Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

Death and Dignity

July 8, 2018

As euthanasia gains traction in Western culture, people are finding it harder to locate alternative forms of end-of-life care and treatment, or palliative care.

Palliative care aims at keeping a patient comfortable as they approach death.  Active treatment of whatever conditions have brought them to this point are discontinued, acknowledging that nothing more can be done medically to save the person.  Instead emphasis is placed on keeping them comfortable.  Sometimes this can involve heavy pain killers and sedatives such as morphine.  But the intent, medically, is not to cause death, but allow the patient’s own condition to bring them to death.

It may seem like a small distinction these days, but traditionally it is anything but.  The Hippocratic Oath specifically forbids doctors from actively assisting their patients to die, a tenet that has stood the test of time for over 2300 years, but now is considered outdated.  Why bother keeping someone comfortable and allowing them to die naturally when you can expedite the process?  Why allow someone to die when you can kill them more efficiently, on a scheduled time-table, and with very little medical knowledge or patient care and counseling?

It would seem that the right to die, adopted under the pretext of allowing people to choose to die with dignity, is actually preventing people from dying naturally with dignity.  Rather than adding another option for people with terminal disease, it may actually be reducing the number of options for such people.  Especially when insurance gets more active in the game.  Why bother paying for days or weeks of palliative care when someone who is obviously going to die anyways could die much sooner, and therefore much more  economically?

Your freedoms, right?  Or are they?


Legal or Right?

May 31, 2018

A correspondence friend directed me to this article.  He presumed that I would draw the same conclusions as him  – that fighting to ban abortion is really a moot point because there are numerous ways for women to effect abortions without a clinic.

Actually, I draw a different conclusion, which is that it really does matter if we ban abortion because in banning abortion we can quit talking about abortion as though it’s equivalent to clipping fingernails, trimming hair, or other equally inaccurate metaphors.  We must ban abortion in recognition that what grows in a woman’s body as a result of sexual intercourse is, in fact, a human being and entitled therefore to the full protection of the law just as a baby or toddler or adult is.  When this happens, we can begin teaching this truth to people – men and women, boys and girls – so that they will think differently about their actions and the results of those actions and their moral options for dealing with those results.

I’m sure this isn’t the desired takeaway from the author’s perspective.  However her article omits some very important details that might lead one to her conclusion rather than mine.  First of all, she cites estimates in Brazil that between 500,000 and 1 million abortions are estimated to take place every year despite abortion being illegal.  How is this estimate arrived at?  I’m assuming it’s based to some degree on prescriptions for certain drugs, but how do they distinguish between the legitimate uses of those drugs or the illegitimate uses?  That’s a rather large spread for  an estimate as well!  And finally, there’s no mention of what the abortion rates were prior to abortion being made illegal.

If we want to stop the killing of unborn children, we must both ban abortion as well as re-educate people.  This is exactly the technique that the pro-abortion camp used in reverse.  It seems dangerously naive to think that abortion rates won’t be affected by making it illegal and actually teaching people that when they seek abortion they are in fact seeking to kill a human being.  While it might still be possible to achieve the desired effect through alternate means, I believe there would also be a large drop in the number of people who would consider availing themselves of these means.

This would also necessitate a reconsideration of the Sexual Revolution in whole, but I don’t think that’s such a bad idea either.  Education can’t fix everything, but it can certainly make headway in quite a few areas!

Who Is Mistaken?

October 24, 2017

So, as I understand evolutionary theory and/or natural selection theory, it works something like this.  A series of genetic changes – purely random and by chance – over immense periods of time have resulted in all of the living organisms in the world.  Each one the product of millions of years of natural selection and evolutionary mutation.

Yet, in the comparatively few years since we have been able to really study genes and map them, we’ve developed a tool that can correct the errors in our genes.


We know enough in a few short years of working with genes to safely decide that we can begin editing the genetic code for life?  That we can simply snip off the naughty genes and give us diseases?  That we understand completely how this incredibly complex set of data interacts with itself to create us?

I don’t doubt that we can edit our genetic sequences.  But I’m so totally not convinced that we know enough to start doing this.  And the thought that there are very intelligent people out there who are perfectly comfortable with this idea is terrifying.

Aquaponics 2

October 19, 2017

We’ve taken one step forward and two steps back this week in our aquaponics venture.  I procured three large 55-gallon drums for starter tanks.  But I also discovered this week that the most popular and common form of fish for aquaponics – tilapia – is not permitted in the county we live in (gotta loooooovvvveeee California!).

I had suspected this to be the case for a few weeks now after scouring the Internet.  But I held out hope that exceptions might be made if the system was completely self-contained (as opposed to privately stocking tilapia in a pond on your property or something).  I referred to the California game and fish web site to begin with.  I called the contact number listed there.  But the number was actually some sort of nation-wide contact, so they had to transfer me to a California person.  That person had to transfer me to someone else, and that person transferred me to someone else, who gave me the name and number of the person she was transferring me to, and I left a voice mail with this person.  She responded within an hour or so to give me another name and  number where I left a voice mail.  This woman called back in a couple of hours and was extremely pleasant but confirmed there were no exceptions to the tilapia ban.  She e-mailed me a variety of resources that will be very helpful as we progress, and gave me the name of  a guy down in San Diego that I have e-mailed, asking for his next best recommendation for an aquaponics fish.

In the meantime I’ve started researching other options for fish.  Catfish seems to be the next-best option in terms of growing quickly.  But it’s a less popular fish to eat.  We’ll see what the San Diego guy recommends.

Aquaponics 1

September 26, 2017

We try to eat healthy, and more and more we have developed concerns about the things that are in the food we eat, and most particularly in the meat.  We’ve considered various options for doing some self-sustainable food production.  Gardens were of limited success as people lost interest in them and would forget to water them.  Chickens seemed challenging given that we have two medium-sized dogs.  I suggested raising rabbits for meat but my wife has firmly nixed this idea.

What if we did aquaponics, I suggested.  Aquaponics creates a self-sustaining ecosystem based on fish and plants.  Fish are raised (sometimes for food, which is our intention, and sometimes not to eat) and their water is cleaned and filtered by pumping it through growing beds where the ammonia and nitrogen of the fish waste is filtered out through growing medium, which in turn allows plant roots to access these nutrients.  The only ongoing input into the system is food for the fish and additional water to offset evaporation.  Even with evaporation the total water usage is supposed to be far less than growing a vegetable garden in a piece of land (unless you get a lot of rain and don’t need to water the plants on your own, I suppose).

The family loved the idea.  We like the idea of growing more of our own food and thus ensuring that it is free of pesticides and herbicides and hormones and antibiotics and whatever else gets into our food these days.  We also like the idea of learning together how to build the system.  It could be a business opportunity for the kids as they get older, consulting and building systems for other people as well as potentially – if our system grows large enough – sustaining a business to local restaurants eager for local, healthy fish.

There’s a lot of information on the Internet about how to do this.  It isn’t complicated, beyond getting the system created and connected with PVC piping, pumps, drains, etc.  I’ve decided to chronicle our journey in case it’s helpful to others.

Step number one was to ensure that our water was as healthy as possible.  We’re on city water, which provides a certain level of filtering and treatment, but which results in chlorinated and fluoridated water.  While the fluoridation may not be a big deal, the chlorine is.  So last week we had a plumber remove the salt-based water softening system that came with the house when we bought it, and installed a two-stage water filtering system instead.

Just that step alone has taken nearly a year of research!

There are so many options out there!  Some systems – like the one in the house when we bought it – can cost thousands of dollars.  Or you can go online or to Home Depot’s web site and find filtering systems for under $100.  How do you make a decision?

Mainly, it seems to depend on where you’re getting your water – and thus how much sediment filtering you need – and what you specifically hope to filter out of the water.  We examined filtering systems, not water softening systems.  Some options combine the two or allow you to custom-design systems that do both.  We decided we didn’t want the softening, just the filtering.

Because we’re on city water, the particulates and sediment in the water have already been filtered out to certain standards.  Municipal water sources should publish annual water quality reports available online or by direct request from your water supplier.  Had we been on well water, I would have opted for a three-stage filtering system to filter out more of the sediment, but a two stage option seemed to be fine for a city water connection.

I investigated a system that would filter out fluoride as well as chlorine, but it was significantly more expensive.  There’s plenty of debate about the role of fluoride in our drinking water, with very little consensus or evidence to back up the various perspectives.  I decided we could buy a counter-top filter specifically designed to filter fluoride to replace the Britta filter we currently use, which doesn’t filter fluoride.

Finally, I decided on the i-Spring whole home two stage filter, sometimes referred to as Big Blue.  More specifically, it’s model WGB22B.  Rationale:

  • Reasonably priced
  • Reasonably priced filters
  • Large filters that will hopefully last a bit longer than some smaller models (hopefully 6 months considering the size of our household and the hardness of the city water)
  • Filters chlorine
  • 5 micron filtering
  • Good water flow rate (up to 15 gpm)
  • Certified to NSF/ANSI standards
  • Includes a sediment filter as well as a carbon block filter that handles the organic filtering as well as chlorine filtering
  • Good ratings on Amazon

Now that we have this in place, we have improved water which will be healthier for the fish.  Chlorine is an unhealthy thing for them that would need to be removed.  While it can be removed to some degree with time and agitation, we decided we wanted to benefit from chlorine filtering for ourselves, not just for our fish!

The next step will be to purchase the tank that will hold our fish.  I’m planning on either a 55-gallon drum-style, food grade plastic barrel that we might cut in half to create two tanks, or a larger, 275-gallon food grade IBC tank.  I’ll keep you posted as we take our next step!

Semantics Matter

August 16, 2017

Words mean things.   They’re important.  So I applaud it when someone points out the real meaning of words.   In this case, a popular actress calling a nation out for murder rather than lauding it for some sort of medical progress.

Patricia Heaton made an important Tweet in response to media news claiming that Iceland is eliminating Downs Syndrome.  She pointed out the difference between eliminating something and killing everyone who suffers from it.

Well said, in 140-characters!

Eat Which Bread?

August 4, 2017

Thanks to Gene Veith’s great blog for reminding me about a somewhat recent/current controversy in conservative church circles – are gluten-free Communion wafers acceptable?  He refers to this article, which provides an analysis of the Roman Catholic refusal to approve gluten-free wafers for Holy Communion, including a history of how they reached this point (which shows that this point today is not really a new thing in their circles).

I’ll disclose at the outset that about two years ago we started offering gluten-free wafers in our congregation.  We have at least one member with Celiac Disease, who was never able to take Communion before.  Now she can, and I think this is a good thing.  There are likely a couple of others who consider themselves gluten-intolerant.  Whether this is a fad or a health thing is not a call I’m qualified to make.  Nor do I think it’s one I need to.  My only issue is that, thanks to a snafu a few weeks ago, I tasted one of those wafers and they’re disgusting.  Actually worse than the tasteless regular wafers.  I remain firmly committed to the principle that if we’re going to make a big deal about the elements (as we likely can and should), we should insist that the bread actually looks and somewhat tastes like bread, rather than simply being made from the requisite same ingredients as bread.

Several questions come to mind.  First of all, is the gluten-free issue in any way a revisitation of the gnostic rejection of anything material, a rehashing of the Docetist view that Jesus only appeared to be human but wasn’t really, and therefore celebrating Holy Communion at all – or with actual physical elements – is inappropriate?  I don’t think it is at all.  I think it’s an example of using the rationale from one theological dispute towards decisions in unrelated issues.  I don’t believe that people with legitimate health concerns are denying the real presence of Christ in with and under the bread and wine, or seeking to undermine the goodness of the created order and the material world (as declared by God in Genesis 1) by asking for gluten-free wafers.

Secondly, what kind of bread were Jesus and his disciples using?  And was that bread substantively different from other breads?  We know that it was unleavened, yet the Eastern Church uses leavened bread for their Eucharist.  Is that a big deal?  Not to them.  Should it be to us?  Perhaps.  I think the idea of maintaining the unleavened nature of Communion bread makes good sense, and is a further means of tying us more closely to the actual event, the actual Jesus, and the actual Jewish faith.

Jewish tradition dictates that the unleavened bread of Passover must be made from wheat, spelt, barley, rye or oats – either whole or refined grains – and water.  Jesus and his disciples ate whatever bread was provided to them by their host.  It could have been any of those.  Oat bread is gluten-free (when prepared properly).  Couldn’t this be an option (as opposed to rice) for gluten-free wafers?

What we seem to have at the core is whether the Roman Catholic decisions about the elements for Holy Communion should be considered binding beyond their denomination.  Lutherans traditionally line up pretty closely with the Roman Catholics on many issues – far more closely than most other Protestant traditions (except for maybe high church Anglicans).  Should we assume that the mandate for pure wheat and water alone being the ingredients for Communion wafers should be adopted?  That puts a lot of power in the arena of tradition, something that Lutherans are historically hesitant to do (fluctuating political trends notwithstanding!).  If Scripture doesn’t provide us with the ingredients of the Communion bread used by Jesus, should the Church take the authority to determine what does and does not qualify?

Finally, there’s the 1 Corinthians 11 issue.  St. Paul is taking the Corinthian church to task for some of their worship practices.  In 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 Paul deals with some fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of Holy Communion, and how it is different than any other meal we eat.  Yet the Corinthians have forgotten or don’t realize this.  They treat it just like any other meal.  If the bread and wine were in some way substantively different than the rest of the bread and wine available, or that they consumed at home, wouldn’t this have been a less problematic issue?  In other words, it seems clear that they weren’t using special bread for Holy Communion – as in special pure-wheat-and-water-only-bread.  Paul doesn’t fault them for this, but only for failing to distinguish that the consecrated bread and wine is something very different than the rest of the bread and wine laying around the house.  It has been set aside for the presence of Christ.  It is not the ingredients that are the issue, but the failure of the Corinthians to discern this spiritual truth that has led to issues in their community and the need for Paul to correct them.

I believe there should be regularity in the elements.  I believe that the elements should by and large reflect the type of elements Jesus and his disciples actually were using that night.  The bread should be unleavened.  But it should also be bread!  The wine should be kosher wine, not some sort of trendy boutique variety.  Holy Communion is not a wine-tasting exercise.  Because of the fermentation process with grapes, I don’t have a problem with offering grape juice (which has barely discernible levels of fermentation).  I don’t think we should substitute just any sort of juice or any kind of bread-like substance.

But I think it’s possible to become too legalistic about the issue as well.  I don’t think gluten-free wafers are a new incarnation of Gnostic/Docetist theology.  And while I may agree that the whole gluten-free thing is more a fad than anything else, I won’t take it upon myself to medically interrogate my parishioners to determine if they legitimately need a gluten-free wafer or just prefer one.  Here, as in many areas of worship, we attempt to be faithful while recognizing still our essential freedom.  We try never to lose sight of our connection to the Body of Christ as a whole – historically or otherwise – while taking into account the needs of our members and trying to discern whether there is theological tomfoolery afoot.


Mercy Killing?

June 30, 2017

The Western world grapples with the fear of suffering.  Not simply our own, actual suffering, but the suffering of others and our own hypothetical suffering.  The idea of having to suffer offends our sensibilities.  There is no purpose to it.  And so we demand that we have the option to opt-out of suffering and along with that we demand the right to opt other people out of their suffering so that we don’t have to suffer along with them.

We term this mercy.

Here is what mercy now can look like.  Parents of a child born with congenital health issues for which there is no cure or treatment are being told that the government has decided to end their child’s life – in the best interest of the child.  Despite the fact that the parents do not want their child to die.  Despite the fact that there is experimental treatment available out of the country that could change the conditions for which the child is being sentenced to death.  Not only this, but now that their appeals for out-of-country treatment have been denied, the parents are also being denied the right to have their own child die in their own home, rather than in a hospital.

I’m still trying to see where the mercy is involved in all of this.  Perhaps because I don’t suspect that mercy is really what is being demonstrated.  Efficiency.  Expediency.  A rigorous attention to detail, the rule of law.  Bureaucratic policy.  But not mercy.

This is happening in Great Britain.  The country, as one observer notes, that fought against the Nazi’s and their insistence that some lives (other people, more specifically) were not worth living and therefore the government could decide to end those lives.  This is where we end up without a moral compass or baseline, without anything that limits our ability or tendency to define and redefine even such beautiful words as mercy until they mean the very opposite of why we find them beautiful.

This redefinition is evil.  It is evil because it reduces humanity to a matter of expediency and personal preferences, carefully sanitized in legalese and policy-speak.  It is evil because it holds the dictates of a human being or institution as ultimate and final, without recognizing that such beings and institutions are inherently unable to provide a single, permanent baseline from which to operate.  So the decisions made today may be completely opposite the decisions that would have been made 50 years ago, or the decisions that might be made 50 years hence.

We (Christians) are being inculcated to sympathy with this evil.  I find the seeds of it even in myself, despite being older and less prone to direct means of subversion and brain-washing (like schools).  We are being wooed towards sympathy because of our own fears and hopes and wishes.

Yesterday I visited one of our long-time members who is homebound.  She has been homebound for the past seven years, by and large.  Over those years I have brought her Communion and led us in simple worship together.  She is an amazing woman.  Her mind is sharp, her will is formidable, she is articulate, cultured, and refined, and she has a zest for life that would be admirable in a person a quarter her age.

When I saw her two weeks ago she was having a good day.  We shared Communion and prayer.  I could see much of her through her condition.  When I went yesterday, however, it was a bad day, and I could see so very, very little of the woman she is.  She was fearful, her words slurred and at times indecipherable.  Her fear was palpable and audible, her weakness striking.  She didn’t know who I was, or who the woman caring for her was, or where she was.  She begged to go home while sitting in her own living room of 50 years.

I left asking God why He didn’t take her yet.  She has been ready to go for years.  Her faith is strong, but her mind and body have been subverted and twisted by time.  What point is there in having her linger, I wondered.  I even flirted with the thought that perhaps God was being unkind to her in this.  She deserves to die.  It would be a blessing to her.  It would be merciful.

Merciful to whom, I suddenly thought.  Perhaps it would be merciful to me, so that I didn’t need to keep going to see her.  Merciful to me so that I wasn’t made uncomfortable by her condition and deterioration, fearful that I might one day be in her place.  Merciful to me in that I wouldn’t have to accommodate myself to her limitations, and that I could leave feeling happy and care-free, to go about my daily routine and duties, rather than struggling with mortality and the damnable reality of sin and death that lurks within my own frame.

She is still herself.  She isn’t less herself, or less of a human being, than she was two years ago or twenty years ago or eighty years ago.  She is entitled to all the same love and care and concern.  Is it harder to be with her?  Yes.  Which is perhaps why it is all the more important to be with her.  To come to grips with the effects of sin in our lives.  To seek to love her consistently and care for her consistently, rather than simply deciding that at some arbitrary point or in some arbitrary state of mind or body, she is no longer herself, no longer deserving of the life that God himself has given and sustained her in.  Perhaps part of the blessing of suffering is that we learn to see past and through these things, both in ourselves and others.

She is not defined by her dementia.  She is not defined by her physical frailty.  She is not defined by her suffering, and neither she nor I have the right to redefine her as such and cease to see her for what she is.  Beautiful.  Alive by the grace and wisdom of God.  And therefore an opportunity to love and practice mercy with in the truest and best sense of that word, rather than the senseless way our culture wants to redefine it.  Perhaps as I continue to care for her in this way, it will better prepare me to care for others in similar conditions, and will further prepare me – inasmuch as may be possible – for me to endure that condition should it become my own one day.

Mercy, like hope, isn’t necessarily expedient.   But we are in a dangerous place without either.


The Cost/Benefit of Faith and Risk

June 7, 2017

My family chooses to participate in Samaritan Ministries, a medical cost-sharing network.  We have been a part of it for almost four years now.  In that time we’ve had one claim, when our oldest son passed out and broke his front tooth on pool decking.  We paid close to $4000 for the associated care for that injury, and when we submitted our claim to Samaritan, we were reimbursed in full for our expenses (minus a $300 deductible) by the members of the program.  Otherwise, we faithfully send off our share to the designated person/family/need each month, along with a card and prayer.  It has been a great experience for us, but whenever you do something out of the norm, I think there’s a persistent level of uncertainty.  Are we making the right decision?  What if we’ve made a monumental mistake that will cost our family dearly?

All of which is a form of fear and anxiety.  It isn’t that anything is wrong right now, but something might go wrong, something that we won’t be able to handle, something that our choice of Samaritan as opposed to a conventional health insurance provider will prove to be disastrous in.  It’s always a possibility.  It’s a possibility even with a conventional health insurance provider.  But at least in going that route, you have the comfort of knowing that most other people have made the same choice as you, and falling into the logical fallacy of bandwagon thinking – assuming that something must be right/best just because a lot of other people do it as well.

Thus I was interested in this article commenting on Christian health care sharing ministries in general, with a lot of attention focused specifically on Samaritan Ministries. It is a critical article. Clearly the author is uncertain about the merit of such systems, despite the fact that most members of these systems report great satisfaction with them.  To support the critical perspective, the author focuses on a family who is not satisfied, and evaluates their treatment under Samaritan.

Ultimately what the article does is remind everyone to read the fine print and to make sure that they are getting coverage that matches their needs as well as their beliefs.   We were motivated primarily by a desire to not support abortion and abortion-inducing prescriptions through active participation in a traditional health insurance plan compliant with the mandates of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Doing so may put us at risk for certain things not being covered that would under a traditional health insurance plan.  However, based on our beliefs, our behaviors, and our general level of healthiness as a family, we believe that the risk is one we can shoulder.

It’s also an article that encourages constant evaluation and reconsideration of policies, particularly policies that attempt to embody Biblical beliefs and teachings.  Ultimately this is going to be subject to interpretation and not everyone may agree on the best way to interpret and apply Biblical mandates or principles in an organization.  Which means there should be a healthy and continuous dialogue.  I hope Samaritan will take that to heart.  All their members have a lot riding on it.

Assistance vs. Insistence

February 2, 2017

I hope to be visiting the Netherlands for the first time this spring.  I just hope that I don’t fall ill and unable to speak for myself, or tick off my family to the point that they decide I need to die and are willing to hold me down to make it happen.  Well, that’s probably a poor analogy.  But let’s just say that the Netherlands are not a place I would feel safe living in if I was getting on in years and suspecting I might be developing dementia.  Someone might make the decision that it was time for me to die, even if I didn’t want to.

That’s what happened to one woman, and the Dutch courts have cleared the doctor involved of any criminal responsibility because she acted “in good faith”.  I’m not sure what that means.  Family members were asked to hold down the woman so the doctor could inject her with a lethal dose of drugs.  This after a sedative in her coffee failed to sedate her enough for them to do this peacefully.  Clearly, the woman didn’t want to die – certainly not at this point, although there are indications that perhaps she had once been open to the idea.

The woman suffered from dementia and lived in a nursing home.  She had exhibited signs of fear and anger – neither very unusual in these cases as I understand it – and also was prone to wandering around at night (also not necessarily unusual for someone with dementia).  The article doesn’t make clear who requested the euthanasia.  Had the woman left instructions when her mental faculties were capable of such things?  And if so, should she be forced to abide by that decision against her own will in the moment?  Did the family request the euthanasia, and is there any reason to think they could be held accountable?  Or was it the doctor’s idea, assuring the family that this was the merciful and loving thing to do, fully in keeping with the woman’s own (previous) wishes or ideas?

Proponents of assisted suicide never talk about these sorts of situations, yet they go develop sooner or later.  After 17 years of legal euthanasia, I’m sure there are plenty of Dutch doctors who have absolutely no qualms about ending a human life, even when the person doesn’t want to die and is capable of physically resisting.  I don’t understand how anyone can not be worried by this sort of thing.