The thing is, compensation has become ridiculous. People get rich from being able to blame someone else for an accident. I linked to this article for another post, on Train Window, but it sparked thought on this separate issue. The parents of a child who died after being treated at a hospital were paid money to compensate them for their loss (though in fairness, the sum is not disclosed). Why? I would agree to their legal costs being covered, but why throw money at the couple themselves? What purpose does this serve?

What happens when we make people pay vast sums for their mistakes, is that they stop thinking of how to best do their job and start thinking of how best to avoid being sued. The effect is that people are not doing their jobs the best they can any more. If a doctor has to choose between treatment A and treatment B, she will not choose the one she feels instinctively is the best, she will choose the one least likely to get her sued. Or more accurately, she will rather order a test she knows in her heart is unnecessary than take the chance of not ordering the test and later being saddled with a massive financial burden because out of the dozens of decisions she made that day, that single one was wrong. Every unnecessary test costs money, and someone has to pay. That someone is you.

Whether through higher taxes to fund state-sponsored medical care or soaring premiums for health insurance, you pay for someone else’s multi-million payout. In addition, we’re subjected to scores of wasted tests and treatments which doctors apply to cover themselves, just in case. Sadly, these precautions are sometimes downright bad for you, but vital to protect the doctor in case you decide to drag them to court. Children are deprived of experiences which can enhance their lives, spark ideas, raise their performance and physically make their brains grow, because the teachers have to think first of the worst case scenario, not of what’s best for the children in their care. One child can fall and break a leg on a playground, get a massive settlement in court, and literally millions of children pay the price when they are deprived of yet another experience.

But compensation is there for a reason. We can’t just take it away, because then we go back to a place where people could do what they liked with impunity. What if we change it? What if instead of giving someone a mass of money, we give them the power to monitor changes implemented to make things better? You can meet with a panel of specialists and hear what they explain the problem was, what they decide is the best way to address the issue, then receive monthly reports on what has been done to change things so fewer people have to experience what you experienced. What if the person who messed up only has to pay the bill for counselling, directly, with receipts provided?

It just seems to me to defeat the purpose, when an institution which, say, didn’t have enough staff and therefore didn’t take good enough care of you now has to pay you x amount. Doesn’t that make it even more difficult for them to employ more staff? I think it’s insane, and needs to change.

I highly, highly recommend this TED talk for more thought on the issue.

What these people do can be summed up like this: they treat the kids with contempt. They seem to think of the pupils in their care as the enemy, and they act accordingly. It’s one of the things I have been singing hallelujah about where O’Fiaich College is concerned: the general atmosphere there is one of mutual respect. Mutual. The kids do not rule there, the adults are in charge, but not in a ‘I’m boss, you’re scum’ way.

If you work with children, especially with teenagers, ask yourself this question everytime you interact with them: if this were a shopkeeper, my spouse, my parent, would I speak to them this way? I’m not talking about simpler language for younger minds, I’m talking about a tone of contempt. We are trying to teach kids how to live. You are teaching my child that if someone addresses them with scorn, they must bow and take it.

Shame on you.

Yes, of course this post is inspired by a real person, a real situation one of my children faces. I will not interfere, I will not make waves, but hell, I wish I had the power to demand this person doesn’t come anywhere near my daughter. Instead, I’ve told my girl it’s wrong of an adult to speak to her like that. She doesn’t have to confront this person, but if she makes sure that she fully absorbs and stands by the knowledge that what this person is doing is wrong, she will make a stand against it without saying a word.

And for those of you who say: “Oh, but it will teach her how to deal with nasty people as an adult,” no. Sorry. There are few if any situations ever in your adult life where you are obliged to accept conteptuous treatment from another person without some recourse, some security in standing up to them. Even in the workplace, bosses who get away with such behaviour are rare. It’s only at school where being an adult gives you a licence to act like an ass.

Our dog, Adam is a real sissy. He’s almost a year old and still doesn’t lift his leg to pee. He’s a darling, of course, but he’s not macho. In other words, figuratively speaking, he has no balls. Because Mother Nature is a comedian, that is only true in a figurative sense. In the literal sense, Adam has ginormous balls. If those were figurative rather than literal, he would be the dog version of Chuck Norris.

Today, I took Adam with me when I went to the library, where he waited outside (tied of course) while I went in to drop off our books. When I came out, a couple of teen girls asked if they could pet him. He has that kind of face, you just want to hug him. So of course I said yes, they petted Adam, he nearly had conniptions of joy over the attention, and I told them his name.

“Oh my God, that is uncanny,” said one of the girls. “Did you hear that? His name is Adam.”

“Wow.”

I was curious, as you would be. “Why is his name so significant?”

“There’s this boy I like, and his name is Adam. We were just talking about him.”

“Ah,” I said. “Well, if your Adam is anything like mine, he’s a very nice chap.” Then that creature I referred to up there, the female version of Stanley Ipkiss’ mask alter ego, popped out, and added: “…with really big balls.”

Like I said. Please. Somebody. Stop me.

What is a slave? “A person who is the property of and wholly subject to another“. If a woman says: “I am not prepared to rent out my body and do the work of giving birth for this potential human in me,” and the response is: “Too bad,” then that woman is declared the property, the slave of the being in her uterus.

If the fetus could be removed and placed into another womb, or into an artificial womb, there would be no debate here. As it is, freeing the slave costs a life. Now the debate becomes hugely complicated. It is not straightforward, like ‘taking a knife and stabbing someone because you were angry with them is wrong’. Instead, we have no choice but to move into territory where fact gives way to opinion, and lofty super-intellectual debates stand in stark contrast to the very human dilemma faced by women impregnated against their will*. Like it or not, people disagree whether this:

…should be given priority over this:

We cannot find solid, indisputable answers here, it’s not possible. But we cannot force others to act according to our point of view. Society does not have a say in this, it simply has to be the choice of each individual woman. About 25 – 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. If we were faced with some disease that killed 25 – 50% of all born infants, the entire medical world would come to a screeching halt and throw every resource into combating this killer. But they don’t, because zygotes and fetuses are not the same as born babies. Our own behaviour doesn’t support the idea that abortion is murder.

It is, instead, a very difficult choice that each woman who faces it has to make for herself, and we all have to focus on providing NEUTRAL counselling (not an effort to influence her one direction or the other) and safe facilities.

Also, this guy is a dick:

Further reading: The Morality of Abortion - a neutral look at both sides of the debate.

And for those who argue women should be protected from abortion as it destroys them psychologically, that is questionable: Psychological Responses After Abortion

*A woman who becomes pregnant when she wasn’t intending to become pregnant, is pregnant against her will. Sometimes this is the result of irresponsibility, sometimes it’s the result of the failure of whatever precautions she took, sometimes it’s forcible. Whether she engaged in sexual intercourse willingly or was raped is not the issue here. Anyone who says: “Well, you can just refrain from sex, so if you have sex and you become pregnant, it’s your own fault” should be castrated (sorry, but I feel extremely strong about this, as usually those who take this nose-in-the-air stance are men, who can satisfy their biological needs, shrug and walk away). The sex urge is in many ways the foundation of our being, we are programmed in every way to reproduce. Saying: “Ah, well, just don’t have sex” is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life.

The relevant irritation is: This love will last forever. Not unique, not by any means, love songs are littered with declarations that the feeling will never end. But can you really say that? The strongest of loves can only ever live as long as the people who carry them.

You can, actually. A deep, profound love will seldom if ever be confined to the main characters in that story. It spills over, touches other lives. Through that legacy, a love can indeed last forever, passed on from generation to generation.

Sing on, boys.

Social isolation has been shown repeatedly to prospectively predict mortality and serious morbidity both in general population samples (2) and in individuals with established morbidity (3, 4), especially coronary heart disease (1). The magnitude of risk associated with social isolation is comparable with that of cigarette smoking and other major biomedical and psychosocial risk factors.

We need other people, but the beauty of it is that they also need us. It’s a complex, interesting, and most of all a beautiful balance.

When I got to the counter, the till man’s face lit. “Your son is SUCH a gentleman,” he enthused.

I glowed, of course. Nicholas would have been there yesterday to spend his pocket money. “Which one, the small one or the tall one?”

He frowned. “I’m not sure I’ve met the tall one… oh, no, wait, I have. Well actually, they’re both gentlemen!”

Can anyone possibly ask for a better gift from your children? Thank you, boys. I love both of you so much.

In a five week course, offered free of charge, you can learn how to meditate for your own use, and how to pass it on to children. The project is supported by UnLtd. A manual and CD are published as course materials that you will receive to help you to keep up with the practice when the course is finished. All is required from you is an open mind and a commitment to attend the whole course.

The first block of 5 week courses will start on Wednesday 25th January 11.30-12.30 and will carry on until 22nd February 2012. The Venue is The Yoga Studio in Newry, 10 Abbey Yard   Follow-on courses are planned.

Please respond to Csilla to book your place or to express future interest.

Phone 02841739124

csilla@yogastudioireland.com

Csilla Toldy is a writer and yoga instructor who has practiced meditation for twenty years. She worked as a classroom assistant at the Abbey Grammar School and lead workshops in the use of yoga and meditation in the classroom during Summer Schools organized by the Regional Training Unit in Belfast. The manual is the abridged version of her book “Meditations for Everyday”.

Reading one after the other article splashed all over the internet today, you get the impression scientists in general have discovered that it harms babies if they are exclusively breastfed for six months. The truth is a handful of scientists have said that the recommendation to breastfeed exclusively for six months wasn’t carried out the way they feel it should have been. They feel the sixteen studies showing infants exclusively breastfed for six months showed no growth problems and fewer health problems, were not sufficiently scrutinised before being accepted. There is new evidence that suggests maybe, MAYBE exclusive feeding exposes babies to a higher risk of iron deficiency and anaemia. The doctors also say possibly, POSSIBLY, later introduction of solids could lead to kids not accepting as wide a variety of foods into their diet as they really should. Reading and writing are my life, I notice those maybes and possiblys, but you wouldn’t guess in a million years from some of the crap written on this issue that those qualifiers were anywhere in the researchers’ minds.

This article gives a balanced, non-sensational report of the issue, and I strongly recommend to anyone interested in this issue that they read it from beginning to end. In no way, shape or form does it justify the OH, CHRIST, TEH SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!1!!! attitude reflected here and here. The second one I linked to, a Telegraph article, takes the cake, though:

The national recommendation must now be changed in light of new evidence that suggests solid food has a health beneift [sic] for babies.

Words just fail me. Scientists’ job is to always question, always challenge. They would be useless if they didn’t. But the fact that they question something does not, at all, in any way shape or form, by itself discredit what they are questioning. Those responsible for the national recommendation ‘must’ do sweet bugger all else than look into this, and make sure they always stay open for solid, evidence-based reason to change their advice.

I’m increasingly alarmed by the deceptiveness of articles in newspapers on which we base our world view. I myself am nothing but a flawed human being, and I make mistakes, but what’s worrying is that there’s so much incentive for those who have the platform of national newspapers to deliberately put the most sensational spin on any issue, over and above any genuine mistakes they make. Journalists in many ways run the world, and that’s a frightening thought when you see something like this.