Now it is abuse to not kiss a guy before marriage?

Michelle looks happy enough, but it can’t possibly be real. Not when:

her parents so brainwashed her from the time she was not capable of making an informed decision, and then insulated her from society to maintain that indoctrination so severely, that this girl has reached college age having never been kissed by a boy (or a girl, presumably) and is happy about that. (emphasis in original).

And how dare she be happy about it. Unfathomable. This is why we need public education and sex education starting in kindergarten. Not so that children can be protected from venereal diseases and unplanned pregnancies, but to make sure they don’t live a life of regret.

These, dear Michelle are the things we regret in life. We regret the things we didn’t do. We regret not kissing our English teachers. I hope you come to that realization sooner rather than later, before the regrets pile up so high they eat you alive when you finally notice them. Ibid.

I’m not quite sure what to say, actually. But as the apparently fictional author says in response to an administrative correction to the use of “dismissive or insulting name calling,”

This may have been one of those times [I have been slightly obnoxious], but I do find it utterly shameful that this girl has been so… sorry, I just can’t fully articulate how I feel about the damage that has been done to Miss Vitt. It is beyond the pale. source

It is so much better to have them forced from their families and taught the pleasures of free love from kindergarten.

Why this reminds me of this old quote, I am not sure:

Let me seduce the boys of England and the oldsters may totter unconverted to their graves. Then these boys, become men, may bring about the new Heaven and the new Earth…but without an army I am useless…give me my army, young men; and we will sweep these dogs into the sea.”
–The World’s Tragedy, p. XXV

Or this one (my translation):

The co-author of the Hessian Sexual Education Guidelines stated several years ago, “We need the sexual stimulation of the students in order to bring about the socialist restructuring of socety and the do away with the obedience to authority, including the love of a child to its parent.

from: Gruende fuer Homeschooling (Reasons for homeschooling)

Poor, damaged, girl. Never abused by a man and happy about it.

I don’t know what else to say.

homeschooling, Christianity, sexuality, abstinence

When I used to work at Burger King, one of the first things I was taught in training was to never apologize after any sort of accident. Those simple words, “I’m sorry” which come almost automatically when something bad happens can mean a world of trouble for a corporation should a law suit be filed. “I’m sorry” is viewed in court as an admission of guilt.

The same is true in the medical profession, which seems unimaginable to me. Before my baby was born, I stumbled across a few blog entries about late-term miscarriages or infants who had died. The comment section was naturally filled with condolences which often began, “I am so sorry…” It is how we express sympathy and compassion for others who are suffering. No sane person would think that any of the commenters were in any way to blame for what happened because they said, “I’m sorry.”

Unless you are the doctor. And expressing sentiments of regret to your patient when you just lost their child, or have to tell him or her that something went horribly wrong can end in a malpractice suit. Last year, researchers at Baylor College of Medicine began a project to study ways to improve communication and compassion between doctors and their patients. It sounded interesting, but I cannot help but think that both might be improved if doctors were not forced by our litigious society to view every patient as a potential law suit.

Things may change here in Nebraska, and this is one bill before the unicameral that I support. Legislative Bill 373 (pdf) begins:

In any civil action brought by an alleged victim of an unanticipated outcome of medical care, or in any arbitration proceeding related to such civil action, any and all statements, affirmations, gestures, or conduct expressing apology, fault, sympathy, commiseration, condolence, compassion, or a general sense of benevolence which are made by a health care provider or an employee of a health care provider to the alleged victim, a relative of the alleged victim, or a representative of the alleged victim and which relate to the discomfort, pain, suffering, injury or death of the alleged victim as a result of the unanticipated outcome of medical care shall be inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability or as evidence of an admission against interest.

Maybe I’m just weird, but if something had gone wrong in the delivery room, I would not have wanted my obstetrician to stand by silently. “I’m sorry…” may not do anything, really, but it is an automatic and universally accepted gesture of sympathy at the suffering of another human being. It should not cause a compassionate practitioner to face a conviction in a malpractice suit.

Related Tags: health care, law suits, medical malpractice, LB 373

I don’t think I can really comment on this article. I find it too disturbing…Disabled Newborns Likely to Face Death, originally published in the AFA Journal. Granted, they are only opening the subject up for debate, and it is little surprise that Peter Singer would be offering his support. But the Church of England? The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists?

A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” stated a formal submission by the college. “If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some paretns would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”

Don’t they take the Hippocratic Oath over there?

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

I think over here it has been summarized as, “Do no harm,” but the principle is the same.

Is the emotional and financial burden of caring for a disabled child enough to warrant a “mercy killing?”

Does life have no more value than the emotional and financial value placed upon it by the parents? I think Rousseau’s philosophy of cost-benefit analysis has gone way too far.

And focusing purely on the economic implications, at what point will the state-funded medical plan (or major insurance companies here in the United States) refuse to pay for treatment of a disabled child when a “more cost-effective” alternative is available through “life-shortening interventions?”

Related Tags: abortion, parenting, disabilities, euthanasia, Peter Singer

At what point does overfeeding a child constitute medical neglect? In Britain, childhood obesity could result in removal from the home.

Social workers are placing obese children on the child protection register alongside victims thought to be at risk of sexual or physical abuse.

In extreme cases children have been placed in foster care because their parents have contributed to the health problems of their offspring by failing to respond to medical advice. The Sunday Times

Two brothers were even convicted of causing unnecessary suffering for obesity in a dog.

While Britain is certainly “ahead” of us in this regard, their concern for childhood obesity certainly is not unique to our European friends. In a study commissioned by the US Department of Health and Human Services (also what Child Protective Services falls under), the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies tells us,

“We recognize that several of our recommendations challenge entrenched aspects of American life and business, but if we are not willing to make some fundamental shifts in our attitudes and actions, obesity’s toll on our nation’s health and well-being will only worsen.” Medical News Today

How many of our fundamental attitudes are we willing to shift in order to combat overeating and slothfulness among children? Exactly how much power are we going to give to the Federal Trade Commission and external review boards (all outside voter control) to regulate the marketing and distribution of foods deemed unhealthy? Should the school system be monitoring student weight on an annual basis? How much interference from the state and local agencies are we willing to tolerate in private homes to monitor the eating and exercise habits of our citizens?

And when will we decide that noncompliance equals medical neglect, thus turning cases over to child protective services?

I agree that obesity is a problem. But I can’t help but think this approach falls under the plethora of activities our central government is engaged in which perhaps is done in the name of the “common good” but is another step toward the “end” that President Pierce foretold.

hat tip: Joanne Jacobs

Related Tags: health, obesity, childhood obesity, government, CPS, HHS

The desire for the government to provide for “the common good” via a large array of schemes is as old as our government. Presidents Washington and Madison both desired a national university in Washington, D.C. The importance of education has often been at the root of a debate about just what the role of our central government is, but at one time, Congress successfully curtailed the plans of the president. Perhaps because at the time they were a little more loyal to their respective states. I had never really thought of it in this context before, but at the time, one tended to be a Virginian first and an American second. Loyalty now seems defined by how much money a representative can funnel into their district, but that is another story.

The government’s interest in mental health is also not new. In 1854, a bill came before President Franklin Pierce entitled, “An act making a grant of public lands to the several States for the benefit of indigent insane persons.” Back then, our government was a little more leery of spending tax dollars and this plan is no exception. Public lands were to be given to the several states and the money from the sale of such lands was to be used by the states to set up a fund for the insane. President Pierce vetoed it. This quote from his veto message is lengthy, but a worthy summary. And as you read it, consider our government’s current role in mental health, education, public health, welfare, social security, and every other role it assumes in philanthropy.

It can not be questioned that if Congress has power to make provision for the indigent insane without the limits of this District it has the same power to provide for the indigent who are not insane, and thus to transfer to the Federal Government the charge of all the poor in all the States. It has the same power to provide hospitals and other local establishments for the care and cure of every species of human infirmity, and thus to assume all that duty of either public philanthropy or public necessity to the dependent, the orphan, the sick, or the needy which is now discharged by the States themselves or by corporate institutions or private endowments existing under the legislation of the States. The whole field of public beneficence is thrown open to the care and culture of the Federal Government. Generous impulses no longer encounter the limitations and control of our imperious fundamental law; for however worthy may be the present object in itself, it is only one of a class. It is not exclusively worthy of benevolent regard. Whatever considerations dictate sympathy for this particular object apply in like manner, if not in the same degree, to idiocy, to physical disease, to extreme destitution. If Congress may and ought to provide for any one of these objects, it may and ought to provide for them all. And if it be done in this case, what answer shall be given when Congress shall be called upon, as it doubtless will be, to pursue a similar course of legislation in the others? It will obviously be vain to reply that the object is worthy, but that the application has taken a wrong direction. The power will have been deliberately assumed, the general obligation will by this act have been acknowledged, and the question of means and expediency will alone be left for consideration. The decision upon the principle in any one case determines it for the whole class. The question presented, therefore, clearly is upon the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those among the people of the United States who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy.

I think perhaps the entire message should be required reading. Consider also this warning. Is it not wholly applicable to our government today?

Indeed, to suppose it susceptible of any other construction would be to consign all the rights of the States and of the people of the States to the mere discretion of Congress, and thus to clothe the Federal Government with authority to control the sovereign States, by which they would have been dwarfed into provinces or departments and all sovereignty vested in an absolute consolidated central power, against which the spirit of liberty has so often and in so many countries struggled in vain.

“The beginning of the end,” as Pierce envisioned it, has already arrived.

Related Tags: government, mental health, liberty, states’ rights

Suicide is a horrific and traumatic event for everyone connected to it. The victims most likely suffer months or even years of emotional anguish, perhaps in silence and perhaps not taken seriously by those closest to them. Family members are thrown into a desperate world of blame, guilt, regret and simply not understanding what happened. It affects friends, teachers, counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists. My host father in Germany committed suicide, something that seems completely contrary to his whimsical good-nature. But a lot happened in the years after I left Germany, and apparently more than he could bear. In the little village where his ex-wife and children moved, another man committed suicide. A man I never met, but he did it in front of his children, and they were visibly traumatized by the event, even years later. As a support worker for foster families, I sat and listened to desperate children recount to me why their lives were no longer worth living. These events left me with a deep sense of helplessness, and at times a vague sense of hopelessness. I reacted physically as well as emotionally, and afterwards would not be able to sleep, would become highly distractable and at times rather irritable. It is no wonder that a significant number of our social workers live with a sort of vicarious post-traumatic stress disorder.

The feeling that something (anything) must be done to identify and treat depression in young people is understandable. But that doesn’t make everything done in the name of suicide prevention advisable.

December 28th, 2006, the New England Journal of Medicine published a report on TeenScreen, a controversial mental health screening program developed by Columbia University and administered in schools in 42 states. The article gives some statistics related to suicide among adolescents and states,

These grim statistics argue strongly for early detection and intervention and provide a rationale for mental health screening among teenagers. The premise is that the primary risk factors for suicide–mood disorder, a previous suicide attempt, and alcohol or substance abuse–can be identified and treated.

Note that it is the suicide rate, not the effectiveness of TeenScreen, which provides the basis for the testing. The conclusion is a little more disconcerting.

I believe that voluntary mental health screening should be universal. But we need to go beyond school-based screening if we are optimally to reach young people who are at risk for psychiatric illness and suicide. Pediatric clinicians are in an ideal position to detect mental illness in young people, and they should be better trained to probe for and recognize the signs and symptoms of major psychiatric disorders.

The traumatic effects of suicide alone are not justification for any particular course of action, and particularly not for the universal screening of adolescents. There are a number of concerns which come immediately to mind:

Does screening, in fact, have any impact on suicide attempts? (Short answer, no.)

Exactly how prevalent is suicide? (It ranks third among children…right after unintentional injuries and homicide. In real numbers, we are talking about 0.01% of children.)

Who is paying for it? And why? (Just as a side note, I’m not one to jump on businesses for trying to make a profit, and the very existence of “BigPharma” is more of an effect of ill-planned attempts at controlling it, in my opinion. Off topic, but this article outlines my reasoning, if taken from the example of “Ma Bell.”)

There are a number of interesting sites out there regarding TeenScreen, and I shan’t bore you with rehashing all the arguments against this program. Tomorrow, I’ll take up my concern. In the meantime, here is a summary of sites worth the time, if you are so inclined to read a little more:

TeenScreen–The Last Straw
TeenScreen Truth
PsychSearch.net
The Heritage Foundation

Related Tags: TeenScreen, mental health, mental testing, mental health screening, suicide, suicide prevention

In a study funded in part by the charity Cancer Research UK, 218,169 women from nine European countries were followed for an average of a little over six years to track the benefits of different kinds of exercise in preventing breast cancer.

Pre-menopausal women who did housework were found to be about 30% less likely to develop the disease than post-menopausal women who did none.

Meanwhile, post-menopausal women who did housework were found to be about 20 per cent less likely to develop the disease than post-menopausal women who did none.

Actually, all exercise has been linked to lower rates of breast cancer in women, but it seems that housework shows the greatest benefit. And, while other activities reduced the risk in post-menopausal women, only housework significantly reduced the risk for pre-menopausal women.

As with all studies, this raises as many questions for me as it does answers. Is there something specific about housework which brings about these results? Or is it that daily, light exercise is preferable to the two to three times per week rigorous exercise routines recommended by experts to “keep in shape?” Or, is the cause something else entirely? Perhaps there is something else about the lifestyles of women who do housework that leads to these results.

At any rate, next time one of your young ones runs through the house with muddy shoes moments after mopping, thank him for your health and the years he has added to your life. And if your children are so helpful that you worry you aren’t doing enough housework, Combs has kindly offered his home in the interest of preventing breast cancer. He won’t even charge for his preventive therapy.

Related Tags: health, sahm, cancer prevention, cancer