Lift Up Your Hearts!

So, I know I don't have time to spend posting to the blog, but over lunch I read quite a strange article in today's paper. Here is a link, I hope. (This is my first post to the blog and out of our family I know the least about computers - well, I may know more than Jonathan, but not for long!) Anyway, about the article. It is about devices that a Rochester woman sells to keep belly button holes from closing up when women are pregnant and the ring won't fit anymore (though it took me to the end to actually figure that out). It is interesting how the article is worded as if to sound that this is a need that has no other options. Women speak of this device as life-saving because they don't want to HAVE to be pierced again, and it's so great because it's safer than the do-it-yourself methods. As one bright woman observed: "'I took a piece of string and tied it together like a ring,' she recounts. 'It didn't look professional, and people looked at me funny'." Okay, since when did showing your belly ever look professional?

Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it.  (Proverbs 3:27)

Last night some friends came over for dinner, and were enchanted by the Lady Grey tea that I served.  When they left, I thought about giving them some tea bags to take with them.  However, we had plans to go to the beach together this weekend, and I decided it would be nicer to bring the tea with me, as a surprise.  Unfortunately, due to a crisis at work, we had to back out of the beach plans.

The moral: If you can do something good, do it now. Tomorrow is not promised to us.

Everywhere you turn these days you'll find an opportunity to make donations to help the victims of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami. My favorite is World Vision International, a well-established organization that has been doing good work in developing countries longer than I've been alive. Some of the reasons I like World Vision are succinctly explained in a statement I quote below from their tsunami donation website. Before you click on the World Vision link, however, there is one thing I'd like to clarify.

If you are looking for general information about World Vision, or to donate to something other than tsunami relief, you will not currently find it at www.worldvision.org, which is usually their main website. Clicking there now sends you automically to the World Vision page at Kintera. My guess is that this is for a very good reason: that World Vision's normal website was so swamped with donations after the tsunami that they had to seek outside help. That's good news, indeed!

However, there are other distressed people and places in the world, and you can still reach out to them (as well as to tsunami victims) through World Vision's Ways to Give gateway. This takes you to a general donation page, from which you can choose further elaboration of the "child sponsorship," "basic needs," "emergency aid," and "gift catalog" categories. In a way, the whole website is a gift catalog. I'll admit, this is somewhat of a gimmick, but I love it! I want my charitable donations to be more personal and have less of the feel of a business transaction, and being able to chose to give a goat, or a well, or Bibles, or medical supplies, etc. does that for me.

Some reasons I like World Vision International, taken from their answer to the question, "Why Donate to World Vision?":

• World Vision has long experience in Asia. The organization has worked in the region for more than 40 years, responding to emergencies as well as conducting long-term, sustainable programs that lift families out of poverty. World Vision works in nearly all of the countries most affected by the tsunami.


• World Vision is effective on the ground. More than 3,700 World Vision staff—many of them nationals—live and work in the Asian countries devastated by the tsunami. They were assisting victims within hours of the disaster. These workers speak the local language and understand customs. Their relationships with leaders and communities are based on mutual trust.


• World Vision is accountable. World Vision carefully monitors and reviews programs and costs, uses donations and grants for their intended purposes, and looks for ways to leverage funds. World Vision strives to keep its overhead rate low. Last year, 87 percent of the total revenue directly benefited children and families in need.


• World Vision is motivated by faith. Motivated by faith in Jesus Christ, World Vision workers serve the poor as a demonstration of God's unconditional love for all people.


• World Vision does not discriminate. World Vision serves the world's poor regardless of a person's religion, race, ethnicity, or gender. Staff understand and respect the cultures in which they work.

And one more reason: Should the donations at any time exceed World Vision's ability to use them wisely in the tsunami-stricken areas, I have confidence that they will be re-allocated to help where the need is greatest.

News reports are trumpeting findings which, if true, show that our society has fallen even lower than I had thought. A study of almost 1000 Texan women found that they ranked watching television high on the list of activities that give pleasure, while taking care of children was low—almost as low as doing housework.

Although the researchers claim that the results probably apply more broadly, I believe that the population they studied greatly affected the results: all of the women had jobs outside the home. Thus their childrearing activities had to be fit into their "spare time," not a situation conducive to choosing the effort of working with children over a mindless collapse in front of the TV.

I'm grateful that I know many people for whom making a home and raising a family are among the highest pleasures of life. They are the hope of the world and the strength of the future.

We have a friend who just delivered her third child after two previous Caesarean sections that followed non-progressive labors. According to a recent report in the New York Times, that blessing would not have been possible with many doctors and hospitals. For a number of reasons, many hospitals are refusing to allow patients to attempt VBAC's (vaginal births after Caesarean).

The largest factor in the restriction is undoubtedly fear of lawsuits. Another is an observed increase in the number of cases of ruptured uterus in recent years. What the otherwise excellent article does not mention is changes in obstetrical practice that may have contributed to the rise in uterine ruptures, such as interference with the natural process of labor (e.g. unnecessary anesthesia and augmentation of labor), and use of single intead of double rows of sutures when closing the Caesarean incision.

Women are not giving up without a fight. They give birth at home, or wait until the last minute (or later) to head for the hospital, or even labor in the hospital parking lot to avoid being forced into a c-section. Dr. Cherouny, of the University of Vermont, tells hospitals, "You must be ready. Even if you don't want to do VBAC's, you will. The patients will make you."

Because the risks to both mother and child are elevated after a c-section, no matter whether the subsequent birth is by VBAC or repeat Caesarean, it is critical that freedom of choice be preserved. Mothers, fathers, doctors, midwives, and hospitals must work together to make intelligent, informed decisions that are right for each individual family.

To view the entire article, you must register with the New York Times, but it is free and worth the effort.

Here is part of the story at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer where you don't need to register.

And here is a good overview of the risk factors associated with VBAC's.

A study in London showed that chocolate is a more effective cough medicine than those terrible-tasting syrups, and has fewer side effects. Patients in the study were given theobromine in amounts equivalent to two cups of cocoa, or codeine, or a placebo. Codeine, traditionally used to suppress persistent coughs, was only slightly more effective than the placebo, but the theobromine excelled. The next questions: Is more better? Is less just as effective? Since milk chocolate contains less theobromine than dark chocolate, do I need to eat more M&M's than chocolate chips for the same result? <Ahem>, <ahem>, excuse me while I go nip this cough in the bud....

Worried about putting on extra pounds with upcoming holiday feasting? Remember what your mom always told you, and be sure to get enough sleep! A study by Columbia University researchers shows a strong inverse correlation between the amount of sleep people receive and their tendency toward obesity. Compared with those who slept seven to nine hours per night, people who slept less than four hours a night were 73% more likely to be obese; those who got five hours of sleep were 50% more likely, and those who averaged six hours were 23% more likely.

Sleep—the new weight loss program!

A technique for protecting premature infants, developed in Colombia because of a shortage of incubators, is proving so effective that Colombian doctors are urging more affluent nations to adopt it as well. Called "kangaroo mother care," the therapy begins when the child no longer needs special medical support, and ends when he is able to regulate his own temperature, typically at the time he would normally have been born.

Wearing nothing but a cap, a diaper, and a supportive sling, the baby is snuggled against his mother's (or father's) naked chest, 24 hours a day. The constant skin-to-skin contact keeps the baby warm, promotes breastfeeding, and improves communication between mother and child. Research indicates that the technique is as safe and effective as incubator care. In addition, it reduces the severity of infections and strengthens the parent–child bond.

"It's at least as good as taking care of babies in incubators," says lead author Juan Gabriel Ruiz-Pelaez, a pediatrician at Javeriana University in Bogota. "And we are convinced it has distinct advantages—especially regarding the emotional aspects of the relationship between mother and infant."

Ruiz-Pelaez says medical personnel may be resistant to the technique because "instead of having a baby carefully scrutinised with alarms and monitors, you go back to something that looks very simple and unreliable—a human body."

"Western" medicine and medical practicioners have contributed incalculably to the health of developing nations, often at great sacrifice. Without demeaning those efforts and successes in any way, it's nonetheless essential that we have the humility to recognize that our solutions aren't always the best, and develop the grace to accept non-technological, non-pharmaceutical therapies from third-world countries, midwives, grandparents, "old wives," and other sources of creative wisdom.

Especially a solution as elegant and as beautiful as this.

There are many ways to serve one's country besides military service, but today we honor those who have given the extraordinary service of laying their lives, health, and future on the line for us, especially those who gave "the last full measure of devotion."
In particular we remember today:



Harry Gilbert Faulk, son of Olaf Frederick and Hilma Reuterberg Faulk, wounded in action near Chatêau-Thierry, France, July 25, 1918. Died of his wounds later that day.


Hezekiah Scovil Porter, son of Wallace and Florence Wells Porter, killed in action near Chatêau-Thierry, France, July 22, 1918.

They were from Old Saybrook and Higganum, Connecticut, and served in the 101st Machine Gun Battalion of the 26th Division during World War I.

And for all of our current servicemen and women, I offer the following prayer from the Book of Common Prayer (U.S. Episcopal Church, 1979 version)

Almighty God, we commend to your gracious care and keeping all the men and women of our armed forces at home and abroad. Defend them day by day with your heavenly grace; strengthen them in their trials and temptations; give them courage to face the perils which beset them; and grant them a sense of your abiding presence wherever they may be; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

An Austrian study of the benefits of walking is both encouraging and perplexing. During the four-month study, 45 healthy adults walked 600 meters, three to five times per week. Each participant walked uphill for half of the study, and downhill for the other half, taking a cable car for the opposite trip.

It's not surprising that the walkers benefitted from their exercise; what is peculiar is the distribution of their improvements. Both uphill and downhill walkers experienced a decrease in their LDL ("bad") cholesterol. Uphill walking also lowered triglyceride levels and increased the body's ability to handle fat. Downhill walking significantly increased the body's ability to handle sugar. Walking uphill did not help with sugar, nor downhill with fats.

The obvious solution is to walk both uphill and down whenever possible. What I want to know, however, is the reason for the differences. It's easy to make a case for walking uphill as the "best" exercise: it expends more energy, makes more demands on the heart and lungs, and seems to be a better workout for the muscles. Walking downhill is certainly easier, although I do find it harder on the knees. What is it about downhill walking that confers the unique positive effect on blood sugar? What is different about going downhill? It uses different muscles, and is a higher impact walk, jarring the body somewhat. No doubt the walkers also covered the same distance in a shorter time. Can any of these differences explain the benefit? If not, what? I hope someone is looking into this question, as well as trying to replicate Dr. Heinz Drexel's findings.

In the meantime, I'll keep walking, though it's mighty hard in Florida to find hills to walk either up or down.

Florida is being labeled as an unhealthy state, ranking 42nd in a study by the United Health Foundation. On looking further into the study, I discovered that the risk factors they considered were far different from the ones I would have chosen to get a picture of how living in a certain state might be a health risk or benefit. I would have asked questions such as:

• What are the risks of climate-related injury and death (heat stroke, frostbite, and other risks of exposure or inadequate shelter)?
• What are the risks/benefits of the state's relationship to the sun (increased risk of skin cancer, decreased risk of rickets)?
• How many days per year are people likely to engage in outdoor activity (not driven indoors by cold or heat)?
• How likely would one be to find a good doctor/hospital when necessary?
• How free are people to make their own health care choices?
• What is the general quality of the air and water?
• What regulations are enforced concerning a healthy environment—everything from industrial and agricultural pollution to building codes and smoke-free workplaces?
• What is the rate of violent crime?
• How likely is one to be killed or injured in an auto accident?
• What is the threat of potential disasters (earthquake, volcanic eruption, tornado, hurricane, terrorist strike)?
• Are there any state-specific disease problems (high incidence of hepatitis, tick-borne disease, plague)?
• What is the general infectious disease rate?

In other words, when considering how good or bad living in a state might be for one's health, of greatest interest are those factors over which an individual has little or no control. While this study includes some of those, it confuses the data with factors that I see as irrelevant, such as the percentage of the population that smokes (a marginally important enviromental factor), and the high school graduation rate (utterly unrelated to a particular person's health risk).

Check it out for yourself, and see your own state's ranking.

Homeschooling is legal in Pennsylvania, but the regulations imposed on homeschooling families are among the strictest in the nation. Recently, one family decided to sue the state on grounds that the rules impose an unreasonable restriction on their freedom of religion. Reading that article, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's editorial in response, reminds me that we must never, never become complacent about our rights, nor take our freedoms for granted. The Post-Gazette wonders,

To us, the requirements seem rather minimal. Parents must submit an annual affidavit to the local school superintendent outlining their educational goals. They must turn in a log at the end of the year showing what subjects were taught and when. A neutral, certified teacher reviews the work and interviews the child. Standardized tests are required at several grade levels.

What is the problem with that?

One problem is that such an attitude betrays appalling ignorance of what homeschooling is all about. It is not about taking the philosophies, methods, systems, procedures, and materials of school and trying to squeeze them into one's living room. Rather, homeschooling liberates children and families to pursue learning in creative ways that are not possible when subjected to classroom-mentality restrictions.

Putting unnecessary shackles on independent learners actually inhibits learning. Requiring logs of “what subjects were taught on what days, what work was done and the time spent on it,” and similar attempts to force a “school at home” mentality on Pennsylvania’s home educators would have stifled our family’s liberal—and liberating—approach to education.

I'm glad we lived in Florida when our children were of school age. Florida's homeschooling regulations are still unnecessarily invasive, but require less than a quarter of what Pennsylvania demands. Pennsylvania would definitely not have approved of our home education program. However, even the most ardent critic of homeschooling would have difficulty saying that our approach did not provide a proper education. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northwestern University, the University of Rochester, the Eastman School of Music, and Pittsburgh’s own Carnegie Mellon University are among the schools that considered our children’s educations to be very fine indeed. Our success was due in great measure to freedom from the “school mentality” that Pennsylvania’s rules impose.

I wish this couple, and others who are pursuing the freedom of religion angle, success in their efforts to reduce the Commonwealth's intrusion into that most personal, and critical, area of ours lives: the education of our children. However, I would hope that all of Pennsylvania's homeschoolers would see this as their issue as well. The right to educate our children in the way that we deem best should not be limited to those with strong religious convictions.

Pennsylvania’s educational, historical, and cultural resources would appear to make it an ideal location for a homeschooling family. Florida offers less culture, but more of the freedom that breeds enthusiastic, lifelong learners. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Pennsylvanians could have both?

Researchers at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital found yet another health benefit of breastfeeding, this time for mothers. Women in the study who breastfed their children for a total of one to two years experienced a 20% lower risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis later in life. For those who breastfed for at least two years, the risk was cut in half.

It appears that Boston could not have two big winners this year. If they could have chosen, I wonder how many would have traded the Red Sox World Series win for a Kerry victory?

Cast your vote, then "cast your cares on the Lord, and he will sustain you" (Psalm 55:22). As close as this election is, we can be sure that half of the people in this country will be disappointed with the results. Nonetheless, for the health of our country, we all need to look toward the future with hope and enthusiasm.

For our country—and for ourselves, also. It is appropriate that today's news includes a Dutch study confirming the positive health benefits of optimism. The nine-year study of nearly a thousand men and women between the ages of 65 and 85 found that an optimistic personality contributed significantly to reduced mortality. The effect was most dramatic when cardiovasculary mortality alone was considered. (The above link takes you directly to the Archives of General Psychiatry where the research was published. As might be expected, unfortunately, the news stories circulating differ vastly in accuracy, with some reporting the opposite of the true cardiovascular results.)

A research scientist can only say that the effect applies to the population studied: elderly people. It doesn't take much imagination, however, to expect that other studies will show similar benefits among more, and maybe all, populations.

There is much that is negative to concern us, even if our candidates are today's victors. We didn't need those horrible campaign ads to convince us of that. But we all need a good dose of appreciating the good, the true, and the beautiful, and of expecting the best out of life, rather than the worst. Then we will be in the right frame of mind to enjoy the best, if it comes, and to deal with the worst, if necessary.