Great video... and so true!
12.15.2007
12.06.2007
Series Post: My interest in all things Birth
I found this on the FDA's website (US Food & Drug Administration):
By Carol Rados
It's risky business taking pictures of unborn babies when there's no medical need to do so. That's the word from the Food and Drug Administration, which is concerned about companies trying to turn an important medical procedure into a prenatal portrait tool.
Facilities with captivating names such as Fetal Fotos, Peek-a-Boo, Womb with a View, and Baby Insight are popping up in strip malls and shopping centers all over the country. And they're promoting "keepsake videos" that use the latest ultrasound technology to produce high-resolution three-dimensional and four-dimensional (moving) images showing the surface anatomy of babies developing in the womb. The lure of this burgeoning industry is that parents-to-be get to see characteristics like facial features, hair, and even the baby's sex, and often they can count fingers and toes before their baby is born. Some women even have videos made at various stages of their baby's growth. And the videos are often being marketed as a prized addition to collections of childhood memorabilia.
As compelling as these sneak previews may be, the FDA is warning women about the potential hazards of getting keepsake videos. The agency also is warning companies against creating them for entertainment purposes. While ultrasound has been around for many years, expectant women and their families need to know that the long-term effects of repeated ultrasound exposures on the fetus are not fully known. In light of all that remains unknown, having a prenatal ultrasound for non-medical reasons is not a good idea. Read the rest of the article...
And this from the FDA, who say just about everything controversial is safe!
-nW
FDA Cautions Against Ultrasound 'Keepsake' Images
By Carol Rados
It's risky business taking pictures of unborn babies when there's no medical need to do so. That's the word from the Food and Drug Administration, which is concerned about companies trying to turn an important medical procedure into a prenatal portrait tool.
Facilities with captivating names such as Fetal Fotos, Peek-a-Boo, Womb with a View, and Baby Insight are popping up in strip malls and shopping centers all over the country. And they're promoting "keepsake videos" that use the latest ultrasound technology to produce high-resolution three-dimensional and four-dimensional (moving) images showing the surface anatomy of babies developing in the womb. The lure of this burgeoning industry is that parents-to-be get to see characteristics like facial features, hair, and even the baby's sex, and often they can count fingers and toes before their baby is born. Some women even have videos made at various stages of their baby's growth. And the videos are often being marketed as a prized addition to collections of childhood memorabilia.
As compelling as these sneak previews may be, the FDA is warning women about the potential hazards of getting keepsake videos. The agency also is warning companies against creating them for entertainment purposes. While ultrasound has been around for many years, expectant women and their families need to know that the long-term effects of repeated ultrasound exposures on the fetus are not fully known. In light of all that remains unknown, having a prenatal ultrasound for non-medical reasons is not a good idea. Read the rest of the article...
And this from the FDA, who say just about everything controversial is safe!
-nW
8.02.2007
From one to another...
I finished reading the last Harry Potter book the other day, and man did it make me feel like a little kid. It was great. The last hundred pages keep me so engaged, I could hardly stay in the same place for more than a few minutes... Weeeeee!
Anywho, now that I've finished my magical adventure, I started another book tonight, The Intimate Merton, by Thomas Merton. It's a collection of writings from his journals. I've yet to get through the intro but I wanted to copy down something that the editors just quoted...
"In his desire to master everything by writing about it, Merton learned that God was mastering him. With his sins always before him, he still hoped in the promise of God's mercy. Even on the bleakest nights, when his mouth turned mute and his heart turned to stone, his ears were always awake in the dark to Love's voice, which bid him welcome."
<><> <><> <><> <><><>
That quote strikes something deep down w/in me. Even in my failings, in my sin, my ignoring of God, there's always a part of me secretly longing for Him, longing for his rescue of my soul. And as he says of Love's voice, it is always sweet and welcoming. Why did I ever leave?
Blessings,
nick
Anywho, now that I've finished my magical adventure, I started another book tonight, The Intimate Merton, by Thomas Merton. It's a collection of writings from his journals. I've yet to get through the intro but I wanted to copy down something that the editors just quoted...
"In his desire to master everything by writing about it, Merton learned that God was mastering him. With his sins always before him, he still hoped in the promise of God's mercy. Even on the bleakest nights, when his mouth turned mute and his heart turned to stone, his ears were always awake in the dark to Love's voice, which bid him welcome."
<><> <><> <><> <><><>
That quote strikes something deep down w/in me. Even in my failings, in my sin, my ignoring of God, there's always a part of me secretly longing for Him, longing for his rescue of my soul. And as he says of Love's voice, it is always sweet and welcoming. Why did I ever leave?
Blessings,
nick
5.27.2007
sharing a friend's post...
Forced to Drink the Kool-Aid
"...I feel compelled to write this week because I am troubled by a story unfolding in Virginia. A sixteen-year-old with Hodgkins Lymphoma made a decision with his family that he didn’t want anymore chemotherapy for his condition. He made his decision after undergoing the recommended treatment. He found chemotherapy to be an assault on his body — an assault he didn’t want to experience again. He also wanted to avoid radiation as it has significant side effects. Having tried the conventional medical approach for his condition, when he turned up with active cancer again, he wanted to try something else. His parents agreed that if that’s what he wanted, that’s what they’d do.
Unfortunately, the state doesn’t believe that this young man, whose name is Abraham Cherrix, and his family have the right to make such a decision. Someone turned the family in for neglect, citing the parents’ willingness to allow Abraham to choose an alternative form of care (diet and herbal supplements) for his cancer. The judge has now agreed and Abraham is to report to the hospital with his parents who are to sign their legal consent for him to undergo the treatment recommended by the doctors. The parents are obviously appealing to a higher court...but this is frightening nonetheless.
Why? Because anyone who knows about health care, and especially cancer care, knows that the treatments are often terrible — they produce both short and long-term side effects that impact quality of life. Additionally, there is no guarantee that even if the patient does every single thing that the doctor recommends s/he won’t turn up with cancer again. I’m not suggesting that there is more scientific support for the approach Abraham and his parents have chosen than for conventional medical approaches. I’m suggesting that when the options for treatment are so terrible, so invasive, and the outcome is uncertain, it seems wildly inappropriate for the government to tell a family what it must do...These parents are neglectful for listening to their son’s pain and honoring his own wishes? These parents are neglectful for choosing something other than the treatment that didn’t work the first time? How many times will the state require this young man to be poisoned? (Make no mistake, chemotherapy kills everything — no distinguishing between the good and the bad.)
What is the state’s interest and why does it override that of the young man and his family? I am reminded of Stanley Hauerwas’ presentation at a conference I attended a few years ago. It was called “Why We Are Afraid to Die in America.” Hauerwas argued that our approach to health care in the United States demonstrates a belief that we can live forever, and a demand that everyone want to do so. He also argued that a christian recognizes the reality that we don’t live forever and that our hope is elsewhere than in heroic measures. A fine line to walk, I think, but an important distinction...This young man and his family gave conventional medicine a try. It was unsuccessful and produced side effects they were unwilling to tolerate. Together, they came to a decision about how to proceed, and now they are being told they don’t have the right to do so...They want to put their hope in something other than the conventional medical approach — the court has said they cannot.
I wonder where the line will ultimately be drawn on issues such as these. How effective does the treatment have to be in order for the courts to mandate it? At what age do a person’s wishes for his/her body become meaningful in our court system? What if the court-ordered treatment produces terrible effects (quite likely) that result in some level of disability? Shouldn’t the court, the state, have responsibility then for damages? What if Abraham Cherrix continues to refuse? Will they put him in restraints before they stick the needle in him? Who will comfort him when he is sick from the drugs? The state?" - - Ashley Cleveland
"...I feel compelled to write this week because I am troubled by a story unfolding in Virginia. A sixteen-year-old with Hodgkins Lymphoma made a decision with his family that he didn’t want anymore chemotherapy for his condition. He made his decision after undergoing the recommended treatment. He found chemotherapy to be an assault on his body — an assault he didn’t want to experience again. He also wanted to avoid radiation as it has significant side effects. Having tried the conventional medical approach for his condition, when he turned up with active cancer again, he wanted to try something else. His parents agreed that if that’s what he wanted, that’s what they’d do.
Unfortunately, the state doesn’t believe that this young man, whose name is Abraham Cherrix, and his family have the right to make such a decision. Someone turned the family in for neglect, citing the parents’ willingness to allow Abraham to choose an alternative form of care (diet and herbal supplements) for his cancer. The judge has now agreed and Abraham is to report to the hospital with his parents who are to sign their legal consent for him to undergo the treatment recommended by the doctors. The parents are obviously appealing to a higher court...but this is frightening nonetheless.
Why? Because anyone who knows about health care, and especially cancer care, knows that the treatments are often terrible — they produce both short and long-term side effects that impact quality of life. Additionally, there is no guarantee that even if the patient does every single thing that the doctor recommends s/he won’t turn up with cancer again. I’m not suggesting that there is more scientific support for the approach Abraham and his parents have chosen than for conventional medical approaches. I’m suggesting that when the options for treatment are so terrible, so invasive, and the outcome is uncertain, it seems wildly inappropriate for the government to tell a family what it must do...These parents are neglectful for listening to their son’s pain and honoring his own wishes? These parents are neglectful for choosing something other than the treatment that didn’t work the first time? How many times will the state require this young man to be poisoned? (Make no mistake, chemotherapy kills everything — no distinguishing between the good and the bad.)
What is the state’s interest and why does it override that of the young man and his family? I am reminded of Stanley Hauerwas’ presentation at a conference I attended a few years ago. It was called “Why We Are Afraid to Die in America.” Hauerwas argued that our approach to health care in the United States demonstrates a belief that we can live forever, and a demand that everyone want to do so. He also argued that a christian recognizes the reality that we don’t live forever and that our hope is elsewhere than in heroic measures. A fine line to walk, I think, but an important distinction...This young man and his family gave conventional medicine a try. It was unsuccessful and produced side effects they were unwilling to tolerate. Together, they came to a decision about how to proceed, and now they are being told they don’t have the right to do so...They want to put their hope in something other than the conventional medical approach — the court has said they cannot.
I wonder where the line will ultimately be drawn on issues such as these. How effective does the treatment have to be in order for the courts to mandate it? At what age do a person’s wishes for his/her body become meaningful in our court system? What if the court-ordered treatment produces terrible effects (quite likely) that result in some level of disability? Shouldn’t the court, the state, have responsibility then for damages? What if Abraham Cherrix continues to refuse? Will they put him in restraints before they stick the needle in him? Who will comfort him when he is sick from the drugs? The state?" - - Ashley Cleveland
3.31.2007
Desert Pete
I was travellin' West a buckskin on my way to a cattle run
Cross a little cactus desert under a hot blisterin' sun
I was thirsty down to my toenails, stopped to rest me on a stump
But I tell ya I just couldn't believe it when I saw that water pump
I took it to be a mirage at first, it'll fool a thirsty man
Then I saw a note stuck in a bakin' powder can
“This pump is old”, the note began, “but she works so give'r a try”
“I put a new sucker washer in ‘er, you may find the leather dry”
“You've got to prime the pump, you must have faith and believe”
“You've got to give of yourself ‘fore you're worthy to receive”
“Drink all the water you can hold, wash your face, cool your feet”
“Leave the bottle full for others, Thank You kindly, Desert Pete”
“Yeah, you'll have to prime the pump, work that handle like there's a fire”
“Under that rock you'll find some water I left in a bitters jar”
“Now there's just enough to prime it with so dontcha go drinkin' first”
“You just pour it in and pump like mad, buddy, you'll quench your thirst”
“You've got to prime the pump, you must have faith and believe”
“You've got to give of yourself ‘fore you're worthy to receive”
“Drink all the water you can hold, wash your face, cool your feet”
“Leave the bottle full for others, Thank You kindly, Desert Pete”
Well I found that jar and I tell ya nothin' was ever prettier to my eye
And I was tempted strong to drink it, cuz that pump looked mighty dry
But the note went on “have faith my friend, there's water down below”
“You got to give until you get—I'm the one who ought to know”
So I poured in the jar and I started pumpin' and I heard a beautiful sound
Of water bubblin' and splashin' up outta that hole in the ground
I took off my shoes and I drunk my fill of that cool refreshing treat
I thank the Lord and thank the pump and I thank old Desert Pete
“You've got to prime the pump, you must have faith and believe”
“You've got to give of yourself ‘fore you're worthy to receive”
“Drink all the water you can hold, wash your face, cool your feet”
“Leave the bottle full for others, Thank You kindly, Desert Pete”
“Drink all the water you can hold, wash your face, cool your feet”
“Leave the bottle full for others, Thank You kindly, Desert Pete”
:::::::
I heard a guy make a reference to this song in light of how we live our lives. Just as there was temptation from the thirsty man to drink the bottle of water he found burried by the pump instead of using it to prime the pump and gain vast quantities of water (and also the temptation to take the priming water bottle and screw everyone else), there is the temptation in each person's life to spend our lives for our own desires, pleasure, amusements, etc... On the contrary, Jesus says that if we want a truly satisfied life, then we should empty ourselves to Him (which would be to serve and love others as we love ourselves).
As Jim Elliot said, "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain that which he cannot lose." (meaning his life)
Blessings,
nick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)