Life as an Extreme Sport

Category: …and everything else

Mostly everything else in a brain-academic way.

Dove Zombies

...and everything else, life and living

I’m a bit behind in my blogdom the last few days, for which I apologize. I have things to reply to, things to read, other things to post – my excuse is cloudy lungs. (I’ve had pretty persistent bronchitis for the past month, and there’s some concern I’ve managed to go get myself pneumonia. Again.) Where a week ago I was hiking up and down stairs rapidly and with glee, today, I can’t get from couch to kitchen without serious breathing issues.

The life of a severe asthmatic. I’ll spare you my bitching about the smallness of Albany, which means it takes two plus months to get in to see a specialist (there just aren’t that many). I suspect I’ll do the whole “not breathing in the ER to get their attention” trick that worked so well for me the last time.

Anyhow! Digressing. The point of this isn’t to whine, the point is to save myself typing and YouTube linking, and say instead, “go read Jentery’s latest post. It’s all about the Dove beauty campaign, real beauty, and zombies. And then I dovetail (heh) us into phenomenology, and the decomposition of language.

It reminds me of everything I miss about CHID – people wondering why zombies aren’t used to better effect for the representation of the real, and no one blinks twice, but instead thoughtfully considers the option before replying. People here would look at me oddly for even trying. (For example, the looks I got this afternoon when I explained why faith and science aren’t the same things, and it’s possible for someone who’s religious to be scientifically agnostic… well, I gave up quickly and went back to reading CDC data on the new HIV testing recommendations.)

Anyways, why are you still reading this? Go read Jentery, not me!

the cutting debate

...and everything else, Bioethics

There is an article in the Boston Globe talking about the continuing debate over male circumcision in the United States. It covers all the typical pro and against arguments, but one in particular leapt out and grabbed my attention: that people could have religious reasons to circumcize their boys, and therefore should be allowed to, regardless of medical indication.

This strikes me as flawed logic.

We don’t allow parents to do what they like with their children, willynilly – the best case and point of this would be children whose parents only believe in faith healing, or shun medical care. We don’t allow those parents to endanger their children’s life by refusing to treat, by only praying. We get court orders and mandates to force treatment, because we reason that a child cannot consent to anything, including their allegiance to their parents religion. But, we make an acceptance for this argument in the case of circumcision? That seems to me like it’s an easy out, an effort to not draw the ire of people who want circumcision for religious reasons, simply because there are more people who want the religiously mandated circumcision than those who believe in faith healing.

Another Anecdote Masquerading as Research

...and everything else, Academics, Bioethics

The Washington Post, today, tells us that an electrical technique may help to revive head-inury victims. On the face of it, it sounds promising: researchers at Cornell University’s Weill Medical College, the JFK Johnson Rehabilitation Institute and the Cleveland Clinic tried an established therapy known as deep brain stimulation (DBS), typically used to treat chronic pain, epilepsy, depression, and a host of other medical concerns, to stimulate the brain of a patient in a minimally conscious state. The result suggests that there might actually be a significant benefit to the minimally conscious patient: more reported days of alertness from people who were not aware when the patient was being stimulated, and when not. There’s also indication that the device doesn’t need to be working in order for the patient to receive benefit, that the benefits extend beyond the immediate.

It’s been tried before on patients in PVS, with no success. This is the first time it’s been tried in a minimally conscious patient, and shown to be successful. And there-in lies the problem. Patient. Singular. One. Three research institutes, one patient, and how many media articles talking about the revolutionary new discovery? Do you really think it matters that the story tosses one or two lines towards “this is an experiment” and “we need to try it in more people”? It’s reported as research, it’s reported as working, it’s reported as just needing more followup.

This is another example of McGee’s recent essay in The Scientist, of a case report being reported as research, an anecdote substituting for a controlled study with many patients. Yes, the institutes have jumped thru IRB hoops and have official sanction for the research, but one person does not make research. One person makes a story, an interesting aside, something to continue pursuing – not something to report to the world at large as a successful research protocol. It is, at its most basic, cruel to popularize this information when we don’t know if it will actually be successful; it gives what could amount to false hope, and that is simply irresponsible.

It’s a fascinating story, and it will be fascinating reserach when they get more people in and through the protocol. Until then, though, I think we need to question the wisdom of repeating one-off cases like this as anything more than what it is: to quote Stephen Greenblatt, it’s an anecdote of the register of the real.

moments of zen

...and everything else, Academics, Bioethics, life and living

I am having a Monday. They’re rather traditional around here, but that doesn’t really make them any easier to get through.

I’ve been doubting lately. Doubting, a lot, that I’m on the right path, doing the right thing. It’s harder than I thought it would be, starting over in a new place, in a new field. I feel so behind, and like nothing I do will catch me up. All the work I did, the effort, all the long and hard hours; it got me here – but I don’t know that it’s enough to keep me here.

The odd thing is, it’s not because of the test I got back today – I knew I was going to do poorly on it, and I was okay with that. I have to give myself some room here, and I know it; I’ve not taken a test in years, I’ve never taken a test with this prof, and I didn’t know how the test would be structured – and I find it near-impossible to study without knowing the basic style of the prof. The lowest test score is tossed, so it’s not like I did anything bad. But I think the prof was distressed, and that combined with everything else…

I’ve not talked about it here, because I don’t feel like it’s proper to discuss, or really my place, but there have been some drastic changes happening with the dual degree program I’m in, and just exactly where all the cards are going to fall is still unknown. So I moved across the country for something that is no longer a set thing. My PhD is still there, but I didn’t come here for a PhD in Philosophy – I came here for a dual degree, for continuing with bioethics, and getting that experience. And people are still working with me on it, and I’ve been assured and reassured that I will be taken care of, and I have no reason at all to question or doubt it, but it’s stressful. My nails? Gone – and I’d done so well, not biting them for almost a year. I consider that, more than anything, an indication of how stressed I’ve been.

On top of that, I feel isolated. My program is mostly men, and they’ve clumped together and are doing things together. They hang out, they’ve developed in jokes – the one’s starting with me integrating in with the older students. There are a couple of women, more than I was expecting, but of the four others, two have children and the other two have long term boyfriends. They’ve lives outside school, and don’t hang out as much as the guys do. So in a lot of ways, it’s just me and the boys, and I apparently have cooties. I was warned about this a long time ago – academia is still male. We’ve got three female teachers in the department; one’s my adviser, and she’s already acknowledged that the gender imbalance makes life hard. And it does.

I spent the morning doing email, leading me to the conclusion that writing email stresses me out to an insanely inappropriate degree, but I’m always concerned my tone won’t come across properly. I’ve one prof worrying about me, and another that I seem to be able to speak the language of, but he doesn’t speak mine.

And yet there are bright spots. Emilie’s email made me smile; I seem to have picked up a couple of readers from a blog I quite admire, and have been reading since its inception. And I find things like this, and realize that those are the small moments that make life living, where the magic escapes the imagination and flows into the world.

I know it was just a rough day, with a lot of things piling onto one another. I know this, but I still doubt. What if there’s a better way for me to get to my goal? Is this really the right path? Or should I be taking another route – it’s not like this is the only one. This is the only one, though, with the opportunities presented. It’s not that I doubt myself, I know I can do what I want to do. I shine when you put me into anything involving bioethics. It’s the rest that’s in question.

Winston Churchill said that if you’re going through hell, keep going.

I don’t mean to complain, or make life sound bad. I’m so grateful to the people who’ve supported me so far, taken time out to answer my emails, or go to lunch with me, or to contact me via the web form and give encouraging words. But I just feel this huge weight on my shoulders, and the moments of magic are fleeting. It makes them special and cherished – but I could use a little more of it in my day to day life.

Examples of How Not to Argue

...and everything else, Bioethics

My post on organ sales in China, starting from a post over at AJOB’s blog, has created a bit of a furor. I think these sorts of debate are important to have in the public sphere, and thankfully, when you send email to someone, you do implicitly give them permission to do what they want with it, including posting it online. So, for those of you who don’t see my inbox, here’s the letter I was sent tonight… and my reply. Please take notes on proper arguing styles, as argumentative fallacies really irritate me. If you’re going to argue, do it right and well, or don’t do it at all.

From: Charles Liu
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:44:48 -0700
To: Me
Subject: RE: [Academia as an Extreme Sport] Comment: “Organ Sales in China”

Kelly, here’s an article from Stanford Asia Pacific Center:

http://fsi.stanford.edu/publications/growth_of_freedoms_in_china_the/

It covers the subject of growing media freedom in China.

I’m curious – have you been to China? If you haven’t I suggest you go take a
look for yourself, perhaps then you’ll know what is propaganda and what is
not.

(If you can’t read Chinese try not to blame 1.3 billion people; it ain’t
their fault.)

The Chinese search engine result contains many points of view, including
those consistent with yours. Ar they too propaganda?

The fact there has been a wide range of opinions this subject in China for
years, shows the eventual legal reform by the Chinese government this year –
is a result of their own national dialogue, not because BBC did a story or
people like you bitched about ethics (as if the Chinese are unable to decide
for themselves.)

And you claim to understand buddism?

And for completion sake, my reply:

Yes, I’m one of those “irritating” Westerners who claims to understand Buddhism. I have the fun of scholastic backing as well as personal, and have studied with leaders in both the academic and spiritual side – so, I know my Buddhism. I even took the time to run it by Rinpoche, to make certain my understanding was firm. I realize it must be a shock to find out a Westerner does know what she’s talking about – but hey, China imported Buddhism, too, so why not? India’s the country with claims to the religion.

Not only do I have the background to make claims about Buddhism, I have the background to make claims about bioethics, too – it’s not just “bitching”, it’s years of academia leading me to being able to make informed statements – and you? You want to challenge my authority to talk about Buddhism and ethics and China, what about you? You obviously feel you can speak more authoritatively than me on all three, so lay it out. Show me your credentials for all of the above, so I don’t just write you off as some internet irritant.

Have I been to China? No, I haven’t. However, I’ve the fun of being raised by an international businessman who was one of the first Westerners to be invited to do business in China, and has run several successful multinationals there. In addition to my father’s years of experience with the culture, I have several Asian relatives, including my Chinese niece – one of the many abandoned girls adopted by those Westerners you’re so quick to denigrate.

Your mistake is that you’re making a straw man argument – you’re attacking something that is not at issue, in an effort to distract from the real issue. The issue at hand is organ sales from prisoners apparently killed on the basis of need for their organs. Attempting to take the critical eye off of that issue is nothing more than a straw man attack attempting to distract from the uncomfortable truths of the situation. America’s organ donation issues are not at issue, and the only thing relevant about China in the debate, is that which relates to the problem – nothing else. It is, sadly, a common fallacy among people who either don’t want to debate the issue, or don’t want to admit that something distasteful is occuring.

Sometimes, I miss the lack of mood icons on Word Press – it’s so much easier to indicate exasperation and irritation that way.