005 and again in July 2008 and January 2009. Hand searches were carried out on the bibliographies of eligible publications and related articles.

What search terms/strategies were used?
Searches were performed using terms for psychological stress, stress disorders, mortality, unemployment, and a wide range of social factors. Full details of the search algorithm for Medline are presented in an appendix and details of the other search strategies are available from the authors on request. The searches were performed by a research librarian.

What criteria were used to decide on which studies to include?
Studies were included if all-cause mortality was the outcome variable, unemployment was measured at the individual level, and the results were compared between a study population that experienced unemployment and  one that did not experience unemployment at all or experienced it to a lesser extent. Searches were carried out in English but publications found to be published in other languages were included if relevant.

Who decided on their relevance and quality?
Two named authors were responsible for study selection and coding, and a third author was consulted as necessary. Study quality was assessed, using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised trials, by the same two authors working independently; the average rating for each study was used in the analysis. The study selection process is outlined in Figure 1 and includes the number of studies included at each stage.

How many studies were included and where were they from?
A total of 1,570 publications was identified from the database searches; 48 articles met the study inclusion criteria and 30 were included in the review. In all, 232 articles identified from hand search were also included. The pool of 262 publications reported on a range of psychosocial stressors; the current review used a subset of 42 articles that focused on the association between unemployment and all-cause mortality. There were eight studies from the USA, seven each from the UK and Sweden, six from Finland, two each from Denmark, Israel and Japan, and single studies from eight other countries.

How were the study findings combined?
Mortality risk estimates were extracted from the 42 included studies. Odds ratios and relative risks were converted to hazard ratios. Meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were conducted using a random effects model. Further details of statistical methods are included in the study text and appendices.

Findings of the review

In all, 235 mortality risk estimates from 42 studies, and representing more than 20 million people, were analysed. The majority were from men, and almost all were individuals of working-age at baseline.

Unemployed persons were significantly more likely to die than those in a comparator group; the hazard ratio adjusted for age and other covariates was 1.63, showing that unemployment is associated with a 63% higher risk of mortality. The average effect was higher for men than women with an increased risk of 78% compared to 37%, respectively. Unemployed people in their early or mid careers faced an increased risk of 73% and 77%, compared to 25% for those in their late careers. The risk of death was over 70% in the first ten years of follow-up but fell to 42% after that, although the trend was not significant in the final meta-regression model.

Studies that controlled for any measure of health showed no significant difference in the magnitude of risk compared to remaining studies but the hazard ratio was reduced by 24% for studies that controlled for one or more health behaviours, compared to the other studies. This suggests that health behaviour may confound the association between unemployment and mortality and also that pre-existing health behaviour and health conditions do not account for all of the relationship.

No significant difference in mortality was found between unemployed people in the USA, which has no universal health coverage, and the Scandinavian nations combined, where public health care coverage is most comprehensive, or the remaining nations. This suggests that national-level differences in policy may not affect the rate of mortality after unemployment in developed countries.

Authors’ conclusions

‘Unemployment was associated with a substantially increased risk of death among broad segments of the population. Future research should continue to focus on possible mediating, moderating, and confounding factors and on whether this risk is modifiable, either at the health system level or the individual level.’

Implications for policy or practice

None are discussed.

Subject terms:
mortality, risk, unemployment;
Content type:
systematic review
Link:
Journal home page
ISSN print:
0277-9536

Search again for:

Authors:
ROELFS David J.et al
Publisher:
Elsevier
Subject terms:
mortalityriskunemployment

From Social Care Online, here.