When therapists don’t want to do their jobs

Julea Ward and Jennifer Keeton want to be therapists, but they don’t want to help icky gay people because Jesus.

State legislators, purporting to know more about the ethics of these professions than the professionals themselves, want to make it legal to discriminate based on “sincerely-held religious beliefs.” One suspects that it has not occurred to most of them that this could apply to people who don’t think just like them.

If someone who wants to enter into a profession with a duty to help people, but just can’t seem to let go of certain Bronze Age superstitions, I hardly see how that is their patients’ problem, but that is exactly what they want to do. Some of them want to foist their ideology onto patients, but I rather doubt they’d entertain attempts by those patients to present their side of things.

Now, being a good American, I support the right of people to believe whatever crazy crap they want, so long as they don’t hurt other people. And that’s the problem here.

This hurts people.

This really, really hurts people.

So I have a compromise.

If a doctor, therapist, dentist, etc. just can’t get over the fact that the patient in front of them has a sexual orientation that is different from theirs (or some other perfectly-legal activity they just can’t keep from meddling in), they don’t have to treat them.

But the patient doesn’t have to pay them.

And because this rejection is highly likely to hurt the patient, the devout professional has to recommend an alternate professional that they know will treat the patient.

One more thing: in consideration of the fact that the devout professional has clearly wasted the patient’s time, the professional has to pay for the first session with the new professional. Because you have the right to believe what you want, but you cannot foist that upon a person in need who is relying on your professional skill–and if you just have to try anyway, it will cost you. Your professional license is a privilege, not a right.

(Preferably, devout professionals should disclose their prejudices in their marketing materials, but let’s see how you handle this responsibility first.)

If everyone can agree on that, then the Juleas and Jennifers of the world can let their freak flags fly, and the rest of us won’t be quite as bothered.

Share

All Your Breakfast Are Belong to Me

What could possibly go wrong here? I love waffles, eggs, and sausage, so why not put them all together? Presenting Jack in the Box’s Waffle Breakfast Sandwich!

The Expectation:

20120710-204322.jpg

The Reality:

20120710-204618.jpg

Share

My First Thoughts on the Supreme Court’s Health Care Decision

Last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner issued a plea to Republicans et al not to “spike the ball” should the Court strike down the law. It was a magnanimous, if futile gesture. Rush Limbaugh, never letting an opportunity to issue jowly gloats slide, admonished his followers to keep doing what they do best (i.e. commit mass asshattery). Here is what I imagine their ball-spiking party looks like today:

1241261617_football-fail(Source: GIF and video)

I’m surprised, first of all, at the way the vote split. The opinion just posted to the Supreme Court’s site, and I have not had a chance to read all 193 pages (go figure). I’m uploading a copy of the opinion below, if anyone wants to indulge.

Treating the individual mandate as a tax is an interesting outcome. I thought the Commerce Clause arguments were pretty solid, given precedent (stare decisis: look it up and explain it to Justice Scalia, please.)

At the moment, I doubt anyone outside the court itself has read the opinion, unless they have mad speed-reading skillz. It will be several days before there is any meaningful analysis or commentary. I will be ignoring the media drivel. If I can get around to it, I’ll delve into the topic some more.

Opinion of the Court, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Supreme Court of the United States, June 28, 2012

Share

To jittery eternity!

Exciting news from the National Cancer Institute!

Older adults who drank coffee — caffeinated or decaffeinated — had a lower risk of death overall than others who did not drink coffee, according a study by researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, and AARP.

Coffee drinkers were less likely to die from heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke, injuries and accidents, diabetes, and infections, although the association was not seen for cancer. These results from a large study of older adults were observed after adjustment for the effects of other risk factors on mortality, such as smoking and alcohol consumption. Researchers caution, however, that they can’t be sure whether these associations mean that drinking coffee actually makes people live longer. The results of the study were published in the May 17, 2012 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.

I would not call myself an “older” adult, but I drink a lot of coffee. Probably enough coffee to advance me several years in age. My perception of time is so sped up that, despite technically being 37 years of age, my mind is at least 83. That’s got to count for some amount of longevity.

Also, let us not forget the apocryphal study that suggests staring at breasts improves heart health. You know the meme:

I’m going to live forever.

Share

Everyone who has ever worked in food service has imagined doing this. Here’s why they shouldn’t.

'NCI iced tea,' Source: National Cancer Institute, Author: Renee Comet (photographer), AV Number: AV-9400-4169, Date Created: 1994 [Public domain] via Wikimedia CommonsHave you ever been a frustrated food service employee, annoyed with that customer who never quite seems satisfied with their order? Have you ever joked about possibly spitting in someone’s food? (Full disclosure, I thought about it, but never did it, while working at the on-campus Coffeehouse in college.) As it turns out, it is not so funny when it happens in real life. For anybody.

A couple of weeks ago, a mother and daughter ordered food, including sweet tea, from the drive-thru at a McDonald’s in Simpsonville, South Carolina. Upon receiving their order, they learned that the tea was not sweet. Or at least not sweet to their liking, so they went back and asked for new drinks. They noticed that these weren’t sweet either, but they decided to go home and sweeten them there.

This is the part of the story where the phlegm comes in. Stay with me. Continue reading

Share

Just Because It’s Natural…

I’ve written two posts this week on things that are purportedly “natural:” first food, then beauty. A few months ago I poked fun at the notion that my new hydrogen peroxide-based contact lens cleaner was somehow not “chemical-based” (I also mistakenly created the impression that I store my contacts in water, which I do not.)

It occurs to me that words like “natural” and “chemical-free” are really just shorthand for something to the effect of “not things we don’t like.” Of course my contact lens cleaner, with all of its bright-red, large-print warnings not to put it directly into my eyes, is not free of “chemicals.” Of course those bits of “shredded” “wheat” are not “natural.” We just tell ourselves this to feel better about an overly technological, strangely alienating world that has nonetheless done a pretty good job of keeping us from dying of smallpox.

There’s no real point to this post, other than to point out other things that are clearly natural, and juxtapose them with things that are not at all free from chemicals.

Chemical-based: Dihydrogen oxide.

'3D model hydrogen bonds in water,' by User Qwerter at Czech wikipedia: Qwerter. Transferred from cs.wikipedia; Transfer was stated to be made by User:sevela.p. Translated to english by by Michal Maňas (User:snek01). Vectorized by Magasjukur2 (File:3D model hydrogen bonds in water.jpg) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Natural: Hurricanes.

'Hurricane Isabel from ISS,' image courtesy of Mike Trenchard, Earth Sciences & Image Analysis Laboratory , Johnson Space Center.[see page for license], via Wikimedia Commons

Continue reading

Share

Kashi, hast thou forsaken me?

Kashi GOLEAN cereal is pretty much a staple of my breakfast routine, in large part because it is one of the only cereals available at Costco that doesn’t have a year’s worth of sugar in each serving (although it still has quite a bit). Also, it has protein and is probably the closest thing to a “healthy” breakfast cereal that doesn’t require actual cooking (because I am lazy in the morning and it is all I can do to make coffee). I have never had any illusions that GOLEAN cereal is in any particular way “natural,” since that is a vague enough adjective to be meaningless and it only takes one look at the cereal sitting in a bowl to see that nothing quite like it occurs in nature (absent industrial-scale intervention, I mean).

A photo making its way around Facebook today depicts a sign at a Rhode Island “natural” food grocery explaining why they have removed all Kashi products from their shelves:

Where's My Kashi?! by Nancy Wilson [Fair use] via Facebook

You might be wondering where your favorite Kashi cereals have gone.
It has recently come to our attention that 100% of the soy used in Kashi products is Genetically Modified, and that when the USDA tested the grains used there were found to be pesticides that are known carcinogens and hormone disruptors.

Whoa. So, what exactly does that mean? Calling something “Genetically Modified,” or “GM,” particularly when the words are written in title case, is often enough to send many people running for the hills. GM food is scary to many people, because it is so poorly understood and unfamiliar, because it often represents corporate malfeasance and greed, and because we often have little to no idea what the hell is in our food. I would like to learn a bit more about Kashi, and about the whole GM thing, before I set fire to my remaining GOLEAN Crunch.

WTF does “natural” mean in this context?

'Hostess Twinkies' by Evan-Amos (Own work) [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons

These actually grow on Twinkie trees

As Vivian Ward might respond, what do you want it to mean? Unlike “organic,” there is no legal standard for use of the word “natural” in food marketing or pretty much anywhere. It tends to evoke a sense of “not overly processed through mass industry,” a process that gives us Twinkies and McDonald’s french fries. To produce anything for public retail distribution requires some industrial processes (unless you buy all of your food at farmers’ markets, in which case you live a life of remarkable privilege and have little in common with most of the rest of America). How much processing is too much? I pick on Twinkies because they are about as far from “natural” as one can get (full disclosure: I love Twinkies), but really, unless you want to consume all of your groceries within two hours of purchasing them, you need some amount of processing just to function in our society.

WTF does GM mean at all? “Genetically Modified” covers a wide range of processes, some innocuous, some insidious, and some downright disquieting.

'Inside a wild-type banana' by Warut Roonguthai (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Uh, yum?

Humans have been genetically modifying food since the dawn of agriculture, so the mere fact of “genetic modification” should not frighten anyone. Corn and bananas are two excellent examples. Corn was derived from a grass native to Mesoamerica called teosinte, which is inedible and bears no physical resemblance to corn at all. Bananas, originally from southeast Asia, developed from giant, inedible seed pods into the fruit we know today, thanks to human intervention. On the animal side, ponder how long a chicken could survive in the wild, and whether it ever would have survived as a species this long if it had evolved to its present form purely “naturally.”

That brings us to modern-day “Genetic Modification.” Again, this covers a wide range of processes, all of which ought to be better-explained to the public, but some of which are no cause for major concern. Since I am not a scientist, I rely on dumbed-down sources to understand this stuff (thank you, Wikipedia, et al). The two major methods of GM’ing food in modern terms is cisgenesis and transgenesis. Cisgenesis involves transferring genes between similar organisms, essentially speeding up a breeding process that could occur “naturally.” Transgenesis involves inserting genes from a different species, creating something akin to a hybrid (or mutant) organism. Continue reading

Share

Hell hath no fury

Presented not for myself, but on behalf of people I care about.

Hell Hath No Fury, graphic by sarahlee310

November 6, 2012: Get your ass out there and vote.

Photo credit: Hell Hath No Fury by sarahlee310

Share

Fun word of the day: Sphygmomanometer

Sphygmomanometer&CuffIt’s more commonly known as the “blood pressure thingie.”

A sphygmomanometer or blood pressure meter (also referred to as a sphygmometer) is a device used to measure blood pressure, composed of an inflatable cuff to restrict blood flow, and a mercury or mechanical manometer to measure the pressure. It is always used in conjunction with a means to determine at what pressure blood flow is just starting, and at what pressure it is unimpeded. Manual sphygmomanometers are used in conjunction with a stethoscope.

The word comes from the Greeksphygmós (pulse), plus the scientific term manometer (pressure meter). The device was invented by Samuel Siegfried Karl Ritter von Basch in 1881.Scipione Riva-Rocci introduced a more easily used version in 1896. In 1901, Harvey Cushing modernized the device and popularized it within the medical community.

A sphygmomanometer consists of an inflatable cuff, a measuring unit (the mercury manometer, or aneroid gauge), and inflation bulb and valve, for manual instruments. [Citations omitted]

Here endeth the lesson. Just don’t ask me to pronounce it.

Photo credit: Sphygmomanometer&Cuff by ML5 at en.wikipedia [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons

Share

Has it been worth it?

I wonder:

Thomas Insel — director of the National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. government’s top psychiatric researcher — said today that “the number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care.”

(h/t ThinkProgress)

Share