It is nearly as dangerous to base life's decisions on individual scientific studies as it is on Bible verses taken out of context. Nonetheless, I enjoy reporting encourging news, and this morning's is about chocolate. This Scientific American article reports on a study of the cocoa consumption (in any form) of 470 elderly Dutch men, which found that those who ate the most cocoa were half as likely to die of cardiovascular or any other disease as those who ate the least. They haven't identified the protective mechanism yet; maybe it was the antioxidants, maybe the men were just happier. :)
Still, there's no need to go overboard on the Ghirardelli. The average daily cocoa consumption of the highest group was "more than four grams." Four grams is not a lot of cocoa, even in its pure form.What is worse, dying because you can't afford medical treatment, or dying because the cogs in a socialized medicine system decide they can't afford to treat you? Or because someone else thinks you would be better off dead than alive?
A high court in the United Kingdom has ruled that two year old Charlotte Wyatt's life belongs in the hands of the hospital where she is being treated; her parents cannot force doctors keep her alive if the doctors decide it would be in the child's best interest to die.
Whatever your views on what would be best for Charlotte, and whatever confidence you might have in your own doctor, this court precedent should terrify you. The chasm between trusting the advice of a doctor who has treated your family for years and proven his compassion and competence, and submitting to the decision of a medical bureaucrat (be he doctor, judge, or accountant) that the patient does not deserve to live, is that between heaven and hell.
Affluenza, by John de Graaf, David Wann, and Thomas H. Naylor (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 2001)
affluenza, n. a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety, and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more
Many years ago I was walking through downtown Wayne, Pennsylvania with my father, and we stepped into the Encore bookstore. While browsing, I came upon The Plug-In Drug, Marie Winn’s indictment of television. It was a life-changing book.When I learned about Affluenza, I was hoping for a similar experience. Although I was disappointed, it’s still worthwhile reading. There are some squirrelly parts, to be sure, but The Plug-In Drug had those, too, and they don’t need to detract from the basic message, which is basically one of Stop! Slow Down! Re-think! and Re-prioritize! because our consumption-driven lives are spiraling out of control. The book does a reasonable job of presenting the problems and some of the causes, though it is inexplicably silent on the social and personal consequences of the rise of the dual-income family and our dependence on daycare. Less surprising, but just as glaring, is the lack of any acknowledgement that the institution of school, itself, and not just commercialism allowed into the schools, breeds and trains unthinking consumers.
Where Affluenza really falls down, however, is in the area of practical application. I was hoping for inspirational stories of families who have succeeded even partially in reining in consumerism and returning sanity to their lives. There is a small amount of this, but the book’s focus tends to be on what the authors think individuals should pressure the government to do, rather than on personal changes.
It’s hard not to accuse the authors of naiveté in places. While I understand the motives behind their hope that one day organic food from sustainable agriculture will cost no more than factory farm products, in practice I know that changes must come carefully and slowly if people are not going to be badly hurt. Right now we have a system, as unhealthy and as unsustainable in the long run as it is, that produces a tremendous amount of inexpensive food. If our food is healthier, but more people starve, have we gained anything?
Although it was good to score well on the "Affluenza Self-Diagnosis Test," it was somewhat unsatisfactory. Somehow it reminded me of those articles that tell me I can gain much more time in my day by not watching television, or save tons of money by giving up cigarettes. What if I've already done that?
I’ve been more negative than I intended to be; it’s easy to use a review as a platform for bringing up points I’d like to discuss with a book’s author! Although Affluenza was disappointing, it covers a vitally important subject, and is perhaps a good beginning.
Fixed ideas, even if later discredited, are hard to dislodge. This is why urban legends and Internet rumors must repeatedly be quashed. Either we like what we "know" and don't care enough to be concerned about its veracity, or a new generation comes upon the outdated information and unwittingly embraces it. Or both.
This, I'm afraid is what will happen in the case of obstetrical practice. Several years ago a study (the "Term Breech Trial") led to the conclusion that it was safer for breech presentations to be delivered by Caesarean section, rather than vaginally. Consequently, this has become standard, established practice.
However, an article in the January 2006 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reports serious flaws in the Term Breech Trial, and concludes that the recommendations from that study should be withdrawn.
Most cases of neonatal death and morbidity in the term breech trial cannot be attributed to the mode of delivery. Moreover, analysis of outcome after 2 years has shown no difference between vaginal and abdominal deliveries of breech babies.
Because Caesarean sections are considered to be more convenient than vaginal deliveries (nature is so messy!), and because people seem less inclined to sue doctors for interventions than for not intervening, I don't expect to see a rise in the number of women allowed to attempt vaginal deliveries of breech babies. Nonetheless, it is important to note yet another instance of major life decisions being made on the basis of erroneous data.I haven't yet managed to post my review of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but I'll let End of the Spear sneak in ahead while it's fresh in my mind, because I'm afraid if you don't see it soon, you'll have to wait for the DVD. Not that we had a hard time finding a showing yesterday, but it had already come and gone at our first choice theater.
Half a lifetime ago I read Elizabeth Elliot's Through Gates of Splendor. Subsequently I lost track of the story of the five American missionaries who were killed in Ecuador, but I could never totally forget it, especially since we have several friends in Ecuador—including some who were there at the time—and even sang in choir for a while with one of the children of the slain men.
Despite these connections, the story seemed "long ago and far away," so it was almost shocking to have an opportunity to learn "the rest of the story." Particularly because at last I could hear it from the other side. As I sat in the theater, the movie critic in the back of my mind starting saying things like, "That's all speculation; they don't know what really happened on the beach [where the killings occurred]." Suddenly I realized I was wrong: At the end of Through Gates of Splendor they didn't know—but they do now.End of the Spear does a particularly good job of depicting the two clashing cultures respectfully and realistically. So often in tales of that sort one is ennobled and the other villanized; here both the Waodani and the encroaching outside world are shown to be nothing more nor less than human: virtuous and foolish, comic and tragic, quick-witted and bull-headed.
One concern I always have about movie versions of real events is how much liberty has been taken with the truth. I understand that some details were altered to fit the movie format, but I was reassured to note that Steve Saint, son of one of the missionaries, said, "seeing it, this is more of 'a true story' than 'based on a true story.'"
A moving story from the film's website (see "Behind the Spear") tells how the Waodani's first reaction to the idea of the film was negative. On being told about the Columbine tragedy, however, they agreed to make the movie in hopes the story of their escape from senseless and brutal violence will help others who seem just as trapped as they were.
End of the Spear is well worth the time, effort, and money to see. I don't say that about many movies. Be sure to stay through the credits to learn a Waodani view of why Americans are so fat.
