In society today, technology has a great significance on our lives. Cell phones, laptops, TVs, iPods, etc. rule our every day lives and we are constantly working towards improving these technologies. Every few months another new high-tech gadget comes on the market, knocking out the old one and prevailing as the number one gadget until another gadget is introduced and takes its place. With this constant strive of improvement in our possessions, it is expected that we also improve our biological lives by increasing it and avoiding things that hinder it, such as age and death. Celine Lafontaine's article "The Postmortal Condition: From the Biomedical Deconstruction of Death to the Extension of Longevity" and Melinda Cooper's article "Resuscitation: Stem Cells and the Crisis of Old Age" address the issues of advancing technologies to prolong our lives and resist ageing and death.
While reading these articles, particularly Lafontaine's, it reminded me of the popular sci-fi show Battlestar Galactica. The premise of Battlestar Galactica is based on an ongoing war between humans and their machine-creations, the Cylons. The Cylons were created by humans to first serve as soldiers and as workers, however, due to mistreatment the Cylons rebelled against the humans which led to the First Cylon War. An armistice was signed after the five Cylon leaders agreed to share their technology in exchange for peace. The Cylons then disappeared for 40 years and later reemerged with even greater technology so that there were seven Cylon hybrid models that looked exactly human that were used to infiltrate human-inhabited colonies and destroy them. Although the machine Cylons existed, they were mostly used as soldiers and workers much similar to how the humans had ruled them 40 years prior.
A couple of interesting aspects about the Cylon hybrid models is that one, they display super human abilities such as greater strength and stamina, two, they do not age, and three, they can be resurrected when their biological bodies "die". This means that their memory is downloaded onto a "resurrection computer" when they die and another body is formed and the information is uploaded into the new model, also known as virtual immortality. These aspects really reminded me of the aforementioned articles in regards to prolonging life using technology. "The technoscientific desire to indefinitely prolong life is based on a particular conception of human perfectibility." (Lafontaine, pg. 301) Granted, many people desire to overcome the limitations of the biological body and create a superhuman being that can maintain youth and health and defy death. This is what a lot of science fiction is based off as well, hence the Cylons and their superhuman abilities and optimal performance.
In this day and age, biotechnology is focusing on ways to prolong life, avoid death, and maintain youth. The elderly are viewed as diseased and useless, "... a fluke in evolution." (Lafontaine, pg. 300) This negative representation of the elderly only encourages the advancement of technology and to discover ways of increasing longevity and the health of society. We have come up with anti-wrinkle creams, various vitamins, and stem cell research to regenerate youth in the elderly. However, as Cooper mentions, "as new technologies, [these products] run the risk of unforeseen side effects..." (Cooper, pg. 15) The first side effect that comes to mind is abuse. This relays back to the Cylons in which machines were created in order to aid humankind but instead, were mistreated and abused and eventually caused a rebellion. Although I doubt that the anti-ageing products and regenerative medicine will revolt against humans, I do feel that we will abuse its uses which can lead to detrimental results (sci-fi dystopic/utopic societies, anyone? Terminator series, Brave New World, The Island, Gattaca, etc.) Cooper's article emphasizes the economic factors of commodifying life and, "... its transformation into a source of speculative surplus-value." (Cooper, pg. 11) This goes hand-in-hand with the abuse of power that biotechnology can bring, especially in regards to defying age and death. A great disparity will be created in which the wealthy, upperclass, Euro-American societies can benefit from this bio-tech revolution of prolonging life.
Regenerative medicine does have its perks because it can overcome the limitations of human life in regards to those who are health compromised (i.e. cancer patients, organ patients, etc.). It's goal is, "... no longer to supplement biological life with the spare parts of the industrial machine but to 'reawaken' the body's latent capacity for self-regeneration." (Cooper, pg. 10) This also brings me back to the idea of the Cylon hybrids in which the body is capable of virtual regeneration but they are no longer defined as a machine. But as technology continues to prosper in the field of medicine, Lafontaine discusses the several forms that the body may take through technosciences: "...either a complete remodelling of the biological body through genetic engineering and nanotechnologies or the downloading of the contents of the brain to a computer." (Lafontaine, pg. 303) So far, science has been focusing on genetic engineering using stem cell research to generate organs and as a means to prolong life, as noted in Cooper's article. If we ever do the reach the point of downloading our brains onto computers, we will be heavily relying on technology for sustaining life (this can relate back to life-sustaining technologies). But if we are relying on technology for life, would that make our life meaningful? Lafontaine continues to say, "the transfer of the human mind to an artificial medium would assure the transformation of Homo Sapiens into Machina Sapiens -- a supreme form of intelligence liberated from the torments of mortality." (Lafontaine, pg. 303)
Perhaps this formation into Machina Sapiens is our mode of evolution. Despite the fact that this may be true, we still have to understand that biological life is meaningful, that biological death is inevitable, and technology only blurs the line between life and death. We are confronted with this issue of "playing god" again, not to be cynical, but does an individual really want to life forever? Isn't the aspect of death the thing that makes life meaningful? The idea that an individual could die at any moment, that death lingers and one must make the most of his life in the time that he has? Even if that's the case, Lafontaine concludes that, "... the human body is inevitably called on to be transformed to adapt to its new technoscientific environment. The much-awaited technological revolution will be a salvation, since it carries the hope of an existence spared at long last from illness and death." (Lafontaine, pg. 305)
Perhaps we are just like the high-tech gadgets that we invent. We are replaced with better models that perform better. Human Being Version 2.0. Our own technology to prolong our lives and eliminate the inevitable may make the next generation superior, the Machina Sapiens (it does have a good ring to it, too...). However, our biggest issue at hand is to solve ethical matters in what is moral and humane. Eliminating death can eliminate the meaningful aspect of life. And of course, abusing the powers can have terrible results that can backfire due to our negligence. I don't think the human race is ready yet to advance to "Machina Sapiens" nor do I think we ever will be. Just look at how the Cylons and the Humans ended up -- always at war, the child attempting to rid its parent, the human as a fluke in evolution.
Sources:
Battlestar Galactica, Season 1 - Season 4. 2004 - 2007.
Céline Lafontaine, 2009. The Postmortal Condition: From the Biomedical Deconstruction of Death to the Extension of Longevity. Science as Culture 18(3): 297-312.
Melinda Cooper. 2006. “Resuscitations: Stem Cells and the Crisis of Old Age.” Body and Society 12(1): 1-23.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Terri Schiavo Case
Life and Death.
Amongst all else that we cannot separate completely, this is yet another topic that falls into the not-so black and white model. Living cadavers, as referred to by medical authorities, seems to be a paradox in itself. A cadaver is associated with a biologically dead body so how is it possible that it could be living? In the case of brain death, that is exactly what the patient is: a living cadaver. Brain death is determined when an individual cannot sustain life without the support of an artificial ventilator, lacks of consciousness, and the end of brain activity in general. The situation of brain death is very similar to that of Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), although there is minimal consciousness in the patient.
Many people are familiar with the case of Terri Schiavo, a woman who suffered from a collapse due to cardiac arrest and ended up in PVS. She was placed on a feeding tube which brought about a load of legal controversy after her husband Michael Schiavo decided to take the feeding tube out despite three years of endless trials of rehabilitation with no progress. Terri's parents on the other hand were against the removal of the feeding tube. After reading Eric Krakauer's "To Be Freed from the Infirmity of (the) Age" and Margaret Lock's "Living Cadavers and the Calculation of Death", I saw some similarities between the two articles and the case of Terri Schiavo. It is difficult to determine who was right in her defense; her husband and his will to end her suffering or her parents and their faith and hope in the rehabilitation of their daughter. Granted, it was a very difficult situation for both husband and parents because of that human connection. A CT scan of her brain was shown in comparison to a healthy brain. In the image, Terri's brain showed a loss of significant brain tissue and liquid in the center of the brain, indicating hydrocephalus. Dr. Timothy Quill, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center states, "Computed tomographic scans [CT scans] of her brain eventually showed severe atrophy of her cerebral hemispheres, and her electroencephalograms were flat, indicating no functional activity of the cerebral cortex." (N Engl J Med, 2005) In order to be kept alive, Shiavo was sustaining life through a feeding tube. The topic is a very sensitive one and from where I stand, I do believe that Michael Schiavo made the right choice in removing her feeding tube, especially after the unsuccessful rehabilitation and stimulation of the brain stem procedures. With life-sustaining technologies, such as feeding tubes in this example, Krakauer mentions that, "... experience showed that life-sustaining technologies not only had an obvious potential benefits for patients but could also be very burdensome... the great gift of this technology brought with it the unforseen danger of exacerbating suffering." (Krakauer, pg. 382) However, Dr. Quill also goes on to explain that Schiavo was not suffering only because, "... the usual definition of [suffering] requires conscious awareness that is impossible in the absence of cortical activity." Personally speaking, the feeding tube itself was a burden to Schiavo. Though she had no conscious suffering, Schiavo was essentially on her way to becoming a living cadaver, especially due to the continuous death of brain tissue which would lead to her lose function of respiration.
Image Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/ns/msnbc_tv-the_abrams_report/
Michael Schiavo may have understood the concept that his wife suffered from an irreversible loss of brain function and that 15 years of being placed on a feeding tube was only prolonging her suffering. He may have realized that his wife was no longer is wife but just a body in which the loss of brain function was just reducing her down to a vessel, because what made her her was gone. "... the absence of the person is evident because of the a diagnosis or irreversible brain function, thus ensuring a permanent lack of consciousness, no awareness and no sensation of pain. In other words, a sensate, suffering, individual has ceased to exist because their mind no longer function." (Lock, pg. 141) As Lock continues on in her article, she interviews another doctor who finds consolation in his claim that, "... to remain in a severely vegetative state is much worse than to be dead." (Lock, pg. 142)
Dr. Quill is also the director of the Center for Palliative Care and Clinical Ethics at the University of Rochester Medical Center, so clearly he is educated in the field of the use of life-sustaining technology. He believes that the right choice was made for the removal of the feeding tube because it allowed her body to do what it needed to do: to die. "[Terri Schiavo's] family and the public should be reassured and educated that dying in this way can be a natural, humane process (humans died in this way for thousands of years before the advent of feeding tubes)." (N Engl J Med, 2005) Palliative medicine places a great significance on allowing death to happen. It is a response to suffering and determines if life-sustaining technologies will exacerbate it. In the case of Terri Schiavo, there technically was no suffering involved due to her lack of cognitive function. Palliative medicine would view this case with the feeding tube as prolonging a life that is not meaningful anymore, and therefore, "... acknowledges the inevitability of death and to let dying be."
Terri Schiavo had her feeding tube removed on March 18th, 2005 and died of dehydration (under palliative care) on March 31st, 2005. Although her case was muddled in legal issues and a tug-of-war between two families who wanted the best for her, it was obvious that her cognitive functions were not going to improve. Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin, in charge of her autopsy, said, “The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain... this damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.” (Associated Press, 2005)
Sources:
"Terri Schiavo — A Tragedy Compounded". The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Timothy Quill, 2005
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058062
"Schiavo Autopsy Shows Irreversible Damage". MSNBC.com, Associated Press, June 18th, 2005.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/ns/us_news/
"Living Cadavers and the Calculation of Death". Margaret Lock, 2004
"To be Freed from the Infirmity of (the) Age". Eric L. Krakauer, 2007
Amongst all else that we cannot separate completely, this is yet another topic that falls into the not-so black and white model. Living cadavers, as referred to by medical authorities, seems to be a paradox in itself. A cadaver is associated with a biologically dead body so how is it possible that it could be living? In the case of brain death, that is exactly what the patient is: a living cadaver. Brain death is determined when an individual cannot sustain life without the support of an artificial ventilator, lacks of consciousness, and the end of brain activity in general. The situation of brain death is very similar to that of Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), although there is minimal consciousness in the patient.
Many people are familiar with the case of Terri Schiavo, a woman who suffered from a collapse due to cardiac arrest and ended up in PVS. She was placed on a feeding tube which brought about a load of legal controversy after her husband Michael Schiavo decided to take the feeding tube out despite three years of endless trials of rehabilitation with no progress. Terri's parents on the other hand were against the removal of the feeding tube. After reading Eric Krakauer's "To Be Freed from the Infirmity of (the) Age" and Margaret Lock's "Living Cadavers and the Calculation of Death", I saw some similarities between the two articles and the case of Terri Schiavo. It is difficult to determine who was right in her defense; her husband and his will to end her suffering or her parents and their faith and hope in the rehabilitation of their daughter. Granted, it was a very difficult situation for both husband and parents because of that human connection. A CT scan of her brain was shown in comparison to a healthy brain. In the image, Terri's brain showed a loss of significant brain tissue and liquid in the center of the brain, indicating hydrocephalus. Dr. Timothy Quill, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center states, "Computed tomographic scans [CT scans] of her brain eventually showed severe atrophy of her cerebral hemispheres, and her electroencephalograms were flat, indicating no functional activity of the cerebral cortex." (N Engl J Med, 2005) In order to be kept alive, Shiavo was sustaining life through a feeding tube. The topic is a very sensitive one and from where I stand, I do believe that Michael Schiavo made the right choice in removing her feeding tube, especially after the unsuccessful rehabilitation and stimulation of the brain stem procedures. With life-sustaining technologies, such as feeding tubes in this example, Krakauer mentions that, "... experience showed that life-sustaining technologies not only had an obvious potential benefits for patients but could also be very burdensome... the great gift of this technology brought with it the unforseen danger of exacerbating suffering." (Krakauer, pg. 382) However, Dr. Quill also goes on to explain that Schiavo was not suffering only because, "... the usual definition of [suffering] requires conscious awareness that is impossible in the absence of cortical activity." Personally speaking, the feeding tube itself was a burden to Schiavo. Though she had no conscious suffering, Schiavo was essentially on her way to becoming a living cadaver, especially due to the continuous death of brain tissue which would lead to her lose function of respiration.
Image Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/ns/msnbc_tv-the_abrams_report/Michael Schiavo may have understood the concept that his wife suffered from an irreversible loss of brain function and that 15 years of being placed on a feeding tube was only prolonging her suffering. He may have realized that his wife was no longer is wife but just a body in which the loss of brain function was just reducing her down to a vessel, because what made her her was gone. "... the absence of the person is evident because of the a diagnosis or irreversible brain function, thus ensuring a permanent lack of consciousness, no awareness and no sensation of pain. In other words, a sensate, suffering, individual has ceased to exist because their mind no longer function." (Lock, pg. 141) As Lock continues on in her article, she interviews another doctor who finds consolation in his claim that, "... to remain in a severely vegetative state is much worse than to be dead." (Lock, pg. 142)
Dr. Quill is also the director of the Center for Palliative Care and Clinical Ethics at the University of Rochester Medical Center, so clearly he is educated in the field of the use of life-sustaining technology. He believes that the right choice was made for the removal of the feeding tube because it allowed her body to do what it needed to do: to die. "[Terri Schiavo's] family and the public should be reassured and educated that dying in this way can be a natural, humane process (humans died in this way for thousands of years before the advent of feeding tubes)." (N Engl J Med, 2005) Palliative medicine places a great significance on allowing death to happen. It is a response to suffering and determines if life-sustaining technologies will exacerbate it. In the case of Terri Schiavo, there technically was no suffering involved due to her lack of cognitive function. Palliative medicine would view this case with the feeding tube as prolonging a life that is not meaningful anymore, and therefore, "... acknowledges the inevitability of death and to let dying be."
Terri Schiavo had her feeding tube removed on March 18th, 2005 and died of dehydration (under palliative care) on March 31st, 2005. Although her case was muddled in legal issues and a tug-of-war between two families who wanted the best for her, it was obvious that her cognitive functions were not going to improve. Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin, in charge of her autopsy, said, “The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain... this damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.” (Associated Press, 2005)
Sources:
"Terri Schiavo — A Tragedy Compounded". The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Timothy Quill, 2005
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058062
"Schiavo Autopsy Shows Irreversible Damage". MSNBC.com, Associated Press, June 18th, 2005.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/ns/us_news/
"Living Cadavers and the Calculation of Death". Margaret Lock, 2004
"To be Freed from the Infirmity of (the) Age". Eric L. Krakauer, 2007
Friday, February 25, 2011
what's next, medicalizing road rage? ... oh wait...
Source: http://www.sabinabecker.com/images/intermittent-explosive-disorder.jpgRemember that time you were sitting in traffic for 45 minutes, cars barely moving, people cutting each other off and honking their horns, and all you wanted to do was get home and relax with a cup of herbal tea? You sit there patiently, radio blasting Enya to soothe your emotions, and finally the cars head of you start to move. As you put your foot down on the accelerator, a slick sports car somehow manages to maneuver three lanes over and cuts you off so quickly that you have to slam your breaks. Anger literally boils your blood and you swear that your windows fog up with steam from your ears. Your mouth opens and a string of profanities in three different languages spills out and your hands go up, middle finger waving around as you tailgate that inconsiderate idiot. You are blind with rage. But fear not, because what you are going through isn't your fault. It's the chemical activity in your brain that causes you to feel this way because you have Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED)... or you're turning into the Hulk. (I digress)
Intermittent Explosive Disorder is a behavioral disorder that, according to MayoClinic is, "characterized by repeated episodes of aggressive, violent behavior in which you react grossly out of proportion to the situation." At the bottom of the IED definition it says, "If you have this anger disorder, treatment may involve medications and psychotherapy to help you control your aggressive impulses." (MayoClinic, 2010) I don't disregard that people do suffer from symptoms of IED like road rage or domestic violence, but I don't agree with the idea to medicalize just anything and prescribe medication to it. In recent times, more news articles have come about describing new behavioral disorders and the preventative or curative measures people can take, mostly involving pill-popping and psychotherapy. A few years ago, I heard on NPR that road rage was now considered to be a medical problem that needed to be treated. I found an article on ABCnews.com that conveyed the same message about IED but added more disorders to the list such as:
- Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder
- Sibling Rivalry Disorder
- Mathematics Disorder
- Caffeine-related Disorders
- Oppositional Defiant Disorder
- Dissociative Fugue State
- Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
- Seasonal Affective Disorder
In Margaret Talbot's article, "Brain Gain" Adderall and Ritalin are introduced as neuroenhancers for those who are not diagnosed with ADD or ADHD. These people take Adderall as a means to be able to focus and stay awake longer to be more productive. There are many ways to boost cognitive function as Talbot's interviewee Anjan Chatterjee mentions. He says that with regular exercise and intellectual stimulation, people are more apt to enabling their cognitive function. However, "... maybe they want something easier than sweaty workouts and Russian novels: a pill." (Talbot, pg. 4) This leads me to believe that society dependence on biomedicine has caused an almost addiction-like state. People are not aware that pills are not simply a magic drug that will eliminate your sorrows and make you happy. In fact, many of the pills taken have adverse side effects, most common in anti-depressants which ironically raise the risk of violence and suicide. Counterproductive much? The important message conveyed is that "...we are a society that so wants a quick fix that many people are happy to take drugs." (Talbot, pg. 4)
Nikolas Rose's article, "The Politics of Life Itself" really hits the spot when discussing the psychoanalysis of patients suffering from mental disorders. No visible defects were particularly found in the case of madness and "... psychiatrists often found that their own diagnoses of madness were unable to meet legal criteria of evidence and proof" and , "... psychiatric diagnoses were a 'category mistake' illegitimately translating difference, disruption, and deviance into disease." (Rose, pg. 4-5) But this brings me to another point. If there are no visible evidence or proof of madness, then how do we characterize a person who is sane and one who is mad? Does that mean that an angry driver has a disease because of his outburst or is it just his personality to be slightly short-tempered? In our society today, we have the need to always fix the human body and we saw this in the earlier readings pertaining to biomedicine ethics. We are a machine that is striving for physical, and now mental, perfection. But because people are so unique and experience life and disease differently, how is it that we can form a pill to treat a, "... potentially correctable, error or anomaly in... aspects of the organic brain"? (Rose, pg. 3) Perhaps what is being treated is our ability to be different and abnormal. But then again, who constructs the idea of what is normal and abnormal and who falls into these categories?
I do believe that people experience symptoms of extreme sadness (depression), high stress (anxiety), or road rage (intermittent explosive disorder). I do not believe that we should treat people with medication in order to end whatever ails them mentally because the adverse side effects can ultimately harm the person in the future (in the case of addiction to amphetamines, anti-depression medications, etc.) There are alternative methods to coping with life, but life isn't supposed to be simple. It's a challenge and a pill should not be used just because it's the easy way out. At the same time, psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies should not continue to diagnose people with disorders and prescribe medication because it only will increase the dependency on pills and believe that something is mentally wrong with them. We are unique creatures with the ability to vary from one another because of our personalities. Just because some of us are sadder than others, happier than others, or angrier than others doesn't mean that there is a mental deformity. If these personality traits get in the way of living one's life, then there are methods to lessen the traits' impact on an individual's life without the use of a magic pill.
Source:
"Brain Gain", New Yorker. Margaret Talbot, April 27, 2009.
"The Politics of Life Itself" Nikolas Rose, 2007.
"Intermittent Explosive Disorder" MayoClinic, 2011
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/intermittent-explosive-disorder/DS00730
"Is Your Bitterness a Medical Condition?" ABCnews, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFluNews/story?id=7688631&page=3
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Eat This, Not That!
Image Source: http://www.amazon.com/This-Thousands-Simple-Swaps-Pounds/dp/1594868549Eat This, Not That! is a diet book of what the healthier option is between two similar products. For instance, as the image above portrays, a Big Mac is supposedly a better choice than a Whopper. Author David Zinczenko who is the Editor-in-Chief of Men's Health magazine, characterizes unhealthy foods by the amount of calories, fat, saturated fat, trans fat, sodium and sugar content and healthy foods as having higher fiber and protein content. Multiple books have been published to target certain audiences or restaurants. Some include Eat This, Not That! For Kids, Eat This, Not That! Supermarket Survival Guide, Eat This, Not That! The Best (And Worst) Foods In America, and so on. The "non-diet" book urges its readers to count their caloric intake, while also identifying the amount of fat, sodium, and sugar is entering their body when they eat certain foods. Kathleen Zelman of WebMD came out with an article on the website pertaining to the "Eat This, Not That!" books, stating, "it is loaded with calorie, fat, sugar, carbohydrate, and sodium counts designed to help you make smarter food choices." (Zelman, 2009) What is interesting is that this book promotes the idea that making these smarter food choices can aid in weight loss, but judging from the picture above, it is impossible to say that eating a Big Mac over a Whopper will induce weight loss. "Eat This, Not That does make some unscientific and misleading claims -- saying the plan specifically targets belly fat, reshapes your body, and builds firm, lean muscle while shedding useless flabby pounds. Experts agree that building muscle requires no strength training, and no diet plan is capable of targeting specific body parts." (Zelman, 2009)
Eat This, Not That! books tie into the nutritional reductionism that Gyrogy Scrinis discusses in his, "On the Ideology of Nutritionism" article, where "... this focus on nutrients has come to dominate, to undermine, and to replace other ways of engaging with food and of contextualizing the relationship between food and the body." (Scrinis, pg. 39) Zinczenko's books target calories, fats, and sugars as bad for the body and that reducing these in what we eat will lead us to a healthier body. Granted, Zinczenko fails to mention that even though there is a healthier option with less calories, fats, and sugars, eating these types of foods on a daily basis can still be detrimental to the body. Scrinis also approaches this idea in the comparison between butter and margarine where, "The promotion of margarine over the better tasting but supposedly less-healthy butter is an example of the primacy of this healthism and the power it has to shape dietary behavior." (Scrinis, pg. 40) But alongside, he mentions that, "Nutritionism promotes the idea that the perceived problems with contemporary diets can be tackled by... nutritional tinkering, rather than by means of more far-reaching qualitative changes in diets and the types of foods eaten." (Scrinis, pg. 43) Essentially, Eat This, Not That! books are based on nutritionism where eating the "healthier" of two not-so-healthy options is better. This is opposed to the idea that incorporating a healthy diet and exercise regime can promote weight-loss.
Eat This, Not That! books also fail to mention the importance of self-control. We all have that weak spot to indulge and sometimes even over-indulge. The fact of the matter is that with control over the amount we eat, we can change our eating lifestyles and live a healthier life. Granted, it should be obvious that eating a meal with 2000+ calories in it shouldn't be consumed every day, some think it's okay to indulge in it once a week or so. Marie Griffith's article, "Don't Eat That: The Erotics of Abstinence in American Christianity" showcases self-control in a religious aspect. One man recalls how divide intervention prevented him from eating in a "sinful" food: "... I wanted to eat a fattening dish -- it was spareribs soaked in greasy tomato sauce. Ugh! Anyhow, just as I was about to order it, the Lord spoke to me and said, 'Don't eat that." (Griffith, pg. 42) Although many of us are not contacted through a higher spiritual being to direct us in what we eat, we all experience that little voice in the back of our heads that asks, "do we REALLY need to eat this?" Perhaps it is God really telling people to watch what they eat or it could just be their subconscious; regardless, that self-control is impertinent to a successful and healthy body.
"Gender on a Plate: The Calibration of Identity in American Macrobiotics" by Karlyn Crowley also addresses spirituality and self-control in terms of food. The yin and yang model presents opposites of each other and when together, the body is in harmony. Certain foods represent the yin and other foods represent the yang. Excess of one or the other makes an individual predominately yin or yang. Crowley discusses this idea with Michio Kushi and which also ties in with the Eat This, Not That! books. "... men can achieve a superior spiritual sensibility and avoid... 'strong cow-like bodies, big in structure, but low in intelligence'. The spiritual foal for all, and for men especially, should be to reclaim the 'passivity' that comes from a 'vegetable' way of living." (Crowley, pg. 41) Essentially, opting for a vegetable lifestyle can eliminate the aggressivity in men. Crowley also mentions that extreme "yin-ness" is associated with women and sugar. Yin diseases associated with sugar can lead to "... chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and breast cancer." (Crowley, pg. 42) Thus, the solution to prevent these yin diseases is to balance the gender harmony by incorporating yang foods into a woman's diet.
Back to Zelman's article, Elisa Zeid mentions the book's misleading information, specifically addressing the self-control issue. She says, "Lots of nutritious and healthy foods, like Stonybrook Farms smoothie, the Odwalla blackberry fruit shake, on the 'not that' side that are perfectly healthy, and some choices on the 'eat this' side, like berry punch, which are not necessarily healthful choices. Jimmy Dean sausage is OK, but buttermilk waffles are not? You could add fruit to the waffles to make it a better choice, but sausage should be a food you eat only occasionally." (Zelman, 2009) Even though Eat This, Not That! books have good intentions on publicizing the high-caloric, high-fat, high-sugar of certain foods and restaurant, it is important to also note that there are many factors that contribute to weight-loss and healthy lifestyles and it is not solely dependent on eating the lesser of two evils.
Sources:
"Eat This, Not That: What it is" Kathleen M. Zelman, October 2009.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/eat-this-not-that?page=3
"On The Ideology of Nutritionism" Gyorgy Scrinis, Winter 2006.
"Don't Eat That: The Erotics of Abstinence in American Christianity" R. Marie Griffith, Fall 2001.
"Gender on a Plate: The Calibration of Identity in American Macrobiotics" Karlyn Crowley, Summer 2002.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Male vs. Female, Gay vs. Straight, Human vs. Vampire...?
Image Source: http://tvgorge.com/shows/true-blood/We live in a dichotomized world and there is no doubt about it. Regardless of how hard we try to eliminate the extreme separation and attempt to establish a common ground amongst those who do not "fit" the social norm, things may always remain black and white. We experience the black-and-white model in almost everything as well as the need to separate and to categorize. This becomes evident in the concepts of gender and sexuality, where the idea is that there are only two sexes and two genders. However, Terry's article, "Fluid Sexes" demonstrates that categorizing people into only one of two groups is impossible considering that no person can be strictly male or strictly female. Terry also brings up the point that people such as, "... Ulrichs, Hirschfield, Ellis, and Freud suggest that humans were fundamentally bisexual and that each individual would have features of the other sex, to one degree or another." (Terry, pg. 161) But to say that supposed experts did not believe a third sex was possible is incorrect. In previous times, the third sex was considered to foster homosexuals, who were, "... between the normal categories of male and female..." (Terry, pg. 160) The fact that these "experts" were able to recognize that there was space between "male" and "female" was a step forward, however, the fact that they believed that whatever was in between the male and female characteristics were considered to be homosexuals was essentially taking two steps back.
Terry's closing statements also included that, "Endocrinologists persisted in thinking that homosexuals had physiological defects," and "... the very framework, methods, and conclusions of psychometricians indicated that they saw homosexuals as inferior and defective." (Terry, pg. 177) This last segment of Terry's article really started to remind me of the show True Blood, which is centered around the romance between a human and a vampire in a small town in Louisiana. Although this seems to be the main plot, True Blood also embodies an allegory for LGBT rights. The idea of vampire equality is similar to that of LGBT equality as well, especially in the deep parts of the South (phrases such as "God Hates Fangs" stemming from the Westboro Baptist Church's propagandist anti-homosexual campaign "God Hates Fags") . Although True Blood does include homosexuals and homoerotic relationships, the main focus of discrimination is mostly on vampires, simply because they are not living. The blood-sucking aspect has even been dissolved since the creation of a synthetic blood that is used by vampires to sustain "life" without the use of human or animal blood. This is very reminiscent to the AIDS scare during the 90's where people were afraid of homosexuals because it was based on the belief that homosexual men were all infected with AIDS. This bias and lack of correct information is what led people to fear homosexual men just as with vampires, the bias that they killed humans and drank their blood. NPR wrote an article of when the show first came out, noting the obvious allegories toward LGBT equality. TV critic David Bianculli stated, "True Blood has other things on its mind. It's big on allegory, and the tension about accepting vampires into society is an obvious play on civil rights in general, and gay rights in particular." These vampires were coming out into society and were, "... starting to mainstream into regular society..." (Bianculli, NPR Sept. 5, 2008) and with a play on words, "coming out of the coffin".
In regards to Terry's "Fluid Sexes" article, the human vs. vampire dichotomy exists too (at least in True Blood). The vampires in the show are discriminated against due to not being part of the dominant culture, but in fact being part of the deviant culture, just as homosexuals are portrayed. In the case of homosexuals, Terry states, "...the popular perception that homosexuals belonged to a distinguishable and pathological group, set apart from the normal healthy population." (Terry, pg. 176) This is evident amongst the vampires in True Blood, where they are set apart from the "normal" population due to their lifestyles and the fact that they are non-living. At the same time, if one were to over-analyze the situation and were to look up the definition of "human", one would find that a human is defined as, "a characteristic of humanity" and/or "having human form or attributes as opposed to that of animals." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Note that there are no references to living or dead. Lacquer's article perfectly fits this analysis of what is human. The representations of the body and form are "...dictated by art and culture" and that these representations can differ in historical settings (i.e. the development of the mythical vampire) and different cultural portrayals. (Laqueur, pg. 164) But because of these historical and cultural constraints on the representation of the body, biases are formed and what is irregular amongst a society can be deemed deviant or even unnatural (as in the case of vampires in True Blood) Laqueur continues to state that, "... anatomy, and nature as we know it more generally, is obviously not pure fact... but rather a richly complicated construction based not only on observation... but on an aesthetics of representations as well." (Laqueur, pg. 163-164)
To conclude, these representations of the body are significant to how we portray others. At the same time, we must also take into consideration that there are no black-and-white models when it comes to gender and sexuality and that we must give leeway to the gray areas where people do not necessarily conform to dominant culture. The example of True Blood is to provide an insight of the LGBT community's fight against discrimination and that just because they do not fit the social norms of the dominant culture does not mean that they should be categorized as "inferior".
Sources:
"Fluid Sexes" in An American Obsession: Science, Medicine, and Homosexuality in Modern Society. Jennifer Terry, pg 159-177
"Discovery of Sexes" in Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Thomas Laqueur, pg. 149-192
"True Blood: Tasty New TV from HBO"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94320825
Monday, January 31, 2011
how to use medicalized yoga.
Jon Stewart and Rob Corddry's Yoga Rage:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-30-2003/ohm-my-god
"Yoga, an ancient but perfect science, deals with the evolution of humanity. This evolution includes all aspects of one's being, from bodily health to self-realization. Yoga means union - the union of body with consciousness and consciousness with the soul. Yoga cultivates the ways of maintaining a balanced attitude in day-to-day life and endows skill in the performance of one's actions." -B.K.S. Iyengar, Astadala Yogamala
What is it about yoga that has Western culture entranced by its practice? Is it the fact that it promotes a healthy body, incorporates mental and physical strength, and brings a person to peace with themselves? Or is it just a trend that people follow? Fortunately, it is all the above and also beyond. Yoga, as Joseph Alter states in his article, "Modern Medical Yoga: Struggling with a History of Magic, Alchemy, and Sex", "...can, and is, used effectively in the treatment of diabetes, asthma, depression, hypertension, and drug de-addiction, among a host of other medical problems." (Alter, pg. 134) In the article, Alter also expresses some doubt in the efficacy of yoga therapy. What bothers me about this is that yoga therapy has been proven to provide beneficial aspects to those who are health-compromised. For instance, an article titled, "Clinical Study of Yoga Techniques in University Students with Asthma: A Controlled Study", 17 college students with asthma were separated into a "yoga group" and a "non-yoga" group. The "yoga group" practiced relaxation techniques, yoga poses, and breathing techniques, all leading to, "...significant degree of relaxation, positive attitude, and better yoga exercise tolerance. There was also a tendency toward lesser usage of beta adrenergic inhalers." (Vendathan, Kesavalu, Murthy, Hall, Baker, Nagarathna)
However, Alter mentions as a footnote that although there really is no scientific proof for the efficacy of yoga therapy (which is not necessarily his argument in the paper), people who practice yoga do not know the historical context of it or what yoga truly is. The historical context of yoga is based highly on spiritualism, which makes sense considering it was brought about during the Vedic period (also known as the basis of modern-day Hinduism). At that point in time, it was easiest to explain processes as an act of magic as opposed to science. Cultural perceptions played a significant role in "assigning yogis with supernatural powers" (Alter, pg. 122) and that was how they were essentially enlightened. In the "Rethinking the Role of Diagnosis in Navajo Religious Healing" by Derek Milne, Milne states the significance of ethnomedicine in correlation to diagnoses amongst three religious groups of the Navajo. Spiritual techniques are used to diagnose the patient and ceremony rituals are used to heal the patient of their symptoms. (Milne, pg. 545) Both, the historical context of yoga and the Navajo religious healing system have in common the idea that spirituality can heal the body of its ailments. To me, this is just another form of the Placebo Effect.
As we've come to learn in class and our previous readings, the mind can be manipulated which in turn can manipulate the body. An example of this is in Milne's article in regards to the case-study patient. "... narration of illness experience is the process by which thought and speech are used to bring the body back to a state of health." (Milne, pg. 565) With this in mind, the patient Lori did not have physical symptoms of illness until she began to think about it. Consequently, these thoughts came about in the form of sores. Lori goes on to emphasize that the, "... ceremony changed her thinking and the effects she felt, both mental and physical" and that the "... act of telling her story literally expulsed the causes of her illness that were 'lodged in her body'." (Milne, pg. 565) As with yoga, especially modern medical yoga, the idea is to be able to reach a degree of relaxation and clear the mind of negative thoughts. Modern medical yoga also emphasizes breathing exercises known as Pranayama in which there is, "decreased oxygen consumption, decreased heart rate, and decreased blood pressure, as well as experience of alertness and reinvigoration." (R. Jerath, Edry, Barnes, V. Jerath)
Pranayama is a technique that I have been practicing myself for about two years. Before I started, I struggled with allergy-induced and exercise-induced asthma, which eventually became moderate persistent asthma. Once I was diagnosed, I was prescribed a beta adrenergic inhaler which I took twice daily. Needless to say, it was hard for me to take an inhaler every day especially when I was always in a rush to go to class or just plain forgetful. A close family friend of ours had recently been in India and was taught by a yogi master about yoga and pranayama and introduced my family to it. Pranayama at first was very difficult for me to do considering I would start wheezing with every deep breath. Five minutes per day of deep breathing was all that was needed and every morning I would wake up and dedicate five minutes to just focusing on my deep breathing. Within two weeks of doing it, I'd noticed that my breathing was much better and I could breathe much more deeply. The best part about it was that I didn't even need my inhaler any more.
Truth be told, I never knew the history of yoga in the context of "magic, alchemy, and sex" and so this article opened my eyes. But at the same time, when one looks up a brief history of yoga, it is rare to find information about magic and alchemy. More so, the significant history of yoga lies in the idea of what B.K.S. Iyengar mentions: yoga as a tool to maintaining bodily health, self-realization, and balanced attitude. Although the in depth history of yoga should not be forgotten, people must realize that yoga does have beneficial aspects to it if a person truly looks into the concept of yoga. The contextual history of yoga may unfortunately be ignored, but if people understand that yoga is more than a trend and can be used to ease the body, mind, and soul, then what's the harm in using it as another mode of therapy? Same goes for the ritualistic healings that the Navajo practice. Their emphasis lies in the idea of narration of the illness experience where, "... the process of narration is the primary way an individual can exert control over his or her health and facilitate a return to balance." (Milne, pg. 565)
Sources:
Clinical Study of Yoga Techniques in University Students with Asthma: A Controlled Study
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ocean/aap/1998/00000019/00000001/art00002?token=00561aaa03cf0439e1573d2570257070234a2f7a4044593547677c4e75477e4324576b64273805899a8a5d
Physiology of Long Pranayamic Breathing
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2806%2900166-6/abstract
A fun little article as to why Christianity views yoga as a spiritual sin:
http://www.allaboutspirituality.org/history-of-yoga.htm
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-30-2003/ohm-my-god
"Yoga, an ancient but perfect science, deals with the evolution of humanity. This evolution includes all aspects of one's being, from bodily health to self-realization. Yoga means union - the union of body with consciousness and consciousness with the soul. Yoga cultivates the ways of maintaining a balanced attitude in day-to-day life and endows skill in the performance of one's actions." -B.K.S. Iyengar, Astadala Yogamala
What is it about yoga that has Western culture entranced by its practice? Is it the fact that it promotes a healthy body, incorporates mental and physical strength, and brings a person to peace with themselves? Or is it just a trend that people follow? Fortunately, it is all the above and also beyond. Yoga, as Joseph Alter states in his article, "Modern Medical Yoga: Struggling with a History of Magic, Alchemy, and Sex", "...can, and is, used effectively in the treatment of diabetes, asthma, depression, hypertension, and drug de-addiction, among a host of other medical problems." (Alter, pg. 134) In the article, Alter also expresses some doubt in the efficacy of yoga therapy. What bothers me about this is that yoga therapy has been proven to provide beneficial aspects to those who are health-compromised. For instance, an article titled, "Clinical Study of Yoga Techniques in University Students with Asthma: A Controlled Study", 17 college students with asthma were separated into a "yoga group" and a "non-yoga" group. The "yoga group" practiced relaxation techniques, yoga poses, and breathing techniques, all leading to, "...significant degree of relaxation, positive attitude, and better yoga exercise tolerance. There was also a tendency toward lesser usage of beta adrenergic inhalers." (Vendathan, Kesavalu, Murthy, Hall, Baker, Nagarathna)
However, Alter mentions as a footnote that although there really is no scientific proof for the efficacy of yoga therapy (which is not necessarily his argument in the paper), people who practice yoga do not know the historical context of it or what yoga truly is. The historical context of yoga is based highly on spiritualism, which makes sense considering it was brought about during the Vedic period (also known as the basis of modern-day Hinduism). At that point in time, it was easiest to explain processes as an act of magic as opposed to science. Cultural perceptions played a significant role in "assigning yogis with supernatural powers" (Alter, pg. 122) and that was how they were essentially enlightened. In the "Rethinking the Role of Diagnosis in Navajo Religious Healing" by Derek Milne, Milne states the significance of ethnomedicine in correlation to diagnoses amongst three religious groups of the Navajo. Spiritual techniques are used to diagnose the patient and ceremony rituals are used to heal the patient of their symptoms. (Milne, pg. 545) Both, the historical context of yoga and the Navajo religious healing system have in common the idea that spirituality can heal the body of its ailments. To me, this is just another form of the Placebo Effect.
As we've come to learn in class and our previous readings, the mind can be manipulated which in turn can manipulate the body. An example of this is in Milne's article in regards to the case-study patient. "... narration of illness experience is the process by which thought and speech are used to bring the body back to a state of health." (Milne, pg. 565) With this in mind, the patient Lori did not have physical symptoms of illness until she began to think about it. Consequently, these thoughts came about in the form of sores. Lori goes on to emphasize that the, "... ceremony changed her thinking and the effects she felt, both mental and physical" and that the "... act of telling her story literally expulsed the causes of her illness that were 'lodged in her body'." (Milne, pg. 565) As with yoga, especially modern medical yoga, the idea is to be able to reach a degree of relaxation and clear the mind of negative thoughts. Modern medical yoga also emphasizes breathing exercises known as Pranayama in which there is, "decreased oxygen consumption, decreased heart rate, and decreased blood pressure, as well as experience of alertness and reinvigoration." (R. Jerath, Edry, Barnes, V. Jerath)
Pranayama is a technique that I have been practicing myself for about two years. Before I started, I struggled with allergy-induced and exercise-induced asthma, which eventually became moderate persistent asthma. Once I was diagnosed, I was prescribed a beta adrenergic inhaler which I took twice daily. Needless to say, it was hard for me to take an inhaler every day especially when I was always in a rush to go to class or just plain forgetful. A close family friend of ours had recently been in India and was taught by a yogi master about yoga and pranayama and introduced my family to it. Pranayama at first was very difficult for me to do considering I would start wheezing with every deep breath. Five minutes per day of deep breathing was all that was needed and every morning I would wake up and dedicate five minutes to just focusing on my deep breathing. Within two weeks of doing it, I'd noticed that my breathing was much better and I could breathe much more deeply. The best part about it was that I didn't even need my inhaler any more.
Truth be told, I never knew the history of yoga in the context of "magic, alchemy, and sex" and so this article opened my eyes. But at the same time, when one looks up a brief history of yoga, it is rare to find information about magic and alchemy. More so, the significant history of yoga lies in the idea of what B.K.S. Iyengar mentions: yoga as a tool to maintaining bodily health, self-realization, and balanced attitude. Although the in depth history of yoga should not be forgotten, people must realize that yoga does have beneficial aspects to it if a person truly looks into the concept of yoga. The contextual history of yoga may unfortunately be ignored, but if people understand that yoga is more than a trend and can be used to ease the body, mind, and soul, then what's the harm in using it as another mode of therapy? Same goes for the ritualistic healings that the Navajo practice. Their emphasis lies in the idea of narration of the illness experience where, "... the process of narration is the primary way an individual can exert control over his or her health and facilitate a return to balance." (Milne, pg. 565)
Sources:
Clinical Study of Yoga Techniques in University Students with Asthma: A Controlled Study
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ocean/aap/1998/00000019/00000001/art00002?token=00561aaa03cf0439e1573d2570257070234a2f7a4044593547677c4e75477e4324576b64273805899a8a5d
Physiology of Long Pranayamic Breathing
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2806%2900166-6/abstract
A fun little article as to why Christianity views yoga as a spiritual sin:
http://www.allaboutspirituality.org/history-of-yoga.htm
Friday, January 28, 2011
how to be a "quack".
Image Source: www.ayurvedabooks.netAccording to Wordnet Search provided by Princeton University, a "quack" is defined as "an untrained person who pretends to be a physician and who dispenses medical advice." This idea of quackery is very apparent in the complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) field, especially to those who don't understand the logic behind it. Truth be told, when I hear the word quack the first image that pops in my head is a cocaine-addict spreading the word of God after chugging a fifth of vodka. Essentially, I think of a person who is out of their mind. Needless to say, I get a little bothered when people try to define CAM as quackery due to my own preconceived notions of the word "quack". But what is it about CAM and its disciples that make it viewed as false and medically unqualified?
In Jean Langford's article, "Medical Mimesis: Healing Signs of a Cosmopolitan 'Quack'", Dr. Mistry is introduced as a man with great medical integrity and possesses a knowledge in which he can diagnose a patient simply by reading their pulse. This idea that a diagnosis can be made only from the reading the pulse is beyond anything any medical practitioner has ever heard of because the body is such an intricate network. Because our body is so complex, it can be affected by various factors in various areas and can therefore be difficult to understand what is really going on. However, according to Dr. Mistry, he has been able to cure 50% or more of the patients' symptoms. Dr. Mistry also brings up an interesting point, which correlates with how society handles medical problems nowadays. He states to Langford, "I don't listen to people... what is important is what his pulse is telling me..." and he believes that, "patients are prejudiced by allopathic, that is biomedical, notions." He also goes on to say that, "symptoms fluctuate according to the individual and the individual's psychological state." (Langford, pg. 28) The flaw of biomedicine is that it disregards a patient's psychological state which can either stress or de-stress symptoms. It is strictly based on the mechanics of the body. Especially now with the availability of medical resources such as WebMD, some people often find themselves looking up the symptoms of certain diseases and even developing them. This is why I agree with Dr. Mistry in his statement about patients' symptoms and their psychological states. With this statement, he proves that the mind is a powerful thing.
After reading the article, the reader comes to realize that Dr. Mistry does not encompass medical authenticity. His actual method of healing stems from the "faith that [he] inspires in patients... that contributes to their cures." (Langford, pg. 36) What we are looking at then is not traditional folk medicine, but a placebo effect instead. Wordnet by Princeton defines "placebo effect" as, "any effect that seems to be a consequence of administering a placebo; the change is usually beneficial and is assumed result from the person's faith in the treatment or preconceptions about what the experimental drug was supposed to do." It is unclear whether Dr. Mistry really is medically trained and if so, does that mean we can qualify him as a quack? He takes the mind's powerful effects on the body into consideration and tweaks the patients' thoughts so that their goal is to overcome their symptoms through "medication". Ultimately, it seems that many patients seen by Dr. Mistry have been healed and so what he does must count as a form of therapy.
Though Dr. Mistry may epitomize "medical gimmickery" with his photo albums and certificates adorning his office, I believe that he does his work in good intention. However, this is not what Ayurveda embodies. There are no medical gimmicks, no mimicry, no sense of falseness or quackery. Ayurveda should be viewed as complementary to biomedicine in the sense that its medical techniques promote good health and should be used to keep up good health and prolong life. To my family and I, Ayurveda is not used as a curative form of action, but a preventative form of action instead. My mother found an article not too long ago that implores Ayurvedic medical techniques pertaining to pain management. The article lists six herbs that contain inflammation-fighting compounds that aid in easing pain, especially those who suffer from inflammation-related conditions such as arthritis, back and neck pain, and tendonitis. The author of the article, Cathy Wong, goes on to explain that, "Although not as fast-acting as standard pain medication, such herbs may significantly diminish your pain when used regularly." (Wong, 2009) This further implies how Ayurvedic medicine and CAM in general complement biomedicine.
Many people dislike the idea of Ayurveda simply because it was founded as a branch of Hinduism, thus supposedly mixing science with religion (although, Hinduism is technically not a religion, but I digress). Vincanne Adams addresses the issue of science and religion in her article, "The Sacred in the Scientific: Ambiguous Practices of Science in Tibetan Medicine". She claims that one of the key issues of "scientific validity" is based on separating traditional practices and knowledge with, "categories of 'belief' and 'superstition' -- a process that requires constant deliberation over what is deemed 'knowledge' versus 'belief' and what is deemed 'theory' versus 'religion'." (Adams, pg. 564) The concept of visibility is important in regards to science, where the scientific approach leads to the truth is "self-evident" and the effects can be seen. Since Ayurveda is based under Hindu principles, a few medical techniques also involve the use of "chakras" or wheels of spiritual energy throughout the body (especially used in yoga). However, because the chakras are not seen to the human eye, they are deemed superstitious and opposite of knowledge. But if doctors and scientists continue to establish a fine line between what can constitute as religion and science, they are closing doors to opportunities of truly studying the body and mind of human beings. As already mentioned, the mind is very powerful and can have equally powerful effects on the body and the process of healing. Just because we cannot see negative energy does not mean that it does not take a toll on our body and mind.
In conclusion, I do not view Dr. Mistry as an alcoholic religious fanatic with a coke problem and thereby cannot consider him to be a quack. Granted, that is just my definition. However, I believe that Dr. Mistry has an understanding of what he is doing, especially psychologically, and therefore believe that he does administer medical help to his patients with knowledge of what is he doing. At the same time, I do not believe that Dr. Mistry is culturally aware of Ayurveda and its principles because Ayurveda is used for more so for preventative measures as opposed to curative and can be complementary to biomedicine. To me, everything isn't set in a black-and-white setting. I believe combining religious concepts of the body (i.e. chakras) and science can really open windows of opportunities in the aspect of good medicine.
Sources:
WordNet Search
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/
Herbs for Pain Management
http://altmedicine.about.com/od/healthconditionsdisease/a/pain_herbs.htm
Friday, January 21, 2011
how to be a "skinny bitch".
Not your typical boring diet book, this is a tart-tongued, no-holds-barred wakeup call to all women who want to be thin. With such blunt advice as, "Soda is liquid Satan" and "You are a total moron if you think the Atkins Diet will make you thin," it's a rallying cry for all savvy women to start eating healthy and looking radiant. Unlike standard diet books, it actually makes the reader laugh out loud with its truthful, smart-mouthed revelations. Behind all the attitude, however, there's solid guidance. Skinny Bitch espouses a healthful lifestyle that promotes whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, and encourages women to get excited about feeling "clean and pure and energized."
Image and Synopsis Source:
http://www.amazon.com/Skinny-Bitch-Rory-Freedman/dp/0762424931/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295643039&sr=8-1
Skinny Bitch is every woman's worst enemy. If you want a dieting book that rips your self-esteem and dignity, look no further because this book has it all. Written by a former modeling agent Rory Freedman and former model Kim Barnouin, these so-called experts have developed a dieting book in which being thin is being beautiful and healthy. By taking on this role of "expertise", Freedman and Barnouin take their skewed vision of health and bestow it on the "lucky ones" that purchase their book. As if buying the book isn't enough, both authors demean their audience nonstop by blaming them for becoming the way that they are: fat, stupid, and undesirable. Here is an excerpt from the book:
"Okay. Use your head. You need to get healthy if you want to get skinny. Health = skinny. Unhealthy = fat. The first thing you need to do is give up your gross vices. Don't act surprised! You cannot keep eating the same shit and expect to get skinny. Or smoke." Oddly enough, Freedman and Barnouin --renowned "experts"-- epitomize what public health is now shifting towards, "an increasing attention to body shape, diet, and exercise... the 'lifestyle' focus" (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 1).
Public health expertise in the recent years has become a study on the social condition of life where "expert knowledge" is used to convey messages of what is healthy and what is not. These ideals began back in the mid-1970's where academic papers were published in regards to the correlation between lifestyle choices and health. Most of the data concluded that "...it is 'lifestyles'-- lack of exercise, poor diet, overconsumption of certain products, exposure to hazardous chemicals, and so on-- that make people ill." (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 15) Not only do Freedman and Barnouin's book put focus on the importance of eating healthy, they also use this opportunity to promote veganism and to state all of the terrible chemical additives in our foods such as sulfites in wine, aspartame, and refined sugars all of which are carcinogenic. The authors also exemplify what Metcalfe (1993, pg. 41) mentions as "health promoters who wish to turn people into calorific and cholesterol counting machines." (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 15)
Skinny Bitch not only emphasizes the importance of eating right, it also projects the idea that eating meat is the most unhealthy thing you can do to your body (here is where the experts demonstrate that they're truly not experts at all...). Freedman and Barnouin relay that "... the meat on your plate is rotting, filled with pus, and decomposing..." and that when you eat fresh vegetables and fruits, they are alive and excellent for your body. (Um, excuse me?) The epidemiology article correlates with this idea of how public health has changed our views about certain foods, as Freedman and Barnouin point out: ".. the 'fact' that dietary fat leads to obesity and heart disease, for example, has meant that many people have almost a horror of fat, to the extent that the very sight or smell of it causes disgust." (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 50) This book as well as other dieting books has placed so much focus on what it means to be healthy but now I'm starting to question if Western society truly knows what it means to be healthy anymore? Do we all think like Freedman and Barnouin in the sense that being thin means being healthy? If so, then I have very little faith in humanity. An important quote from the epidemiology article sums up the issues with public health: "Epidemiology is thus one of the central strategies in the new public health used to construct notions of 'health' and, through this construction, to invoke and reproduce moral judgments about the worth of individuals and social groups." (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 60)
Skinny Bitch is not about dieting or veganism. I believe it is about control, indulging in eating disorders, and criticizing a group of people for what they look like. Similarly, if the focus continues to be on the presentations of our individual bodies, are we pushing away the actual concept of public health? Are we so concerned as to what the human body should look like as opposed to warding off diseases that we go to desperate measures to assume the role of experts and dictate how people should live their lives? Freedman and Barnouin, both of who were in the modeling business and have no prior knowledge of health, patronize those who don't fall into the dominant health norms of "healthism". Using Skinny Bitch as an example, Metcalfe (1993, pg. 35) goes to mention that, "Healthism... can lead to a general intolerance of those who subscribe to the dominant health norms against those who do not or cannot." (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 26) Unfortunately, this looks like the path that public health has chosen.
Friday, January 14, 2011
how to woo a lady.
Source: http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/s/sperm.aspImagine yourself as an attractive young woman who walks into a bar full of men. As soon as your heels click onto the tiled floors, 30+ pairs of male eyes are drawn to you and the only thought running through their minds is how they can win your affection tonight. At once, six men come at you ready to bombard you with pathetic pick-up lines while two more men lag behind, plotting out their form of attack. As you reject each of the eight men, one more comes up to you. You mentally take out that list of characteristics you want in a man and you see that this man matches up right to the detail. To top it off, he hands you a drink and this little act of kindness seals the deal. You have a date tonight.
Now turn your attention to the image above. This comic portrays the pre-fertilization process in which the newly-released population of sperm race to their final destination, the egg. In this image, the viewer gets a glance at how competitive the process truly is by displaying sperm all around this central sperm, who is equipped with flowers and bottle of wine. His buddy even makes the comment, "Hmm... clever" and clearly knows that this sperm knows how to woo a potential partner.
Unfortunately, the mechanism of fertilization is not so romantic. The inside of the vagina is not equipped with shops of wine and flowers where sperm can stop by and pick up a few things to win the affection of the egg. It's a very scientific process in which 300 million sperm try all at once to penetrate the egg and produce a zygote.
Emily Martin's article, "The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles" addresses this idea of romanticizing the scientific process of fertilization. She first opens this statement by saying, "It is remarkable how 'femininely' the egg behaves and how 'masculinely' the sperm behaves" (Martin, pg. 489)and continues to describe the egg as being passive while the sperm is pro-active. This relates back to the story above where the female is essentially passive and is hounded by men who all want her affection. The man that wins the female's affection is considered to be the hero and the winner of the game while the female is just a prize to be won. Even on the biological level, the same case goes: the sperm that is able to penetrate the egg and induce fertilization holds a great deal of significance.
Taking on these gender roles and romanticizing the science of fertilization leads to what Gerald and Helen Schatten mention in Martin's article as, "the egg's role to that of Sleeping Beauty..." (Martin, pg. 490) where the egg plays the role of the sleeping princess who can only be awoken by her true love's kiss. However, Martin's purpose of this article is to debunk the significance of the sperm as being the sole inducer of fertilization. This lies mostly in the common perception that it is the sperm that has to trek through "the caves" on a dangerous journey and it is the sperm that needs to rescue the egg before it dies within hours. Once again, the notion of the egg as the "damsel in distress" is used to place greater significance on the "heroic" sperm, indicating that the egg is helpless and dependent on the sperm.
Perhaps it is just in our nature to idealize this process of procreation and to make it more than just a biological occurrence. What more could be more romantic than to say that this specific sperm "wooed" the egg and together they formed the first cell made in creating a living organism? As Martin continues with the article, she explains that while not all of biology may be used in regards to culture, this particular segment of fertilization is. Assigning these two distinct gametes with genders is almost universal solely because it is based on biology; sperm comes from males and eggs come from females so it is natural to assign them the respective gender roles. However, in Western culture, it has become popular to glamorize the mechanism of fertilization to be one that correlates to humans on a macro-scale.
Like the aforementioned example story of the men competing for the woman at the bar or the comic image of the competing sperm, it all dwindles down to our cultural portrayals of the male-female gender roles in biology. Whether it is on a micro-scale or on a macro-scale, as humans, it is sometimes difficult for some to understand processes without giving it a reason as to why it's happening. Therefore, giving the story of the "damsel in distress" and the "heroic sperm" can just be viewed as a reason as to why this all happens in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)