Health – Page 72 – Feministe

Who’s your daddy?

Do children conceived via sperm donation have a right to know who their father is? Slate editor David Plotz takes on the potential ban on gay sperm donors, saying that donor anonymity is a more important issue. He’s right that it’s ridiculous to ban sperm donations by any man who has had sex with another man, especially when the screening process for sperm is so thorough. And while he’s not necessarily arguing that children have a right to know who their biological parents are, he seems to be leading the reader in that direction — and I’m not sure that’s one that I’m comfortable going in.

Donating body fluids or eggs, or even giving birth to a child, doesn’t make a parent. If a guy donates his sperm, or if a woman gives up her child for adoption, they don’t give up their rights to privacy. It’s tricky, because I believe that children have rights too, but I’m not sure that their right to know who their birth parents are trumps the adults’ rights to maintain anonymity. Thoughts?

Men and Day Spas

The New York Times has an article today about men attending day spas. While it’s mostly fluff, it’s based, of course, on all the differences between male spa-goers (of which there are very few) and female.

Only 15 percent of the guests at Rancho La Puerta are men, and the educational programs are heavy on topics like menopause and elder care.

Apparently elder care, like menopause, is a biological feminine obligation.

As for destination spas, which focus on health, fitness and nutrition, men cluster at places that offer high-testosterone activities, first-rate golf or permit weekend visits.

I’m not sure what “high-testosterone activities” are. Peeing standing up? Golfing, apparently?

The dining room chatter can be embarrassing in subject and long-winded in style for the tastes of many men, especially those who consider conversation to be purely utilitarian rather than inherently pleasurable and think women talk too much.

No comment. But if I were male, I think I’d find that more than a little insulting.

The spa has made a few concessions for men. Their health club has a television set, which the women’s doesn’t, and it is generally tuned to sports or stock market reports. Until 1 p.m., three hours behind East Coast time and the close of the New York Stock Exchange, men toggle between the TV room and the adjoining Internet center.

Because men who attend spas are so hard-working that they follow the NYSE even when they aren’t in the office. Because that’s what businessmen do. And women… well, they usually just stay home anyway, right? Even the women who work apparently don’t need access to basic financial information. And sports? Forget about it. Girls don’t like sports anyway.

Why I Heart Dr. Charles

The sometimes crossed signals between testosterone and estrogen in the developing young body demonstrate the pliability of external gender. When that conflicts with inner gender indentity it can be quite traumatic, especially for 13 year-old boys. It may be a valuable right of passage for the heterosexual male if only for the simple demonstration that, like nipples, gender can be unpredictable and mutable. Only the effects of a handful of DNA and a few hormones separate the males from the females.

Even this doctor can shamelessly admit to having had peripubertal breast buds on the way to masculinity.

Read the rest.

Open Blogging Schiavo…

I’m Dylan, and I spew my rhetoric at Something Requisitely Witty and Urbane. I hope this doesn’t bore anyone to death about a subject that is already getting beaten into the ground, but here’s my take.

And now for the most often typed phrase in the blogosphere over the past 3 weeks: I haven’t written about the Terry Schiavo situation because of (fill in the blank) reason.

My reason is… well… I’ve been way to busy to really keep up with all the details. That being said, I’ve some things to say. I won’t delve into the specifics of the case because you either know them or you don’t and, if you don’t, your lack of knowledge will in no way diminish the impact my writing will have on you.

Perhaps I’m overselling… Chances are there will be very little impact. But here’s my two cents.

That Congress stepped in on this issue is a travesty and a complete and utter disregard for the judicial system in this country. The Florida courts are skyrocketing past Massachusetts to regain their rightful position atop the the “Most Likely to be Involved in a Constitutional Crisis” list. Like the Massachusetts case, the Republicans are attacking what they view as “activist judges.” In Mass. it was the judges who usurped the law and tried to establish gay marriage. But this round, the activist judges are the ones who UPHELD THE CURRENT LAW which states that the decision of whether to cease actions which keep a person alive by purely mechanical means is to be made by the spouse, if married, in consultation with their doctor. Period.

Congressional Republicans stepped in to go against the law (similar laws having been passed by Republican Congresses in the past decade, and one which was passed by a certain Governor of Texas not so very long ago) which is already in place, completely disregarding the courts which are there to act as a check on their legislative powers. The good news is, I have no doubt that that check will work, and that, ultimately, the Supreme Court, if and when it gets that far, will uphold the current laws and Terry Schiavo will be allowed to die in the manner which befits the wishes she expressed to her husband: To die with dignity, it’s just that there will be slightly less dignity left for her once “Culture of Life” neo-cons are done on their soapbox.

This brings up troubling precedents, however. Let’s say that I’m wrong, and that, because of all their work, the Republicans wind up with the Courts ruling in their favor. Terry Schiavo is left alive, and James Dobson does a little dance and declares it a moral victory against the Godless tyranny that has befallen this country before the Lord ordained Bush to lead us into the promised land (the promised land which, of course, can only be found after Armageddon). We will now be left with hundreds, probably thousands, of people left alive in name only, on machines until their bodies completely and totally wear out like a piece of fatigued metal after it is bent one to many times. Ther will be entire wings of hospitals where people are left alive with no hope for a future meaningful life, the familes who care about them will be kept in a state of emotional limbo as they wait for bodies which have no other option but to simply whither away. It brings to mind the often asked question of just why Christians, who are so sure about the afterlife, are always the ones who are most afraid to go to it.

Also, do I have to now concern myself with the political persuasion of my doctor? If I have a heart attack tomorrow which results in the cutting off of the oxygen to my brain long enough to cease any and all conscious functioning it might have had, and I’m left in a vegetative state, should I have, in the midst of that heart attack, asked the doctor who happened to be next up on the board when my name pops up if he or she is a Republican or a Democrat, and if they will abide by my wishes? (For the record, if I am in this situation… Pull the fucking plug, chop me up, and donate every single usable part to anyone who needs it). This is a can of worms that was best left unopened, if only for the fact that has already been decided (and if it gets to the Supreme Court, and Mr. Schiavo’s lawyer isn’t pounding his fist on the table screaming “Stare Decisis! Stare Decisis!” then he has no right to be there).

The good news is, though they might get some play out of righteously holding fast to their moral absolutes, just like they do with abortion and gay marriage, this will ultimately be a losing issue for Republicans for two reasons. The first is simple: Public sentiment is not behind them. They might get points for steadfastness, but it will be in vain as the American public has loudly resounded during the life of this story that it is pissed as hell that Congress got involved in the first place. But the second and more important point is that Republicans are not going to be able to stand by this forever. In the past, many Republicans have aided in the passage of laws for just such a situation, and they will have to do it in the future. This isn’t the same as abortion, and this isn’t the same as gay marriage. They find themselves on completely hypocritical ground, howling into the wind that “every life is precious… every life is precious” and then standing behind Dear Leader who governed a state which has put countless prisoners to death. One day they’ll be staring down the barrel from the other side of this issue, and they’ll have lost all credibility. Delay, Frist, and Santorum have officially stumbled, and eventually they’ll realize that the pebble that tripped them up was their own political hubris.

On the Culture Of Life

A modified letter on the matter of Terri Schiavo coverage suggested by Goose, sent to dozens of mainstream media outlets:

Dear Sir or Madam:

I know it is too late to make a difference in the outcome of the legislation, but it is reprehensible that Republican lawmakers and the President are willing to interfere in the Terry Schiavo case.

First, their actions are unconstitutional because they are disrupting the normal state of judiciary affairs. Schiavo’s case has had due process by Florida state judges, and they have consistently found that Terry Schiavo has the right to die as she would have chosen, and that her husband Michael Schiavo is the only person legally responsible for making that decision. At least he was, until Congress and President Bush stepped in.

What of family values? They have abrogated the most solemn charges of the Schiavo’s marriage vows. What of smaller government and less interference in citizens’ personal lives? They have made it a convenient lie. And what of the “culture of life?” They have taken up Terry’s parent’s cause to assuage their far right supporters, while simultaneously pushing for changes to tort law (the likes of which would have made Terry’s care impossible), bankruptcy law (which would have prevented the Schiavo family from recovering from her massive medical bills), and reducing Medicaid (which takes care of many patients like Terry around the country). Furthermore, President Bush signed legislation while governor of Texas that forced cessation of treatment in futile cases in the instance of inability to pay (the so-called “Texas Futile Care Law”) – where was his precious “culture of life” then? Life, it seems, comes second to medical industry profits in Texas, where just last week a baby was taken off life support against the wishes of his mother.

This is political grandstanding of the most obvious kind. One can only hope that the federal judge required by this new legislation will see fit to permit Michael Schiavo the right to allow Terry to die, as all other judges who have seen this case have.

My respect for the Republican legislators behind this legislation and President Bush is at an all time low. They are, one and all, hypocrites of the first order. That many Democrats supported this bill — and that 178 members of the House did not bother showing up to vote at all — makes me reconsider my party membership and faith in the intentions of federal government altogether.

The implications of this Congressional move are overwhelming. Whenever Congress doesn’t like the result in a particular case, it could eventually swoop in and call a “do-over,” and if this law is declared valid, no decision in any state court in the country will be immune from Congressional second-guessing. This case is not one that falls under a “federal question.” Should the federal courts be used in this manner, they can also be used from the bottom up to redecide other family disputes such as divorce and child custody. The Schiavo case is tragic, yes, but does not belong in the federal courts.

One’s job as a member of mainstream media is to give fair coverage of this event. Strip away Tom DeLay’s moral condemnation of Michael Schiavo, strip away this case’s tenuous ties to the abortion debate, strip away the bogus “culture of life,” strip away the political grandstanding and opportunity grab, and one is left with a glaring example of Republican hypocrisy, one that undermines nearly everything for which the party claims to stand. The brave news outlet is the one that calls this case like it is: Terri Schiavo is a political pawn and this Congressional measure is unforgivably transparent.

Sincerely,
Lauren BXXXX

________________________
For further information on the “federal question,” see Understanding The Federal Courts.

A full and compassionate look at the case is provided by Obsidian Wings.

Mahablog ties the case to an “Ownership Society.”

World O’ Crap looks into the marketing of this cause célèbre.

Amanda Marcotte poses that the publicity of this case would be unlikely to revolve around a man.

And Majikthise calls for a blogswarm, the reason for this post.

This letter was sent to:

360@cnn.com, 48hours@cbsnews.com, am@cnn.com, Colmes@foxnews.com, comments@foxnews.com, crossfire@cnn.com, dateline@nbc.com, daybreak@cnn.com, earlyshow@cbs.com, evening@cbsnews.com, Foxreport@foxnews.com, insidepolitics@cnn.com, inthemoney@cnn.com, live@cnn.com, livefrom@cnn.com, newsnight@cnn.com, nightline@abcnews.com, nightly@nbc.com, rrhodes@airamericaradio.com, today@nbc.com, wam@cnn.com, wolf@cnn.com, world@msnbc.com, wsj.ltrs@wsj.com, letters@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com, netaudr@abc.com

Even More On Schiavo

Majikthise:

Morally and legally, the Terri Schiavo case is about a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment. …there is an overwhelming consensus any adult has the right to refuse any medical treatment. Disabled and incapacitated patients retain this right. The only difference is that these patients must be represented by guardians charged to speak on their behalf.

The Schindlers and their supporters have no principled objections to the system by which guardians are appointed. They aren’t arguing that parents are more appropriate guardians than spouses in general, or that the Federal courts should arbitrate all guardianship cases, or even that the withdrawal of feeding tubes is unethical. All they care about is reversing a decision on a case in which they have a personal stake.

This post should be read in its entirety. Another is promised soon.

Christian Science Monitor:

Should a bill on Schiavo pass the Congress and be signed by the president, as expected, the case still faces judicial review – and a ticking clock. Last week, the Supreme Court rejected without comment a House committee’s emergency request to order the feeding tube reinserted while appeals were pending.

“It would appear to be the kind of legislative grandstanding that Chief Justice Rehnquist, if he were up to speed and in good health, would swat away in an instant,” says Patrick Gudridge, a law professor at the University of Miami.

Emphasis mine.

More On Schiavo

I’m filing this one under Health and Politics, primarily because this is a health issue for which Terri Schiavo has become a political pawn.

Several have written detailed posts about the ethical and political implications of this circus. Get past the tripe and see what this is really about:

Respectful of Otters – Terri Schiavo, Part I: The Medical Post
Rivka is a clinical psychologist who has “completed a year-long practicum in clinical neuropsychology. I’m not qualified to evaluate Terri Schiavo myself – that would take a board-certified neurologist or neuropsychologist – but I am certainly qualified to evaluate the adequacy or inadequacy of someone else’s evaluation. And so I have read every one of the 17 affidavits, plus the report of the examining physician on whose findings Schiavo’s parents are basing their case, plus the rulings from the trial court and the court of appeals.”
A second post on the ethical aspects of the case is promised sometime this weekend. Rivka is always a must-read, so bookmark her page in anticipation for the follow-up post.

Abstract Appeal, a Florida law blog, has an extensive amount on the Schiavo case from a more local perspective. This site covers the events in a rough timeline with relevant links to papers and court petitions and decisions.

Alas, A Blog – 17 Medical Affidavits about Terri Schiavo
Amp looks at the two primary arguments within the case. The first is the “cerebral cortex” argument in which experts and non-experts alike debate whether a brain that has been liquefied is capable of consciousness. The second revolves around those videos on the website, the clips we’ve seen on national television in which it appears Schiavo is able to follow a balloon with her eyes: “What they don’t show is the many failed attempts made to get Terri to follow the balloon. With clever editing, even random motions and reflexes – such as smiling and eye movements – can seem conscious. The intelligence and cognition on display isn’t Terri’s, but the film editor’s.” Even more from Alas here.

Majikthise – Red herrings 17 “medical experts” threw at me
Uncovers how the Terri Schiavo Foundation “misrepresented…credentials” of those who filed the above-mentioned affadavits. None of these people cited yesterday by members of Congress during their final attempt at intervention had seen Schiavo in person, and only one claimed to have seen her actual medical records. The rest had admitted to only seeing the video on Schiavo’s parents’ website.

It appears Tom DeLay an other Republicans don’t want to give up the legal battle. They’ll be spending the weekend penning a bill to force doctors to reinsert Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. Real classy. It’s not like this case hasn’t had its due process. (via Trish Wilson)

And for the record (Mom, take note) should anything happen to me, pull the plug. I’ll get on a more legally-friendly version of this wish soon.

Oh, My Foot

Yesterday I ran into the basement to grab some clothes from the laundry room, missed the last step and rolled my ankle. This makes the third injury on this foot and ankle in as many years.

The casualties: two torn ligaments, a severely wounded pride, and the erosion of my confident, upright walk into a one-legged bunny hop.

On the other hand, I received painkillers, many points and laughs from friends, a concerned kiss from Ethan, and a post-op velcro shoe.

Bush’s Sex Scandal

From Nicholas Kristof for the NYTimes:

I’m sorry to report a sex scandal in the heart of the Bush administration. Worse, it doesn’t involve private behavior, but public conduct.

You see, for all the carnage in President Bush’s budget, one program is being showered with additional cash – almost three times as much as it got in 2001. It’s “abstinence only” sex education, and the best research suggests that it will cost far more lives than the Clinton administration’s much more notorious sex scandal.

Mr. Bush means well. But “abstinence only” is a misnomer that in practice is an assault on sex education itself. There’s a good deal of evidence that the result will not be more young rosy-cheeked virgins – it will be more pregnancies, abortions, gonorrhea and deaths from AIDS.

The article includes a link to the Abstinence Clearinghouse where one can buy “Keep It” boxers (stopping just short of “in your pants”), “Chew On This” abstinence gum (great for freshening up right before a hot and heavy make-out session), “I’m Worth Waiting For” temporary tattoos (because nothing says “good girl” like a tattoo), and, I’m not kidding, a “Save Sex for Marriage” sucker.

Whomever designed these products forgot that hormone-riddled teenagers come hand-in-hand with dirty minds.

But back to the scandal:

…there’s some evidence that abstinence-only programs lead to increases in unprotected sex.

Perhaps the most careful study of the issue involved 12,000 young people. It found that those taking virginity pledges had sex 18 months later, on average, than those who had not taken the pledge. But even 88 percent of the pledgers had sex before marriage.

More troubling, the pledgers were much less likely to use contraception when they did have sex – only 40 percent of the males used condoms, compared with 59 percent of those who did not take the pledge.

In contrast, there’s plenty of evidence that abstinence-plus programs – which encourage abstinence but also teach contraception – delay sex and increase the use of contraception. So, at a time when we’re cutting school and health programs, why should we pour additional tax money into abstinence-only initiatives, which are likely to lead to more pregnancies, more abortions and more kids with AIDS? Now, that’s a scandal.

Indeed.

Pollution Changes Chromosomes In Utero

A new study has linked exposure to pollution in utero and changes in cancer-causing genes in fetuses:

A new study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention suggests that harmful toxins from car exhaust pipes and factories can damage the genes of fetuses in the womb, increasing a child’s risk of cancer later in life.

The study, carried out by Columbia University researchers in New York City, examined 60 low-income pregnant women and the amount of pollutants they were exposed to in their third trimester. According to Dr. Frederica P. Perera, director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, in a New York Times interview, following childbirth, the researchers found about 50 percent more genetic abnormalities in babies whose mothers had been exposed to higher levels of pollution.

“We already knew that air pollutants significantly reduced fetal growth, but this is the first time we’ve seen evidence that they can change chromosomes in utero,” she told the paper.

Maybe this is a point for which we can cooperate with pro-lifers: Save the Environment and Save an Unborn Baby.

Or not.

In related news, government officials are fighting against air pollution controls. As it is, many businesses weigh the costs of installing air pollution control methods and find that it’s cheaper for them to go overseas. Dirty air here, there, and everywhere.