Since I was old enough I have given blood and/or platelets with the red cross or other blood services. Some time in my early 20s I had to stop donating whole blood because it totally wiped me out and I took ages to get all my red cells back. After that I started donating platelets as often as 2 times a month. I viewed it was a way to give of myself that would not only help others but could save someone life.
When I got pregnant with my son I had to stop donating platelets. It has been over three years since my last donation and I have been preparing myself to start again as my son has been slowly weaning himself. A new hurdle to jump, for anyone who has been pregnant, is an HLA antibody test. They instituted this test because the Red Cross found that there were more transfusion reactions with blood from donors who were HLA positive.
So on Monday I went into the donation center and had them draw a vial of blood for the test. Today I called for the results and, unfortunately, I am positive for the HLA antibody and can no longer donate platelets. I am unable to express how hugely disappointed I am.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Might Does Not Make Right
I was happy to hear that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that voter approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional and that it
Although nothing will actually change in California based on this ruling, the judge has also granted a stay until appeals can be completed, this is just another step in removing another form of institutionalized discrimination from our country.
The comments that I see repeatedly from the supporters of Prop 8 have to do with the judge (who stands as a symbol of the elite who are out of touch with the common man) ignoring the voice of the citizens. They seem to think that if they get enough votes then they can ignore the constitution. They want to pretend that "majority rules" is a covenant of our republic. They conveniently ignore the fact that convincing a majority of registered voters to cast a particular vote on a particular issue has nothing to do with the legality or constitutionality of that issue. The Constitution and its amendments are designed to protect the rights of the citizenry from the whims of the majority.
Throughout history of the United States, the voting majority of each time has sought to propagate discrimination on many fronts including denying women and blacks the right to vote and prohibiting the marriage of interracial couples. In turn, each of these were revealed to have no rational basis and that continued support of those ideas were based solely on animus. The same applies to the continued prohibition of same-sex marriages. At its most basic a marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. There is no rational or reasonable excuse that two men or two women should not be able to enter in to this contract and receive all the federal, state and local benefits afforded to a male and female entering into the exact same contract.
"fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples"
Although nothing will actually change in California based on this ruling, the judge has also granted a stay until appeals can be completed, this is just another step in removing another form of institutionalized discrimination from our country.
The comments that I see repeatedly from the supporters of Prop 8 have to do with the judge (who stands as a symbol of the elite who are out of touch with the common man) ignoring the voice of the citizens. They seem to think that if they get enough votes then they can ignore the constitution. They want to pretend that "majority rules" is a covenant of our republic. They conveniently ignore the fact that convincing a majority of registered voters to cast a particular vote on a particular issue has nothing to do with the legality or constitutionality of that issue. The Constitution and its amendments are designed to protect the rights of the citizenry from the whims of the majority.
Throughout history of the United States, the voting majority of each time has sought to propagate discrimination on many fronts including denying women and blacks the right to vote and prohibiting the marriage of interracial couples. In turn, each of these were revealed to have no rational basis and that continued support of those ideas were based solely on animus. The same applies to the continued prohibition of same-sex marriages. At its most basic a marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. There is no rational or reasonable excuse that two men or two women should not be able to enter in to this contract and receive all the federal, state and local benefits afforded to a male and female entering into the exact same contract.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Shopping Frustration
This past weekend I spent some time looking at clothes and shoes for my 2 year old son. I encountered the same three problems at each store.
1. The toddler boys section is about a quarter the size of the toddler girl section.
2. The sales in the girls section were significantly better than in the boys section (Huge clearance section with 80-90% off in the girls section and the most off in the boys section was 50%).
3. There are very few shirts and shoes that don't have some kind of print or logo. Everything from the cutesy 'little slugger' type things to huge brand logos and TV characters to ridiculous plaids and strips.
I would like some nice quality solid color shirts, tennis shoes without mass marketed characters on them and some cute summer waterproof sandals but I guess that is just too much to ask for.
1. The toddler boys section is about a quarter the size of the toddler girl section.
2. The sales in the girls section were significantly better than in the boys section (Huge clearance section with 80-90% off in the girls section and the most off in the boys section was 50%).
3. There are very few shirts and shoes that don't have some kind of print or logo. Everything from the cutesy 'little slugger' type things to huge brand logos and TV characters to ridiculous plaids and strips.
I would like some nice quality solid color shirts, tennis shoes without mass marketed characters on them and some cute summer waterproof sandals but I guess that is just too much to ask for.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
"Never-Out" my a**
About 3 years ago, Brian and I purchased a pre-lit artificial Christmas tree. We decided on getting an artificial tree because we decided that we did not want to continue killing a tree every year to celebrate this holiday. The choice of a pre-lit tree was done for convenience. However, even with our extensive research to ensure that we got the best tree that we could (75-A Martha Stewart), it has turned out to be anything but convenient.
The first year we had the tree it worked beautifully until the a couple of days after Christmas when a single strand of lights on the very bottom when out. Since it was after Christmas and we were about to take it down we decided to deal with the lights when we put it up next year. It was not put up last year because of space constraints but when we put it up this year we discovered that nearly the entire bottom section was out along with a small portion of the middle section. For several days we made multiple attempts to repair the sections that were not lit. We even bought a Light Keeper Pro which helped us to repair several other stands of lights but would/could not fix any of those on the tree.
Eventually we started going bulb by bulb to find the problem. What we discovered was that in each section of lights that were about 99 lights that could be replace and a single bulb that could not. In ever strand that was out this 'keystone' bulb was blown and there was nothing that could be done to revive that strand. This type of planned obsolesence really pisses me off. So finally out of desperation I purchased several new strands of lights and strung them on the unlit portions of the tree and commenced with decorating. Over the 2 weeks leading to Christmas the the remaining strands on the bottom and middle sections failed and the day after Christmas the entire top section when out.
So utterly frustrated, today I proceeded to removed 600 lights the three sections of our tree. This task took the better part of 5 hours to complete and made the tips of my fingers raw from removing the clips that held each one of those 600 lights to the branches. We purchased some LED lights to string on it next year and hopefully we will have better luck with these.
My advice to anyone thinking about purchasing a pre-lit tree is...DON'T. Find a nice looking artificial tree, several good quality strings of lights and clips to hold the lights to the branches and hang the lights on each section independently so that you can pack it away with the lights on. So the first year you will have to do a little more work but hopefully the lights you put on will hold up better and you will have your pre-lit tree for many year hence.
The first year we had the tree it worked beautifully until the a couple of days after Christmas when a single strand of lights on the very bottom when out. Since it was after Christmas and we were about to take it down we decided to deal with the lights when we put it up next year. It was not put up last year because of space constraints but when we put it up this year we discovered that nearly the entire bottom section was out along with a small portion of the middle section. For several days we made multiple attempts to repair the sections that were not lit. We even bought a Light Keeper Pro which helped us to repair several other stands of lights but would/could not fix any of those on the tree.
Eventually we started going bulb by bulb to find the problem. What we discovered was that in each section of lights that were about 99 lights that could be replace and a single bulb that could not. In ever strand that was out this 'keystone' bulb was blown and there was nothing that could be done to revive that strand. This type of planned obsolesence really pisses me off. So finally out of desperation I purchased several new strands of lights and strung them on the unlit portions of the tree and commenced with decorating. Over the 2 weeks leading to Christmas the the remaining strands on the bottom and middle sections failed and the day after Christmas the entire top section when out.
So utterly frustrated, today I proceeded to removed 600 lights the three sections of our tree. This task took the better part of 5 hours to complete and made the tips of my fingers raw from removing the clips that held each one of those 600 lights to the branches. We purchased some LED lights to string on it next year and hopefully we will have better luck with these.
My advice to anyone thinking about purchasing a pre-lit tree is...DON'T. Find a nice looking artificial tree, several good quality strings of lights and clips to hold the lights to the branches and hang the lights on each section independently so that you can pack it away with the lights on. So the first year you will have to do a little more work but hopefully the lights you put on will hold up better and you will have your pre-lit tree for many year hence.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Language Lesson #2
Let me clarify there, their and they're for the people who are constantly using the wrong version.
There is a place - "The book is over there."
Their is a possessive pronoun - "It is their book"
They're is a contraction of they are - "They're going to buy a book"
Piece de resistance
They're going over there to get their book.
There is a place - "The book is over there."
Their is a possessive pronoun - "It is their book"
They're is a contraction of they are - "They're going to buy a book"
Piece de resistance
They're going over there to get their book.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tense Lanuage Lession
Okay, so there are several words to which I have a chronic difficultly applying the correct tense or conjugation. One afternoon I, who apparently had nothing better to do, asked a friend, who happens to be an English major, to review the correct usage of the following words: lie, lay, lain, laid, who and whom (Thank you Ashley – and if you or the Trussian whore, you know who you are, can correct that last sentence or any other glaring mistakes I have made it would be much appreciated). I will post it here to enrich the lives of others and to make it easier for me to reference later.
Word: Who
Part of Speech: Subject
Example of proper usage: Who is the woman in the red dress?
Word: Whom
Part of Speech: Object
Example of proper usage: With whom am I speaking?
*When trying to determine which to use try substituting he/she or him/her. If he/she is correct then use who (She is in the red dress.), use whom with him/her (You are speaking to her.)
So that is the easy one. The others are a little more complicated
Word: Lie
Verb Tense: Simple present
Example of proper usage: I am going to lie down.
Word: Lay
Verb Tense: Simple past
Example of proper usage: I went to lay down.
Word: Lain
Verb Tense: Past participle
Example of proper usage: I have lain on the bed.
Word: Laying
Verb Tense: Present participle
Example of proper usage: I am laying on the bed.
Word: Lay
Verb Tense: Simple present
Example of proper usage: I will lay the book on the table.
Word: Laid
Verb Tense: Simple past
Example of proper usage: I laid the book on the table.
Word: Laid
Verb Tense: Past participle
Example of proper usage: I have laid books there before.
Word: Laying
Verb Tense: Present participle
Example of proper usage: I am laying the book on the table now.
Well, I hope that clears things up for everyone. I know that it is clear as mud for me. I am sure that I will continue to use all of these words incorrectly at least half the time but you have got to give me credit for trying
Word: Who
Part of Speech: Subject
Example of proper usage: Who is the woman in the red dress?
Word: Whom
Part of Speech: Object
Example of proper usage: With whom am I speaking?
*When trying to determine which to use try substituting he/she or him/her. If he/she is correct then use who (She is in the red dress.), use whom with him/her (You are speaking to her.)
So that is the easy one. The others are a little more complicated
Word: Lie
Verb Tense: Simple present
Example of proper usage: I am going to lie down.
Word: Lay
Verb Tense: Simple past
Example of proper usage: I went to lay down.
Word: Lain
Verb Tense: Past participle
Example of proper usage: I have lain on the bed.
Word: Laying
Verb Tense: Present participle
Example of proper usage: I am laying on the bed.
Word: Lay
Verb Tense: Simple present
Example of proper usage: I will lay the book on the table.
Word: Laid
Verb Tense: Simple past
Example of proper usage: I laid the book on the table.
Word: Laid
Verb Tense: Past participle
Example of proper usage: I have laid books there before.
Word: Laying
Verb Tense: Present participle
Example of proper usage: I am laying the book on the table now.
Well, I hope that clears things up for everyone. I know that it is clear as mud for me. I am sure that I will continue to use all of these words incorrectly at least half the time but you have got to give me credit for trying
Sunday, August 30, 2009
I’m sorry Miss, but we can’t let you do that.
As I am preparing for the transition from student to physician it has become more important for me to address the actualities of patient care versus the ideals that are discussed when we are being taught. After being away from clinical medicine for about a year and now being immersed in it again, something that I had contemplated as a medical student has come back to the foreground of my thoughts.
What do physicians and hospitals mean when they say “we don’t allow a patient to do X” or “a patient must do X.” I have heard this most often when discussing obstetrics as in the examples below.
“We don’t allow patients to go past 42 weeks.”
“The hospital does not allow VBACs (Vaginal Birth After C-section).”
Realistically, a physician can discuss these issues with a patient, present the risks and benefits, use strong language like “we don’t allow” and “you must”, but, in the end, it is the patient’s decision and they have the right to refuse. Many, maybe even most patients will take the advice of their physician and do whatever they recommend. However, there is going to be a segment of the population that does not agree with conclusions that the physician and/or hospital has reached and decline.
In reality, what does a physician who says “we don’t attend VBACs” do when a patient, who they have seen for nearly 9 months, refuses to schedule a repeat c-section and shows up at the hospital in labor? Will they refuse to admit the patient or admit them and then annoy the patient during the entire labor until either they give in and allow the c-section or the baby is born vaginally. What about a patient who is at 41 weeks gestation and refuses to schedule an induction for 42 weeks? Will they discharge the patient from their care when labor is imminent and refuse to attend the birth when labor finally begins. Will some go so far as to perform the procedure without their consent? Or try to obtain a court order to force them?
This place is where the theory we learn in school and the reality of patient care meet in direct opposition.
What do physicians and hospitals mean when they say “we don’t allow a patient to do X” or “a patient must do X.” I have heard this most often when discussing obstetrics as in the examples below.
“We don’t allow patients to go past 42 weeks.”
“The hospital does not allow VBACs (Vaginal Birth After C-section).”
Realistically, a physician can discuss these issues with a patient, present the risks and benefits, use strong language like “we don’t allow” and “you must”, but, in the end, it is the patient’s decision and they have the right to refuse. Many, maybe even most patients will take the advice of their physician and do whatever they recommend. However, there is going to be a segment of the population that does not agree with conclusions that the physician and/or hospital has reached and decline.
In reality, what does a physician who says “we don’t attend VBACs” do when a patient, who they have seen for nearly 9 months, refuses to schedule a repeat c-section and shows up at the hospital in labor? Will they refuse to admit the patient or admit them and then annoy the patient during the entire labor until either they give in and allow the c-section or the baby is born vaginally. What about a patient who is at 41 weeks gestation and refuses to schedule an induction for 42 weeks? Will they discharge the patient from their care when labor is imminent and refuse to attend the birth when labor finally begins. Will some go so far as to perform the procedure without their consent? Or try to obtain a court order to force them?
This place is where the theory we learn in school and the reality of patient care meet in direct opposition.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Rusted Root Concert
It has been a while since my husband and I last went to a concert (The last one was just after Christmas in 2007 and I was 7 months pregnant at the time). Last last night we talked some friends into watching the little scream machine that is currently masquerading as our son and headed off to The Handle Bar to see Rusted Root.
The concert was amazing. The Handle Bar is a small venue with an intimate feel. We were right up next to the stage for the entire show.
At the end of the show some of the players from STOMP joined them on stage and jammed for a little while as part of the Encore. When the show was over Michael, Patrick and Liz came down to meet with fans and sign autographs. Being the dork that I am, I purchased a t-shirt and a copy of their new album and had them signed. I also managed to get a picture with Michael but unfortunately it was with a camera phone so it is not all that great but here it is.
The concert was amazing. The Handle Bar is a small venue with an intimate feel. We were right up next to the stage for the entire show.
At the end of the show some of the players from STOMP joined them on stage and jammed for a little while as part of the Encore. When the show was over Michael, Patrick and Liz came down to meet with fans and sign autographs. Being the dork that I am, I purchased a t-shirt and a copy of their new album and had them signed. I also managed to get a picture with Michael but unfortunately it was with a camera phone so it is not all that great but here it is.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Conscience Clause
There exists a contingent of people, I assume mostly evangelical christians and catholics, who think that providers of medical care should be able to not only refuse to perform or provide a particular treatment (which they can already legally do) but to also refuse to educate their patients about the same or even refer them to a provider who will provide that treatment. They are under the mistaken impression that the current laws force health care providers to do anything other than give their patients all of the information and allow them to choose for themselves what the best path is.
What the individuals and groups pushing this law want is for the government to force employers to hire and/or keep employees who refuse to perform all the duties in their job descriptions. I agree that any medical practitioner should be able to choose what procedures they want or don't want to perform, what medication they will and will not prescribe or any other decision they want to make about their practicing of medicine. And as private physicians and nurses they have the ability to do that. However, it is just as important to preserve the rights patients to informed refusal/consent.
The owners of hospitals and clinics also have the right to decide what procedures and treatments will be available within their facilities and have the proper staff available to provide those services. When these employers are looking to hire physician, nurses or other health care providers it is reasonable to expect potential employees to reveal if they are willing to perform all the duties of the job. It is also reasonable for a hospital or clinic to require a potential employee to reveal if there is any part of the job that they refuse to take part in for any reason and to use that information to decide if they want to hire them. Physicians and nurses also have a choice to search out employers who do not offer those treatments or who are okay employing individuals who won't perform them.
The other problem with this issue is a lack of transparency. Medical care is expensive and patients should be able to acquire a full list of the things that a physician will not do or offer referrals for before choosing them as a care provider. No one should have to spend hundreds of dollars and many hours in appointments with doctors to question them about every every possible treatment or procedure they might ever need or end up with a doctor who will not provide the necessary care, regardless of the reason. Patients should have all the information about a providers ability to care for them so they can make informed decisions on which provider to see.
I for one would not want to see an OB/GYN who would refuse to operate on an ectopic pregnancy because of the infinitesimal chance that it could survive to viability rather than rupture and kill me. Or a family medicine doctor who would refuse to prescribe an OCP to a woman with PCOS because of the possibility it might stop the implantation of a fertilized egg. Or a psychiatrist who refuses to write prescriptions for antidepressants. I am all for them making the choice they feel is appropriate for their conscience/soul/morals/ethics/religion or whatever but patients should have a choice as well. Health care providers should be open, honest and upfront with their patients (or potential patients) about their self imposed limitations and allow the consumers of medical care to make their choice as well.
In the end it comes down to balancing the right of one group against the rights of another. Personal beliefs are just that and should never be forced on others, this is doubly wrong when done without giving them a choice. When faith becomes motive and not a private matter we are no longer a country where people receive the best care, but one where care is given only when it suits the personal choices of the medical staff on hand.
What the individuals and groups pushing this law want is for the government to force employers to hire and/or keep employees who refuse to perform all the duties in their job descriptions. I agree that any medical practitioner should be able to choose what procedures they want or don't want to perform, what medication they will and will not prescribe or any other decision they want to make about their practicing of medicine. And as private physicians and nurses they have the ability to do that. However, it is just as important to preserve the rights patients to informed refusal/consent.
The owners of hospitals and clinics also have the right to decide what procedures and treatments will be available within their facilities and have the proper staff available to provide those services. When these employers are looking to hire physician, nurses or other health care providers it is reasonable to expect potential employees to reveal if they are willing to perform all the duties of the job. It is also reasonable for a hospital or clinic to require a potential employee to reveal if there is any part of the job that they refuse to take part in for any reason and to use that information to decide if they want to hire them. Physicians and nurses also have a choice to search out employers who do not offer those treatments or who are okay employing individuals who won't perform them.
The other problem with this issue is a lack of transparency. Medical care is expensive and patients should be able to acquire a full list of the things that a physician will not do or offer referrals for before choosing them as a care provider. No one should have to spend hundreds of dollars and many hours in appointments with doctors to question them about every every possible treatment or procedure they might ever need or end up with a doctor who will not provide the necessary care, regardless of the reason. Patients should have all the information about a providers ability to care for them so they can make informed decisions on which provider to see.
I for one would not want to see an OB/GYN who would refuse to operate on an ectopic pregnancy because of the infinitesimal chance that it could survive to viability rather than rupture and kill me. Or a family medicine doctor who would refuse to prescribe an OCP to a woman with PCOS because of the possibility it might stop the implantation of a fertilized egg. Or a psychiatrist who refuses to write prescriptions for antidepressants. I am all for them making the choice they feel is appropriate for their conscience/soul/morals/ethics/religion or whatever but patients should have a choice as well. Health care providers should be open, honest and upfront with their patients (or potential patients) about their self imposed limitations and allow the consumers of medical care to make their choice as well.
In the end it comes down to balancing the right of one group against the rights of another. Personal beliefs are just that and should never be forced on others, this is doubly wrong when done without giving them a choice. When faith becomes motive and not a private matter we are no longer a country where people receive the best care, but one where care is given only when it suits the personal choices of the medical staff on hand.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Clipping post for RSS feeds
I use Google reader to keep up with the blogs that I read the most often. It has worked pretty well except for a couple of little quirks. I wish I would get a notification when someone updates an older post and I wish I could get them to show up in chronological order rather than reverse chronology. Those thing aside I have been very happy with it.
Lately though, it is a decision that my favorite bloggers are making that is driving me up the wall. I really appreciate those bloggers that allow the entire post to show up on the reader and I ofter click on to the page to read the comments when I have the time. I am even ok with those who put up one or two paragraphs with a 'click here' to read below the fold. What I can't stand is the 10-15 word truncations that rarely even give me a clue as to what the post is actually about. I get that you want people to go to the actual blog page because it brings in revenue (i guess) but mostly it just make me not want to read your blog at all.
Lately though, it is a decision that my favorite bloggers are making that is driving me up the wall. I really appreciate those bloggers that allow the entire post to show up on the reader and I ofter click on to the page to read the comments when I have the time. I am even ok with those who put up one or two paragraphs with a 'click here' to read below the fold. What I can't stand is the 10-15 word truncations that rarely even give me a clue as to what the post is actually about. I get that you want people to go to the actual blog page because it brings in revenue (i guess) but mostly it just make me not want to read your blog at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)