18 posts tagged “issues”

I led services tonight at Hillel. It was the Shabbat after our Sudan Awareness and Holocaust Remembrance weeks, and I was the co-chair of Sudan Week and helped plan for the other. We had a Holocaust survivor come to speak on campus last night, and her story was incredible and inspiring. We collected a lot of pocket change to send to Doctors Without Borders for a medical mission to Darfur. We held a name reading for those who were victims of Nazi oppression in Speaker's Circle. Anyway, at one of the movie nights this week, someone asked me to say something about the Virginia Tech massacre at services tonight, and this is what I said. It's not a true d'var Torah, because it wasn't really based on this week's portion, but it's based on Ecclesiastes.

"I wanted to share with all of you the verses that Sue Kurtz, the Hillel director at Virginia Tech, read at the memorial service on Tuesday. They come from Ecclesiastes, chapter 3, verses 1 through 8. Some of you might also recognize it, as it was immortalized by the Byrds:

'To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose underthe heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
    A time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a tie to heal;
    A time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
    A time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose;
    A time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew;
    A time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate;
    A time for war, and a time for peace.'

By now, one would be hard-pressed to find someone who did not yet know about the shootings that robbed thirty-two families of their sons and daughters, their husbands and wives, and hundreds of others of their friends. As college students a thousand miles away, it is hard to explain exactly what it is we are feeling - a mixture of fear and grief, of sadness and uncertainty. It becomes easy to look around us and begin to see others as perhaps we did not before, to place blame for this tragedy, and to politicize this incomprehensible act.

But the act was that of a madman, and to understand a madman, we ourselves must be mad. We must remember that it is certainly alright to be angry, to grieve, but we must also understand that in time, we must begin to heal.

I want to concentrate on one verse specifically from the reading: "... a time to keep silence, and a time to speak." We've spent the last two weeks fighting the injustice of genocide in Darfur and commemorating the crimes against our own people in the Holocaust. We know too well the dangers of keeping silent in the face of hatred and oppression. It is our job to speak out to protect those who cannot speak for themselves. It is our job to ensure that those who have died from the acts of hate and madness are not forgotten, and that we continually fight for change, so that such horrors never happen again."

Something is going to have to come through for me at some point. Sometime soon, something good is going to happen to me. Maybe it will be just before I'm giving up hope, or I'm getting ready to settle into something I really don't want to do, but something forward-moving has to happen soon.

I managed to tack on another page or so to my thesis tonight.

I listened to the Holocaust survivor that Hillel brought in. She survived two ghettos, forced labor in a Nazi munitions factory, Auschwitz, and Bergen-Belsen. She reminded me a lot of my own grandmother (not the Jewish one), only a lot less crazy. The idea of a world without survivors is one that genuinely frightens me - it will be so much harder to combat the deniers that exist in this world without people who survived the atrocities rendered upon the world by the Nazis.

I have a starter phrase for a song. So maybe when I finish my damned thesis and all of these crazy papers, I'll write a song. Seriously, nothing but writing papers between now and the end of the year. I still have:

• my thesis to finish (about 8 more pages, give or take)
• a paper on my ethical position on stem cell research, which I am already tired of talking about for rural sociology
  
• a presentation of my thesis (20 minutes, Powerpoint)
• an exam in medicinal chemistry
• a 10-page analytical essay on "Brave New World" for rural sociology
• a quiz over the 9-11 Commission Report (which I have to read) for History
  
• several pages of worth of journals for my medical ethics course
  
• a paper on a drug listed in the Physician's Desk Reference for med chem
• Finals in med ethics, med chem, and history
  

I don't want to graduate.

My stance on abortion is not at all determined by whether I would ever have an abortion or not. I feel very strongly that motherhood is one of the most blessed roles a woman can have, and it is one that I am very excited for.

I believe that the greatest documents ever set forth by man alone were the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The most valuable doctrine among these is the venerable First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Plainly stated, we are free to believe what we want, say what we want, write what we want, assemble peacefully to talk about what we want, and tell the government when we don't like things that they're doing. We are free to do this without fear of the government banning any of these practices.

We are free to believe in (or not) any G-d that we choose. Because the question of when life begins is a religious question, the government's decision to try to legislate when life begins is, in itself, unconstitutional, to say little of the fact that it violates the long-standing principle of stare decisis, the court doctrine that says that in most cases, the Supreme Court justices should let stand the decision of previous justices. It defies precedence in that it begins to chip away at the protections afforded to women in the Roe decision, but also because this version of the ban, like its predecessor that was deemed unconstitutional, it also lacks a provision for the life and health of the mother.

There are those among us who will point to the single case of the child born at 21 weeks and say that is the new determination of viability. Just because that baby survived does not mean that all will, or that twenty-one weeks is viable. That baby will be lucky to grow up with more than a mere shell of normal abilities.

The rendering of this ban as constitutional does more than essentially relegate women to second-class status, telling them that the ball of cells in her body has more of a right to life and opportunity than she does. It also slaps in the face any citizen of this country who does not ascribe to the religiously-grounded belief that life begins at conception.

It also marks the beginning of a dangerous trend in medicine. This is the first time in United States history that a genuine medical procedure has been banned outright by the federal government. As someone who hopes to become a physician, I want to know that I can provide my patients with the best medical care available. If that means providing an abortion, I want to make sure that ALL of my patient's options are open. Medical care is circumstantial; the moral basis of procedure performance should not be based on the opinions and beliefs of wealthy seventy-five year old white men who will never understand what it means to carry a forced pregnancy.

Nobody makes decisions for me over my own body. Nobody but my doctor, in conference with me, determines what procedures are most appropriate for my body and my situation. So suck it, Roberts court. Suck it big time.

I'm starting to feel better over the last few days, at least a little less anxious. It was a beautiful day on campus today, one of those days that I'll really miss when I'm not here anymore.

We have a delightful little spot on campus called Speaker's Circle. The main draw is that it is the single-most

acoustically perfect spot on campus. Basically, you stand in the middle of the circle and say whatever it is that you have to say. It is also one of the few places in Missouri where anyone can speak without a permit. Lots of political rallies and other events take place on campus. The Jewish Student Organization is doing the Holocaust Victims Name Reading tomorrow in honor of Yom Ha'Shoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day). There is a student group who is staging a "Die-In" for the Global Days for Darfur this week. More than occasionally, a preacher who practices what he would call "confrontational evangelism" uses the Circle as his preaching space, where he calls us sinners and whores, among other things.

Anyway... it was a beautiful day and I wasn't feeling much like spending my lunch break inside, so I went to sit at the Circle. Brother Jed was there, along with his wife, Sister Cindy. They were talking about the Virginia Tech shootings and how we should be thinking about how we should be thinking about using this event as motivation to find Jesus, among other things. Sister Cindy came out and invited us all to their open house next week, and said that she would teach the women who came to make turkey gravy, because "that's all you need to be able to do to find a good man to marry you."

Because apparently, all men need to be happy is food and sex. And all women need to be happy is a kitchen and twelve bouncing, joyful children because you don't believe in birth control! Never mind that your government has just designated you to second-class citizenship - congratulations! As long as you can cook and clean and pump out babies like movie tickets, you can find a man to pay for all of the babies that you didn't want and can't afford!

Lots to think about today, and even more to do.

It's impossible to appropriately memorialize what happened yesterday in Blacksburg. What a horrific waste of lives that was, and how frightening it is to think about how easily it could happen anywhere. How selfish that student was, to steal those lives away, to take away a friend, a lover, a son, a daughter, a mother, a father, a brother, a sister. One of the professors who was murdered while protecting his students was a Holocaust survivor. There is so much to say, but there aren't any words to say it.

I always worry when things like this happen, because there always ends up being so much politicization. It's already happening. John McCain is saying that he stands by his previous stance on right to carry. It's going to force all of the other potential candidates to come out for or against gun rights, which shouldn't be happening this early in the campaign. The idea of legalized concealed carry makes me very anxious. I don't oppose the right to own guns - people use them for hunting, and in some parts of the country, there is a distinct gun culture.  I'm fine with people going hunting and shooting things that way. Hunting requires some semblance of licensure and safety training. It's not an aggressive act towards other people, and it's a way for some people in some places to create familial and friendly relationships.

However, I really feel that there is absolutely no reason for 99% of the people who own handguns to own handguns. If someone owns one for home protection, then fine. However, is it properly locked up, or is it sitting in a nightstand where anyone (the aggressor, the child) can reach in and grab it? If it's properly locked, then the amount of time it would take for someone to actually unlock it, grab it, and make safe use of it would be almost impossible, to say little of the fact that a person might not be properly trained in its usage, and the aggressor is probably also armed. Handguns are tools that are owned with the express purpose of harming another person. No amount of licensure or training removes that fact. People commit crimes with licensed firearms need to remember that there are thousands of crimes that take place every year where the criminal uses a gun that was legally purchased, and all he/she had to do was show up, ask for it, wait a few days, and then pick it up.

It might be that my father's profession makes me particularly sensitive to this issue. The Missouri electorate did not pass a law allowing concealed carry of firearms some time ago (I was still in high school), and a few years ago, the state legislature passed a law allowing it. Don't get me started on how angry I was that the legislature (which we elected) ignored a landslide election result. But it makes me very anxious to think that every time my father or one of his colleagues pulls someone over, there's a chance that person might be just a little bit too crazy or too desperate, or too angry, and open fire on an unsuspecting officer.

I know that the NRA tells us that "guns don't kill people; people kill people." This is at least partially true. People kill each other with all sorts of things. But it's a lot harder to kill people with other things, and I think we need to be cogniscient of the fact that America has the highest murder rate of any other industrialized nation and think about why that is.

Last week, I was approached by another Hillel worker who wanted to inform me that the National Socialist Movement (a.k.a. America's Nazi Party) would be marching in Columbia, to protest the "Marxist" tendencies of the School of Journalism here. For those of you who are less informed about the stature of my soon-to-be alma mater, anyone who goes here or lives in the great state of Missouri will tell you that the University of Missouri has the original and foremost journalism program in the country. We graduate the best young journalists in the country, and send them out into newspapers, television stations, and magazines.

I didn't know we were graduating Reds, too. I think secretly that they have a bigger problem with the fact that the President of the University, the less-than-honorable Dr. Elson Floyd, is not of a race that they deem to be pure. That's just my $.02.

So, everyone is in a right tizzy, because apparently this group is particularly virulent and looking to start a fight. Lucky for the Jews on campus, our building is along the same street as they requested to march on. People are discouraging students and townspeople alike from going to the march to protest directly, and encouraging them instead to go to the movies or the community picnic that is being organized at a park a few miles away. I will thankfully be far away from all of this, at a retreat in St. Louis.

As much as I detest this group, though, I understand and respect their right to have their voices heard. They applied for a permit. They did everything by law that they are required to do to peacefully assemble. There will be necessary security posted throughout their route (and extra at Hillel, thankfully) so that if they choose to assemble less peacefully, there will be law enforcement there to take care of it.

I'm glad that I'll be gone. I'm getting more than a little tired of hearing about it via email and Facebook, not to mention phone calls and fliers. What people fail to realize is that the best way to handle such reactionaries is generally to ignore them. Anything else helps them get a little closer to their goal by making us change our plans and behaviors. Anything we give them is free publicity. If nobody paid any attention, then it would just be a large group of crazies wandering around the streets of Columbia, and let's face it - we're used to that. So let's just not talk about it anymore.

It's also another one of those times when I hate being the only Jew that a lot of people know, not to mention being near the top of the letterhead. I don't give interviews anymore for anything, because I don't want to come up in a Google search. I don't want to come up in a Google search for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being that I don't want to be the Jewish kid whose first and last names are in an article about Nazis coming to visit. I don't want to be found, you dumb asses! In terms of friends... guys, please stop asking.

I don't have any real feelings on it, other than maintaining my relative privacy and not wanting to die. I'm not reacting to it, because that's what the Nazis want you to do - they want to incite panic, to make you feel less secure, to make you trust your neighbors less. They want you to react. So don't react.

Today, as I walked about campus, I was reflecting on the statement I made yesterday, in which I said I wasn't entirely opposed to the idea of legalizing physician-assisted suicide, but wasn't sure it was something I thought I could do.

The thought process merged somewhat with one I had been pursuing earlier in the week, where I was thinking about an anti-choice law that passed which basically banned abortions from being performed in areas that were a certain number of miles away from a hospital, or in places without documented hospital privileges. The law in and of itself is pretty dumb, since abortions tend to be one of the safest surgical procedures out there. So, it was basically a nonsensical law designed to portray abortions as inherently, if inaccurately, unsafe. I began thinking about what I might do to fight such a law, and came to the idea of opening up what would in essense be a full-service womens' hospital.

This is almost utopian for me. A womens' hospital staffed in its entirety by pro-choice physicians that covered the full range of womens' health services. She could get a well-woman exam, and choose from any number of caring, compassionate obstetricians to carry her through the course of her pregnancy. Basic and complex surgical procedures could be carried out. An oncologist specializing in gynecological cancers would be on staff. In-patient and out-patient beds. Special counseling for pregnancy issues, post-partum depression, and lactation, etc. And patients seeking options for their pregnancy could be presented with a full spectrum of options. Maybe we'd have an out-patient pharmacy, too, so that patients could obtain birth control and emergency contraception without any fear of conscience clauses.

It was here that the two streams of thought collided. In terms of womens' health, I am adamantly opposed to conscience clauses. I very strongly feel that if a physician does not feel that he/she is morally able to perform the duties that his/her specialty calls for, then a different specialty should be chosen. The same with pharmacists: if a pharmacist does not feel like they are morally capable of filling birth control or EC, then they should have chosen a different career. Your patient is a customer, and is not asking for your moral judgment. They are paying you to fill a bottle with the things their doctor says they need. As long as a procedure or a drug is legal, then it should be easily obtainable by the patient.

But I reach a stumbling block when I apply the same rationale to physician-assisted suicide. It is easy for me, I suppose, to consider ending a pregnancy because I don't feel that a fetus is alive. However, I could not consider PAS as a reasonable course of treatment. Yet, if it were legalized, I would have to appeal to some conscience clause written into the legalization law, much like anti-choice physicians and pharmacists do in terms of abortion. I suppose it is just another question in a long line of 'when does life begin."  

I spent the day shadowing a geriatrician - he's a family medicine physician with fellowship experience in geriatrics. Old person medicine, basically. It was mostly really interesting, even though there was quite a bit that I didn't get to see. I had lots of time to think about things... seven pages worth of time, in fact. Here's a summary:

The American population is beginning to trend towards older people, as the lifespan continues to increase. The average lifespan was once in the early fifties. Now, the average is closer to 80 years old. This should fundamentally alter how we look at funding Medicare, Medicaid, and health care in general.

Medicare is funded by a payroll tax of 2.9% of gross payment. In 2004, the average American made $43,389, and so, not taking into account inflation, the average American will pay in around $54,000. This isn't a reliable figure, because I'm not capable of predicting inflation patterns. Suffice it to say, the actual number is more than that, but health care costs should also increase at or slightly greater than the rate of inflation. The average lifetime per capita expenditure for health care is $316,600 [1] , including childcare health costs, which are generally covered under parental health insurance if available, and if not, by state or federal government insurance programs. Because this is an average, it's safe to assume that this balances out somewhat. Some people die young or suddenly and incur relatively few health care-related expenses. Others are plagued with chronic health problems from very early on and use much more than the average. However, comparing the amounts paid in per annum to the amounts paid out makes it easy to see why Medicare isn't going to be financially solvent for much longer.

This presents any number of problems. To begin with, how do we keep Medicare solvent for as long as possible? Because it is a tax-based problems, the only solutions are tax-based. We can raise taxes and maintain the current retirement benefits. We can maintain tax rates and cut benefits, either by raising the retirement age or by limiting services covered, or both.

Here's is another way of looking at it. Right now, as soon as you turn 65, you are automatically enrolled in Part A (In-patient hospital benefits). You can choose to opt out of your Part B benefits, but you are penalized, something along the lines of 10% per year on your premium fees when you do enroll. Not everyone who is eligible for Medicare needs the coverage right away. Most people now work at least a little bit past age 65. Other people receive decent retirement benefits, including low-cost health insurance. If you receive better benefits from your employer-provided insurance, and you're in relatively good health, shouldn't we provide incentives in exchange for opting out of your Part B (and possibly Part D) coverage?

Why this would work: Medicare insurance premiums are automatically taken out of the monthly SSI check. If you didn't need to spend the money on health care, and are taking relatively few prescription drugs, wouldn't you rather have the extra money in your pocket? What if the government promised to reduce your premium costs by say, $2 per month for every year that you opted out?

• If you do work until later in life (by your own choice), then you win because you pay less in monthly insurance premiums, AND you have the higher monthly SSI checks from working longer. You're also paying into the system longer, which improves solvency.
  
• If you choose to retire at 65 but opt out of Part B and/or D, then you receive a higher monthly payment, and when you do sign up for benefits, you save money. (Example: If you postpone receiving benefits until you are 70, then you save $10 on your monthly premium - $120 per year, which might be two prescriptions filled).
• If you retire at age 65, but don't opt out of any of your insurance, then your coverage continues as promised.

See? Everybody wins!

"Because woman's work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we're the first to get fired and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it's our fault and if we get beaten we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a "real" man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and "unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical weak females and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural and because we can't get an adequate safe contraceptive but men can walk on the moon an dif we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion and... for lots and lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement."

From NOW.

The end.

This is an issue that attacks all of my better sensibilities.

Pros:

• GMO food can raise crop yields by being disease- and pest-resistant. See: Roundup-ready Soybeans.
  
• GMO research helps us better understand the food we eat.
  
• There is no research to suggest that human or animal ingestion of GMO food is actually harmful.
  

Cons:

• There is already more than enough food in the world to stop hunger. Hunger results from political and economical inequities and distribution problems. See: Africa's lack of highways and roads. See also: totalitarianism.
  
• GMO seeds are protected as intellectual property. This means that the whole crop yield must be sold or used, and none of the crop can be set aside for the next year's planting. Seeds are expensive, and this creates poverty.
• Most GMO food products are not modified for the sake of improving crop viability. They are engineered to increase shelf life and appearance.
• A well-developed thought on food security.