05/13/2010
I recently read a news report from Kansas City about a 5 foot tall, 275 pound woman who needed an MRI exam.' The problem is that MRI tables often can't support heavier patients and the tubes into which the patient must be moved generally can't fit someone of her girth.You don't usually see body scanners that will accommodate bigger patients, because they don't provide the clearest images, and those that have large openings increase the possibility of the magnetic field dissipating into the room.The obese woman in question reported that someone at the hospital suggested that she could go to the zoo for an MRI as they accommodate larger critters.' The suggestion was made to "help" and not to "insult."' According to news sources, the woman said:
"I thought, I know I'm big, but I'm not as big as an elephant.' And my husband got mad."
Sadly, she has a tumor on her spine, has had multiple surgeries, and now has partial paralysis. This event is purported to have happened two years ago.I've heard that there are some court cases to force airlines not to charge obese people for the two seats it takes to carry them.' This is yet another situation where no responsibility is taken for being obese.' What is it with our thinking that no matter what irresponsibility we demonstrate, the world is supposed to accommodate us?There is a difference between making access for folks who are in wheelchairs and making access for people who simply abuse their bodies and then demand that the consequences of their actions be borne by others.This woman eventually did find a place with an "open" MRI machine.' I hope her treatment is successful and she takes from this experience some sense of purpose in getting her body more healthy, rather than anger that not everything will adapt to her.' She has some responsibility too.
More >>
|
Tags: Eat Less-Move More, Health, Obesity, Personal Responsibility, Sex, Sexuality
|
PERMALINK |
EMAIL | PRINT | RSS |
|
|
|
Tags: Attitude, Behavior, Character, Courage, Conscience, Character-Courage-Conscience, Civility, Health, Morals, Ethics, Values, Personal Responsibility, Values
|
PERMALINK |
EMAIL | PRINT | RSS |
|
|
|
|
05/13/2010
There have been a number of lawsuits over the years concerning the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) during relatively casual sex in relatively casual relationships.' The New York Post published a story about a forty-seven-year old attorney who filed suit against his wife of twenty-two years, charging that her straying had left him with Herpes Simplex virus 2, an STD that caused him to experience "pain, suffering, emotional, mental, psychological and physical injuries and the loss of enjoyment of life."I guess he figured that if he had it, and had sex with her, that she'd contract it and then he'd blame it on her during their estrangement so that he could leverage his position with respect to collecting back monies he'd have to give her in a divorce.' I guess that's it...because she filed papers last month with the results of her blood test which was negative for HSV-2, commonly known as genital herpes, with which the lawyer husband says he's infected.Nonetheless, the question still remains: who is responsible for the transmission of an STD in a casual or dating relationship?' Is it the full responsibility of the infected individual to reveal in advance of any sexual activity that they have the communicable disease?' Or, is it the responsibility of each and every individual to not rely on the kindness of strangers?I believe that anyone who knowingly transmits an STD should be prosecuted criminally and sued civilly.' The severity of the consequences should match the seriousness of the STD.' Some of the STDs are curable with medication; others are simply controlled with medication; some may lead to a higher incidence of cancer; and some are a virtual death sentence.'Considering these factors, people who don't ask - much less are foolish enough to believe it when they're told, "No, I don't have anything," - who don't take precautions such as condoms (which aren't foolproof), who have multiple sexual partners, and who don't value the monogamous commitment of marriage after both people have complete physicals and blood tests to ensure a "clean slate," have to take some responsibility onto themselves for their foolishness.It's like this: when you let your dog loose off the leash and it runs into the streets to be run over by a speeding car...the car actually killed the dog; but you put the dog in the place where it could happen.' That is shared liability and shared moral obligation.DO ask, and DO tell; and be truthful.
More >>
|
Tags: Health, Marriage, Sex, Social Issues, Values
|
PERMALINK |
EMAIL | PRINT | RSS |
|
|
05/13/2010
I was at first stunned - then not - to read that research from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health points toward white, middle aged women as being particularly prone to depression leading to suicides.' I'm a middle aged, white, female baby-boomer, so this caught my attention, especially since the researchers seemed clueless as to what would be behind this spike.Having talked to women for over thirty years on the radio, I think I know.' We middle-aged, white females from the sixties were sold a bill of goods by the originally well-meaning women's movement.' The bits about equal pay for equal experience and competence were kind of a no-brainer.' The bits about men, marriage, sex, babies, and home-making being negatives in our lives - because, of course, they were oppressive and demeaning - also seemed obvious at the time.' So, with the introduction of consciousness raising (that is, learning to mistrust, not need, and even loathe men) and women's studies programs (which conceived of elevating women by making them perpetually angry victims), we were on our way to a collision course to today: depression and suicide.Women who dared to buck the feminista trend and actually marry and make babies, kept close to the sisterhood by not being very sexual, loving, or sensitive to their husbands - or just kept them as shack-up studs - and put their babies in day-care.' They did all of that so they could work at their careers full-time and have financial power.' The thinking was, what if "he" took off with some bimbo or died on them?' Money is power and safety!' They also did all of that so they could feel like "somebody."' I still have women tell me today that they only allow themselves to feel good when they have a successful career; the loving appreciation of a husband and children are swept aside like so much emotional dandruff.'These white, middle-aged, female baby-boomers starved themselves of the fulfilling emotional meal of actually being a hands-on mom in addition to being their husband's girlfriend.' Many of them are now divorced, and their adult children hardly spend time any time with them.' The kids learned how to spend time without Mom because she was so "busy, busy, busy" while they were growing up.I'm not surprised that so many of these women are depressed and suicidal.' Feministas lied to them that they could and would "have it all:" they only had to sacrifice the loveliest parts of their womanhood.I'm not among them, because I caught myself entering that depressive state.' I've been there...done that.' Saved by a marriage and a child!
More >>
|
Tags: Children, Feminism, Health, Marriage, Motherhood, Motherhood-Fatherhood, Parenting, Social Issues, Women's Point of View
|
PERMALINK |
EMAIL | PRINT | RSS |
|
|
|
|