Be silly, show you care about healthcare workers' mental health in your crazy socks

Friday 6 June is CrazySocks4Docs Day – and your chance to rescue the oddest pair of socks from your drawer and show you care about those who care for us: our healthcare workers, writes Lizette Rabe.
'I write this because I am a medical student typing on a small laptop in my wardrobe in the dark. Because I am sitting on the floor with my back against the wall. I write this because I cannot ask for help.' Because, she writes, if anyone should know how ill she is, she will not get a position as an intern after her studies.
This is how a medical student in America described her experience of depression a couple of years ago. But it could just as well have been a South African medical student. When I quote her when speaking to students, nods of agreement of students in front of me prove they know exactly what I'm talking about. No one is allowed to realise the level of their mental suffering. And after they are placed, the worst is to come.
Indeed, a recent report on News24 highlighted the harsh conditions junior doctors in public hospitals have to endure, and that many are already on antidepressants.
Healthcare workers – including students in healthcare – experience some of the highest levels of stress which lead to severe mood disorders. That's exactly why the CrazySocks4Docs (CS4D) campaign started several years ago.
Dr Geoff Toogood, an Australian cardiologist who lives with severe depression, started the campaign to raise awareness that also healthcare workers can suffer from serious mental illnesses. It was after he wore a funny combination of socks one day – and then heard colleagues giggling that he had 'lost it again'. The truth is that he was quite healthy at the time, but that a puppy got hold of his socks – those mismatched socks were the first ones he could find that morning.
While he continues fighting his battle against depression, Toogood's advice to all healthcare workers – including students – is to not see their mental illnesses as a 'failure'. Instead, they should seek help. And know that they are not alone.
In South Africa, healthcare workers are working under acute stress. Some state hospitals cannot even afford food for patients, or pay doctors overtime. Our healthcare system is failing, what with 2 000 vacant posts in state hospitals. With the withdrawal of American financial support for Aids programmes, the picture gets even darker.
Highlighting a serious problem
The CS4D awareness campaign exists so that those who care for us realise that they also need to care for themselves. Besides, it is our opportunity as the public to show we #Care4OurCarers.
It may sound frivolous to wear silly socks to highlight a serious problem. But it is a way to break the silence and the stigma. According to studies, suicide rates are higher among doctors than among other groups. Suicide is even described as an 'occupational hazard' for medics.
Supplied
Research shows suicide ideation begins on medical campuses. The tragic incidence of suicide is also significantly higher among medical students than among other groups. A South African study found that a third of medical students experience suicide ideation and that more than 6% attempt suicide. Another study found that 30% of primary healthcare doctors suffer from moderate to severe depression – a condition 'that is unrecognised, stigmatised, and undertreated – one which can have fatal consequences'.
Moral distress
In 2023, another South African study found that 46.2% of doctors tested positive for burnout and 53.73% for depression.
The irony is that healthcare workers work in the 'caring professions', but seemingly often do not take care of themselves.
A professor of psychiatry has described burnout – dysphoria is the medical term – in the healthcare sector as a burning ship that is getting closer and closer. According to him healthcare workers are in 'moral distress'. Plus: Interventions should not just be a 'band-aid', or, as he refers to it, 'baby goat yoga'. Their plight requires 'continuous attention'.
Of course, the medical student's cry for help above is a catch-22 situation. They cannot show they are suffering. And then that black dog sneaks up on them; and it can destroy everything.
Toogood also referred to how he postponed his own search for help because he was afraid of the consequences. What if it became known that he, as a cardiologist, suffers from severe depression? He also experienced feelings of shame. As a doctor, he thought he must be 'bulletproof'; and comments around the condition made him feel like a failure. That he couldn't handle a demanding profession. That he had chosen the wrong profession. That he wasn't resilient enough. Even that it was his 'choice' to feel the way he did – as if a cancer patient chooses to have cancer. Or this one: 'Everyone feels 'down' or 'a little sad' sometimes.'
The importance of self-care
Awareness-raising needs to make healthcare workers realise it's okay to seek help and to support each other, says Toogood. Mental health is about the health of your brain – which affects your entire body and life. It's not something you 'imagine'.
There is still a long way to go to destigmatise mental illness in the healthcare sector to help more healthcare workers – and students – to seek help sooner.
So, dear doctor, nurse, caregiver, student: learn the importance of self-care. CS4D is the ideal opportunity. You are not supermen or superwomen.
To help students break the stigma, a 'sock selfie' competition will be held on all South Africa's medical campuses. All you have to do is post your sock selfie on social media with the hashtag #CrazySocks4Docs by 13 June, link it to the Ithemba Foundation's Facebook (IthembaFoundation1) or Instagram pages (@ithembafoundation) and ask family and friends for 'likes'. The student with the most 'likes' on each campus wins a whopping R2 000 in cash.
Simultaneously, this is our opportunity as the public to show we care for those who care for us. Find your silliest mismatched socks to wear on Friday (and don't forget to post your sock selfie on social media). It may be a light-hearted way to draw attention to a serious topic, but together we can show we #Care4OurCarers.
- Lizette Rabe is professor emeritus at Stellenbosch University and founder of the Ithemba Foundation which promotes awareness of mental health and funds research.
*Want to respond to the columnist? Send your letter or article to opinions@news24.com with your name and town or province. You are welcome to also send a profile picture. We encourage a diversity of voices and views in our readers' submissions and reserve the right not to publish any and all submissions received.
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Fox News

an hour ago

• Fox News

One Whistleblower's Fight Against Big Pharma

About one million Americans live with Multiple Sclerosis, and nearly 10,000 new cases are diagnosed every year. While scientific advances have aimed to slow MS's progression, whistleblower Lisa Pratta argues the real threat may lie within the pharmaceutical industry itself. A former drug sales rep turned U.S. Department of Justice informant, Lisa Pratta, exposed widespread corruption, including bribing doctors to prescribe drugs for profit. Now an outspoken activist, Lisa describes how she believes Big Pharma exploits the vulnerable in pursuit of revenue. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit

News24

an hour ago

• News24

New unity government, same old habits

The government of national unity is struggling to address South Africa's deep socioeconomic crises as it buckles under a toxic mix of ideological divisions, chronic indecision, and the ANC's reluctance to make tough policy choices. Further decline is inevitable unless immediate reforms are prioritised over more endless consultation, writes Khaya Sithole. Over the past 12 months, South Africa's political landscape has been buttressed between two difficult conversations regarding the nation's future. The first was ignited by the lack of a decisive victory for any single party in the general election. The consequence of the lack of a majority, forced various parties to cobble together a government of national unity (GNU) whose working mechanics remain – even to this day – dubious at best. President Cyril Ramaphosa – as the leader of the coalition – has presided over a house divided by perpetual ideological orientations and chronically overwhelmed by the scale of the problem they have been elected to solve. The scale and spectrum of the nation's problems are plenty. From poor governance across different facets of government, to a wholly inept crime and security cluster, to the persistence of unemployment and infrastructure decay, the national canvas of things that must be addressed is wide and unwieldy. Since the beginning of the year, internal divergences between the GNU have that led to litigation, delayed budgets and threats of walkouts, have only been matched by the truly bizarre fixation that a certain Donald Trump has had with the country's social and economic policy orientation. The state of the GNU today is that it is an alliance learning to work whilst the country at large is not working. In recent weeks, the publication of labour force statistics have reiterated perhaps more cogently than any other metric – the scale of the problem. From a working age population of 41.7 million and a labour force of 25 million, the ability to find employment for just over 16.8 million citizens illustrates the structural fractures of the country's economy. The consequential effects of these low employment numbers, is the reduced scope for tax revenues and the inevitable squeeze on spending priorities. The longstanding solution that the ANC has preferred over the past 15 years – borrowing to obscurity – has created concomitant effects on the intensity of spending squeezes. Debt service costs have outpaced key priority areas and, left unchecked, will keep displacing other priorities that are already squeezed for resource allocation. The boring answer to these problems – getting the right economic blueprint for the sociopolitical and socioeconomic canvas that we have – eluded the ANC until South Africans lost faith in its ability to unilaterally solve the problem. Over the past year, the question has moved to whether an alliance, armed with additional political persuasions and orientations, can turn the ship around. The importance of this deliberation is the simple – yet sometimes bizarrely unpopular fact – that decision-making about national resources, policies and strategies – comes with often painful tradeoffs. The tradeoffs required to address South Africa's unique problems, have often proved difficult for the ANC to countenance and rather than biting the bullet at critical decision-making points, the party preferred to defer to the future. Examples of this perpetual planning and consultation loop include the unresolved questions around the SRD grant versus the basic income grant; private sector liberalisation versus creating new state banks and state pharmaceutical institutions; and the long-term plight of state enterprises. In between the episodes on lethargy, public institutions declined, public resources were mismanaged and inefficiently managed; and the public purse was squeezed. The budget showdown in 2025, which led to three versions of the budget being drafted, was highly influenced by the need to start dealing with difficult and long-deferred questions about the right model that balances revenue generation and resource allocation in light of the state of the economy in its current form. The difficult reality is that in its current form – the economy is ill-suited to address these intersectional facets. The focus on the budget season was on the extraction of more resources from the current model. The problem evident in that, is that the primary canvas is one that is no longer suitable for the problems we seek to address. Whilst the finance minister was forced to abandon his preferred method of addressing longstanding issues with a once-off injection of pain through a VAT increase – or so he wanted us to believe – the difficulties that created the issue remain unresolved. The wide cleavage between the resources we can marshal and the priorities we wish to fund, is only getting wider. Options at narrowing it – from repurposing the state bureaucracy through incentivised attritions or simply spending less than necessary on frontline services – come with consequences that very few have mapped out yet and since they are issues that require difficult choices; they are issues that fall within the scope of the decisions that the ANC is historically reluctant to confront. And for as long as the ANC is at the heart of the GNU and remains fixated on its old habits of perpetual consultation and peripheral implementation, it is unclear how its fellow bedfellows can get it to accelerate the pace of addressing difficult issues. The one-year anniversary of the GNU has coincided with the decision of the president to initiate a National Dialogue whose purpose is said to be 'an opportunity to forge a new social compact for the development of our country, a compact that will unite all South Africans, with clear responsibilities for different stakeholders, government, business, labour, civil society, men and women, communities and citizens.' In addition, the National Dialogue 'is anticipated that the National Dialogue will drive progress towards our Vision 2030 and lay the foundation for the next phase of South Africa's National Development Plan.' Having been instrumental in the development of the current national blueprint – the National Development Plan – the President would be well versed in the mechanics and complications of trying to find any blueprint that speaks to the various persuasions of all stakeholders and maps out the right priorities for the nation. The problem of the National Development Plan, is that the government – led by the ANC – conspired to reduce it to a document whose habit of missing key milestones has become the one aspect of it where there is universal consensus. Given what we know about the limitations we have in managing multi-sectoral and intersectional national projects and priorities, it might be prudent to find the narrow range of issues and priorities that have the greatest multiplier effect on everything else we need to fix. The obvious dilemma is that whatever we end up signing for, will require resources, and we now know that in the absence of an economic fix, none of these resources will materialise. Within the spectrum of priorities, it is time to acknowledge that an economic and skills blueprint are priority issues that will aid in addressing the immediate issues – finding resources to fund everything else – and investing in the future social and economic blueprint of the nation. The old habits of trying to please everyone and turning out a document that is merely an equal opportunity policy of appeasement must for once yield to the difficult questions of what must be done immediately in order to arrest the national decline. Any model that traps us all into another consultation loop and deferral of difficult decisions will not only be a monumental waste of resources but for President Ramaphosa – the possibility of championing a National Development Plan, a government of national unity, and a National Dialogue that still all leave the country in socioeconomic and strategy limbo, will be blight on his legacy that will be hard to ignore.

Atlantic

2 hours ago

• Atlantic

Right Move, Wrong Team

The rulers of Iran bet their regime on the 'Trump always chickens out' trade. They refused diplomacy. They got war. They chose their fate. They deserve everything that has happened to them. Only the world's most committed America-haters will muster sympathy for the self-destructive decision-making of a brutal regime. Striking Iran at this time and under these circumstances was the right decision by an administration and president that usually make the wrong one. An American president who does not believe in democracy at home has delivered an overwhelming blow in defense of a threatened democracy overseas. If a single night's action successfully terminates Trump's Iran war, and permanently ends the Iran nuclear bomb program, then Trump will have retroactively earned the birthday parade he gave himself on June 14. If not, this unilateral war under a president with dictatorial ambitions may lead the United States to some dark and repressive places. Trump did the right thing, but he did that right thing in the wrongest possible way: without Congress, without competent leadership in place to defend the United States against terrorism, and while waging a culture war at home against half the nation. Trump has not put U.S. boots on the ground to fight Iran, but he has put U.S. troops on the ground for an uninvited military occupation of California. Iran started this war. In August 2002, courageous Iranian dissidents revealed to the world an Iranian nuclear enrichment plant in Natanz. Suddenly, all those chanted slogans about destroying Israel moved from the realm of noise and slogans to the realm of intent and plan. Over the next 23 years, Iran invested an enormous amount of wealth and know-how in advancing its project to annihilate the state of Israel. Iran deterred Israel from attacking the nuclear project by deploying missiles and supporting terror groups. After the October 7 terror attacks on Israel, Iran gradually lost its deterrence. Israel defeated Hamas and Hezbollah militarily, and the Iranian-allied regime in Syria collapsed. But Iran did not change its strategy. It was Iran that initiated the direct nation-to-nation air war with Israel. After Israel struck an Iranian compound in Syria in April 2024, Iran fired 300 ballistic missiles into Israel, a warning of what to expect once Iran completed its nuclear program. If the war launched by the rulers of Iran has brought only defeat and humiliation to their country, that does not make those rulers victims of anybody else's aggression. A failed aggressor is still the aggressor. Now Americans face the consequences of Trump's intervention to thwart Iran's aggression. Some of those consequences may be welcome. The attack on Iran is the very first time that President Trump has ever done anything Vladimir Putin did not want him to do. That's one of the reasons I personally doubted he would act strongly against Iran. Maybe Trump can now make a habit of defying Putin—and at last provide the help and support that Ukraine's embattled democracy needs to win its war of self-defense against Russian aggression. The strike on Iran was opposed by the reactionary faction within the Trump administration—and in MAGA media—that backs America's enemies against America's allies. It's very wrong to call this faction 'anti-war.' They want a war against Mexico. They have pushed the United States on the first steps to that war by flying drones over Mexican territory without Mexican permission. This faction is defined not by what it rejects, but by what it admires (Putin's Russia above all) and by who it blames for America's troubles (those it euphemistically condemns as 'globalists'). That reactionary faction lost this round of decision-making. Perhaps now they will lose more rounds. But if some of the domestic consequences of this strike are welcome, others are very dangerous. Presidents have some unilateral war-making power. President Obama did not ask Congress to authorize his air campaign in Libya in 2011. The exact limits of that power are blurry, defined by politics, not law. But Trump's strike on Iran has pushed that line further than it has been pushed since the end of the Vietnam War—and the pushing will become even more radical if Iranian retaliation provokes more U.S. strikes after the first wave. Trump has abused the president's power to impose emergency tariffs, and created a permanent system of revenue-collection without Congress. He asserts that he can ignore rights of due process in immigration cases. He has defied judicial orders to repatriate persons wrongfully sent to a foreign prison paid for by U.S. taxpayer funds. He is ignoring ethics and conflicts of interest laws to enrich himself and his family on a post-Soviet scale—much of that money flowing from undisclosed foreign sources. He has intimidated and punished news organizations for coverage he did not like by abusing regulatory powers over their corporate parents. He has deployed military units to police California over the objections of the elected authorities in that state. This is a president who wants and wields arbitrary power the way no U.S. president has ever done in peacetime. And now it's wartime. Americans have a right and proper instinct to rally around their presidents in time of war. But in the past, that rallying has been met by the equal instincts of presidents to rise above party and faction when the whole nation must be defended. Trump's decision to brief Republican leaders of Congress before the Iran strike, but not their Democratic counterparts, was not merely a petty discourtesy—it confirmed his divisive and authoritarian methods of leadership and warned of worse to come. It is not confidence-inspiring that Pete Hegseth leads the Pentagon. Or that Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Kristi Noem are in charge of protecting Americans from Iranian retaliatory terrorism. Or that Tulsi Gabbard is coordinating national intelligence. Or that enemy-of-Ukraine J.D. Vance is poised to inherit all. Trump exercises national power, but he cannot and will not act as a national leader. He sees himself—and has always acted as—the leader of one part of a nation against the rest: the wartime leader of Red America in its culture war against Blue America, as my former Atlantic colleague Ron Brownstein has written. Now this president of half of America has commanded all of America into a global military conflict. With luck, that conflict will be decisive and brief. Let's hope so.