The Man in the Mirror

I've never been a huge Michael Jackson fan. Sure, I've enjoyed his music, but I never bought one of his albums, never went to a concert of his. And yet, like so many, I was stunned and shocked by his untimely passing at the age of 50.

As a child of the 80s, his music was a part of the soundtrack of my childhood. I remember watching MTV at my friends' houses and marveling at his music videos. I'm sure I recorded a song or two of his off the radio for my mix tape collection. I danced around in my room to his songs. And, like every one else, I was increasingly disturbed by his transformation from a handsome young black man to an ethnically ambiguous caricature of a human figure. The lightened skin, the continued plastic surgery - it was all so bizarre. And as a child and then as a teenager, it made no sense. As an adult, however, it became clear that what we, the public, were seeing on the outside was a representation of the pain and disfigurement on the inside. Stories emerged from interviews with Michael himself, as well as family members and those who knew him, about physical and emotional abuse at the hands of his father, Joe. His immense talent - the very key to his fame and fortune - seemed to be the trigger for his father's driving him like slave to rehearse and perform. Rather than statements of love and approval, young Michael heard insults about his nose and the darkness of his skin. His talent, which brought him the love and admiration of a worldwide audience, only caused his father to push him more, to isolate him more, to abuse him more. And no one stood up to protect Michael. Is it any surprise that he became a man who could not survive as an adult? Is it any surprise that he became a man who could not see the beauty in himself and instead subjected himself to countless cosmetic procedures in order to achieve "perfection?" That little boy who had seemed to have everything, in truth, didn't even have the basic thing most children have: the love, acceptance, and protection of a parent.

That is the tragedy of Michael Jackson's life. His greatest gift was the reason for his downfall. And what is so tragic is that every day, we see that others are not heeding the moral of Michael Jackson's story, that there are still parents who treat their children not as a special gift to protect and nurture, but as a meal ticket to exploit and sell. There are still parents who see their children as a means to an end, and not a joy to cherish for its own rewards.

My favorite Michael Jackson song is "Man in the Mirror." In it, he talks about the need for change to start with each person looking at himself or herself and making a commitment "to make that change" starting with that "man in the mirror." It is so sad that when Michael Jackson looked at the man in the mirror, he saw the distorted image painted for him by his father, and not the one the rest of the world saw. Rest in peace, Michael. I sincerely wish you had found that peace while here on Earth.

Bad Medicine

Oh this ticks me off! The American Medical Association has come out against healthcare reform, primarily because of opposition to a public health care plan. One of the major reasons for that opposition is the contention that "the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion in costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers."

Right. Because our current system, in which there are 40 million Americans without health insurance, leading to a focus on emergency medicine rather than preventative medicine, is really cost effective.

Or is it that the AMA is worried about the effect of having someone who calls for evidence-based medicine holding the purse strings for medicine? What would happen to billing for the "machines that go ping" if the guys writing the check said they wouldn't pay for them because they do not improve outcome?

Whose health is the AMA more concerned with: the health of the average American, or the health of their members' bank accounts?

RIP Dr. Tiller

It has been several days since the Wichita doctor, George Tiller, was murdered while in his church. And I am still sad over his death. I have debated whether I wanted to blog about him and about abortion, about whether I wanted to enter the fray. And I have come to the decision that one of the best ways to honor Dr. Tiller's memory is to be open about the reasons women went to see him.

Back in February, my husband and I, accompanied by our toddler, went to the ob/gyn's office for what I expected would be our last visit before I transferred care to my homebirth midwife. I was approximately 18.5 weeks pregnant and was going to have the now-routine anatomy scan done. Technically, the scan is done to make sure the fetus is growing correctly, that the pregnancy is proceeding normally. But I would say most women see it as the chance to find out whether they are having a boy or a girl. My husband and I were hoping to learn that we would be having a little girl, though we would also be happy to find out we were having a healthy little boy as well.

The ultrasound technician was cheerful and made jokes with us as she began the scan. She remembered my son from our previous two ultrasounds and was joking with him as she went through the scanning process. My husband and I waited anxiously to find out whether we were having a boy or girl, and the technician quickly told us we were, in fact, having another boy. Lying on the table, I gave my husband a wry grin - another boy. We were in for another exhausting couple of years.

As the scan continued, I noticed that the technician became quiet. She stopped talking to my husband and I. She stopped joking with my son. I remember looking at my husband quizzically several times and noting from his expression that he, too, had noticed the change in her demeanor. After over half an hour, the ultrasound technician told us that a nurse would be in to take us to another room to speak with the doctor, and the technician left without looking at us. Both my husband and I knew something was not right. As we sat in the next room, waiting for the doctor to talk to us, I could hear the technician in the hallway, speaking with the doctor. I heard her say to the doctor, "I've never seen a cyst that big before." I was becoming extremely worried.

The doctor came in soon after and told us what the scan had found: the fetus had what appeared to be two large cysts, known as choroid plexus cysts, on his brain. He also had what appeared to be an enlarged stomach. Individually, these would not be cause for alarm, but since our baby had both, there was concern that the fetus might have a chromosomal abnormality. We would need to see a high-risk obstetrician with a more powerful ultrasound machine in order to determine whether there were more soft signs of abnormality and, based on that, we would need to decide whether to have further testing, such as an amniocentesis. I asked what chromosomal abnormality the fetus might have; the doctor said that choroid plexus cysts tend to be seen in fetuses with Trisomy 18, a condition that is generally not compatible with life. The doctor said that she would call the women's center downtown and make an appointment for us; since we were the last appointment on a Friday afternoon, we would have to wait until Monday to find out when our appointment would be.

I know I held it together until we left the doctor's office. I was sent to the lab to have some blood drawn, and the phlebotomist asked about the pregnancy and whether I knew what I was having. I remember thinking, "I don't know that I'm really having a baby" but actually telling her, in a daze, that it was a boy. Once we left the building and got in the car, I broke down crying. My husband and I sat there, with our son in his carseat, holding each other as I cried. I remember thinking this couldn't be happening. This couldn't be possible.

As soon as we got home, I looked up Trisomy 18. What I read was not heartening. If our baby had Trisomy 18, the chances of him making it to term were slim; 95% die in utero. Those babies with Trisomy 18 who do survive to delivery die within days, if not hours. The median lifespan for Trisomy 18 babies who make it to term is 5 to 15 days. I was heartbroken. Instead of sending out a happy email to friends telling them we were expecting another boy, my husband and I were facing the prospect of losing our child. It was at this point that we began to seriously talk about what we would do if the tests showed the worst case scenario was reality. We talked about abortion.

I spent the weekend reading more about Trisomy 18 and about abortion, between bouts of crying. My husband and I found that neither of us wanted to talk about the baby, it was just too painful to consider what might be, but we both wanted to comfort each other. But both my husband and I were honest with each other: if our baby turned out to have Trisomy 18, we would not carry to term. It was that weekend that I learned about Dr. Tiller and his practice in Kansas. I read the stories his patients had posted on different websites. I read about his compassion for women, for couples, having been dealt a cruel hand by Mother Nature and having to make a difficult decision. Above all, I spent the weekend hoping that I and my husband would not have to make that decision, that everything would be ok, that it was just a false alarm.

For nearly 4 days, I and my husband wrestled with the what-ifs, wrestled with the possibility that we would have to make the difficult decision to end the pregnancy. It was with great relief that I laid in a different ultrasound room on the following Tuesday and learned that the baby showed no other signs of Trisomy 18 or, for that matter, any other chromosomal abnormality. A follow-up ultrasound four weeks later showed the two cysts on the brain had disappeared and the stomach, while still somewhat large, was normal in size. It was going to be ok. The high-risk obstetrician discussed with us the very low likelihood of there being a chromosomal abnormality, given the level-II ultrasound results and the results of my bloodwork; based on that information, we opted not to have an amniocentesis. It was going to be ok.

I am grateful that we did not have to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy - to abort the fetus. But I know that there are other women, other couples, who do not receive happy news at their follow-up appointments, who do not get the sense of relief when their testing results come back. And it is for them that I also mourn. For while the service Dr. Tiller provided, late-term abortion, is not one that all people would like to have exist, it is one that needs to exist. And the health of women in the United States, the options of couples and families facing the realities of a pregnancy gone horribly, horribly wrong, is threatened by the loss of Dr. Tiller.

Rest in Peace Dr. Tiller.

Why Its Better to Keep Your Mouth Shut

I'm no fan of Megan Fox, the actress (and I use the term loosely) from "Transformers." But sometimes, people say something so stupid, you just have to stop and go "Whaat?"

Case in point.

In the latest Esquire magazine, Fox apparently makes a jab at fellow actress, Scarlett Johansson, stating: "I don't want to have to be like a Scarlett Johansson – who I have nothing against. But I don't want to have to go on talk shows and pull out every single SAT word I've ever learned, to prove, like, 'Take me seriously, I am intelligent, I can speak.' I don't want to have to do that. I resent having to prove that I'm not a retard."

Um, hun? By even using the term "retard," I think you've removed all doubt about your intelligence...

Vaccine-Nation

Jim Carrey, the Hollywood actor, has become an outspoken proponent of safer vaccinations. He recently published an opinion piece on The Huffington Post calling for more research into the effects of vaccination, more specifically the current vaccine schedule and the components in vaccines.

Judging by the comments, Carrey's suggestions strike some as close to blasphemy.

I myself never questioned vaccination until I became pregnant with my first child. As a child of the 80s, I had the MMR and DPT vaccines. Before trips to India, as a child and as an adult, I got the recommended travel vaccines. I was aware of the vaccine controversy because of the fact that I worked with autistic and autistic-spectrum children in my clinical training to become a psychologist. But it wasn't until I was 7 months pregnant and really looking at the latest vaccination schedule that I begin to feel something wasn't right.

The facts are simple: American children are getting more and more vaccinations as time goes on. Day-old infants, before they even leave the hospital, are usually given the Hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B, by the way, is a bloodborne virus that is usually transmitted through IV drug use or unprotected sex. I asked several doctors why an infant would need to be vaccinated for an illness that is contracted through behavior that they would not be engaging in; after all, the Hepatitis B vaccine is only good for 10 years, and I seriously doubt that the vast majority of elementary school kids, even in this day in age, are engaging in sex while using IV drugs. None of the doctors could give me an answer. I saw that the Chicken Pox vaccine was required; I have a clear memory of having chicken pox at the age of 5 - certainly not the happiest memory, but I, like every other kid in my kindergarten class, made it through unscathed, save for a few scars from a scratched pustule. And now, states are seeking to add on more and more vaccinations. New Jersey has been considering adding the yearly flu vaccine to its mandatory schedule. Texas was, for a while, mandating Gardasil, which protects against certain certain strains of the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus, for school attendance. Where does it end? When is it enough?

It's not just about autism, though. To make this issue solely about whether or not vaccines cause or do not cause autism is to miss the bigger question: Is it safe to give so many vaccines? Are the risks of so many vaccines outweighed by the benefits? We know that allergic reactions to vaccine components do occur. We know that children, such as Hannah Poling, are, in fact, injured by vaccines. The risks/benefits of not vaccinating a health worker for Hepatitis B who comes in contact with blood is considerably different than for a day-old infant. To suggest there is a one-size-fits-all invasive intervention when it comes to vaccination - when I have yet to see a one-size-fits-all invasive intervention in any other part of medicine - almost seems obscene. To ignore the likelihood of individual reactions and the need to modify vaccination based upon the individual's own and familial medical history and vaccination needs is absurd. I use my own family as an example: There are four generations in my family (that we know of) who have autoimmune disorders. My paternal grandmother and my father both have rheumatoid arthritis. I have Graves Disease. My brother's daughter, at the ripe old age of 2, was diagnosed with Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis. The evidence is quite clear that the immune systems in my family are atypical. So why would I want to have my son -who received half of his genetic makeup from me - be vaccinated with a large number of vaccines at one time? Why would I want to vaccinate him for illnesses that he has little danger of catching at this time, such as Hepatitis B? The history is clear - overaggressive immune systems run in the family; why would I want to provoke an aggressive immune response in my little boy?

I believe vaccination, like all valid medical treatments, can be positive and lifesaving. But just as we don't arbitrarily send all depressed patients for electroshock treatment because of the risk/benefits involved, I don't believe we need to mandate that all of our children be vaccinated against every disease. There are risks to putting anything into the human body - from medications to foods - just as there can be benefits. The challenge is determine where the happy medium is, and as of yet, neither the government nor the pharmaceutical companies appear to want to consider doing the research to find that point. The risks of mandating so many vaccinations needs to be studied in depth and by researchers without ties to the vaccine manufacturers. A lot of little lives could depend on it.

Forget Slumdog - Just Plain "Dog"

Sadly, another disturbing incident involving one of the child actors who performed in "Slumdog Millionaire." Rubina Ali, the little girl who played the child version of the female lead, was reportedly offered for sale by her father for 200,000 British Pounds. Comment boards are aflame with people hoping someone, anyone, comes in and rescues Ali from her family; angry comments being made against the director and producers of the movie for not providing more for the child actors; comments about the need for the Indian government to step in; comments about the evil things poverty does to people; and, of course, the run-of-the-mill comments about why are people in such poverty not controlling themselves "more responsibly" and have such large families that they can't support.

Whew!

While it would be great if a benefactor did come in and adopt Ali and save her from her situation, the sad fact is that in India, alone, there are more than 11 million children living in the exact same conditions that she is. 11 million in one country, living in squalor. Approximately 50% of Indians live in poverty; 40% of these individuals are children. One benefactor coming in and saving Ali will not change the conditions for these other children, many of whom are, assuredly, facing being sold into prostitution and slavery as well. It would be great if there was as much outrage and outcries on behalf of these children as there is for Ali.

With regards to the Indian government stepping in and helping these children, that is unlikely to happen without consistent pressure from the outside world and media. The Indian government is known for being corrupt and suffering from it's own inertia. It will likely step in and investigate the Ali situation because of all the worldwide attention being paid to the situation, but as soon as the cameras go away and the lights dim, Ali, just like the millions of other children, will be left to fend for herself.

As far as the producers of "Slumdog Millionaire," honestly, while it would be great if they stepped in and did something, I do not find them to be responsible for this situation. Yes, Ali got paid approximately $4000 to perform in a film that has grossed millions worldwide. Yes, the producers and other workers on the film have undoubtedly made huge sums of money in comparison. But, as with all unknown actors, Ali was paid a prearranged sum for her work. Most actors do not get profit-sharing of the film, regardless of their life situations; in that manner, this case should be no different. As it is, after the fact, the producers did set up educational trust funds for the "Slumdog" child actors and have arranged for their families to move out of the slums. Blaming the filmmakers for this situation is the wrong action, in my opinion.

Personally, I believe that the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Ali's father, Rafiq. While the poverty that the Alis live in probably plays a factor, the father's apparent greed and desire for more money for himself appears to be the strongest contributing factor. And unfortunatley, in this regard, he is no different than the numbers of parents here in the United States who exploit their own children for wealth and fame (see: Dina Lohan, Lynne Spears). Even if the filmmakers had given Ali $100,000 or even $1 million for her work, I do not believe it would have been enough for her father - he would still be seeking to make more money off of his child. And unfortunately, as with the complexities surrounding poverty in general, the question of how to deal with parents like this is not an easy one - or one that has a convenient Hollywood ending.

A Rose by Any Other Name

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, considering I lived in Texas for 8 years...

State representative Betty Brown is causing a wee bit of an uproar after suggesting that Asian Americans should adopt American names in order to make things easier for poll workers at precincts. Apparently, the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is it indicated that ease of pronunciation is a prerequisite for voting rights eluded Ms. Brown.

A gem from Rep. Brown:
"Can't you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that's easier for Americans to deal with?"

The ignorance is almost frightening.