IANAL, but it seems to me that if the State deliberately restricts a life saving procedure they have effectively sentenced you to death without due process, violating the 14th amendment (since it's a Texas state law).
Their point of view is that you are sentencing an unborn child to death without due process. Then if you try to argue medical science, they counter with God's will. Good luck.
Big pharma undermined its own credibility by pushing opiates and other flawed medicines. The conspiracy theorists brought a tiny spark to a huge pile of debris and now there's a tire fire burning forever. I hope the short term gains and wholesale loss of lives were worth it for these sick individuals.
"Prior authorization" delayed by wife's most recent dose of regular chemotherapy for weeks.
It's the same drug she's been receiving at the same interval for several years. Why all the fuckery now? Because fuck her on particular, that's why. Because we're just diseased wallets to them.
An embryo is technically, a fertilized egg. It makes economic sense to fertilize a batch of egg cells in one go because
1: They may not all be successfully fertilized
2: Some fertilized eggs may encounter defects early on in development.
I haven't checked the original article, but I assume fertilized eggs ( embryos) where accidentally destroyed when dropped.
With all that said, I think this whole thing is ridiculous. A baby needs three things to be born. A sperm, an egg, and a uterus (maybe in the future we'll have crazy external uteruses. We've done it with sheep.).
If an embryo is not placed into a uterus, I'm not bothering referring to it as a human. Hell, you can't even identify the sex yet.
Who should get to decide what happened to your embryos? If you choose to destroy them, sign a waiver for the clinic, and it's done. If any other person destroys them against your wishes, shouldn't you have a say in that?
The study had some key limitations, which weren’t really reflected in the headlines about its bombastic findings, namely that this analysis has yet to be peer reviewed or published in full (and, as pointed out by the British Heart Federation, includes different numbers in the study summary and press release). The observational study also relied on self-reported dietary information, which may include errors or distortions, and it’s unclear whether the subjects continued time-restricted eating beyond the two days they reported
Why are people posting non peer-reviewed content that's based on self-reporing from a country that has a obesity problem that isn't going to go away by gorging on Mcdonald's in the 4 hour window.
Calling it viral-study is diminishing what scientific study does. Click bait
You're comparing playing video games, an explicitly recreational activity, to mind numbingly boring jobs?
Filling up the same form hundreds of times is rather different than fighting virtual monsters. I did a shift covering workers at a printing house. My job for the day consisted of sitting on a chair and waiting for a machine to spit out a stack of magazines. When it did, I'd place a small piece of paper on top of the stack before it got wrapped in plastic, due to the regulations of the country the stacks were went to.
The machines were stuck all the time, so in practice, I sat in a chair and slapped a small piece of paper on a stack like 3-12 times an hour. There were no smart phones back then, and you wouldn't have been allowed to use one anyway. Even music was strictly forbidden, because you need to be alert because the machines are dangerous.
And that was a stress free boring job. Most jobs are super stressful and bosses demand more than you can do.
How many times has your chronic pain been dismissed as "hysteria", "anxiety", "all in your head", "are you sure it's not just your period honey", "maybe if you got pregnant you'd feel better"? How many years did it take for you to receive a diagnosis? How likely is it that your spouse/significant other will just up and leave you while you're sick because "you're too much trouble"?
It's a lot harder to want to live with chronic pain and health conditions when you're constantly dismissed and ignored and you know that the person who promised to be with you through thick and thin has a 7x higher chance to leave you than if the situation were reversed.
I'm sorry for your pain. How long have you been contemplating ending it all?
As for the matter at hand: there are two issues here, neither should be ignored. Having said that, it is a bit jarring to hear that it is alright if one sex dies as long as the other doesn't have to suffer. Say that to a domestic abuse survivor.
And for the matter you brought up: Being the SO of someone chronically sick is a whole other bucket of issues. Chronic disease hits far wider than the single individual, but the one being sick is not in a position to see that. "What are you whining for, I'm the one being sick" is to easy a retort, thereby stating that support should only go one way in the relationship...
I believe they're referring to the stat that the female partner of a chronically sick male is much more likely to stay, while a male partner of a chronically sick female is much more likely to leave.
Suicidal ideation comes and goes, much like all the rest 🤷🏻♀️
I don't think I said anything about it being ok for one sex to die if the other doesn't have to suffer, though? Not sure where that came from at all. Just pointing out that your view of "better living and in pain than dead" doesn't take into account the very different experience of fem-coded chronic disease sufferers. Men are more likely to be believed, more likely to receive quick and accurate diagnosis, more likely to receive appropriate support. Women and other minorities often are disbelieved, told they're imagining things, expected to suffer in silence, or outright told that they are lying for sympathy/attention/drugs. It's a lot harder to want to stay alive in spite of the pain when you don't receive proper support from family, friends, and medical institutions. The goal, obviously, is for everyone to receive the appropriate support. And before anyone jumps down my throat: not all men are lucky enough to have a perfect experience. Not all women and minorities have bad experiences. Yeah, we all know that. But the numbers are there and they speak for themselves.
As to the last point, the other commenter is correct; the divorce rate when the man has a chronic or terminal illness is 3%. In the reverse situation, with the woman being ill, the divorce rate is a whopping 21%. This is what I was referring to. Men are wildly disproportionately more likely to leave a spouse who is suffering from a chronic disease. Again, it's hard to want to live when the person who was supposed to be with you for better or worse decides you're too much trouble to deal with, and this is a thing that affects women far more than men. That's all I meant. I am certainly aware that support needs to go both ways even when one partner is chronically ill and I am lucky enough to have a supportive spouse who has their own (mental) health issues which lends itself to mutual support anyway.
Edit, I've just noticed you're not the person I initially responded to. That said, this is all directly in response to their belief that living with chronic health issues is always preferable to dying, so that that as you will.
I've read what you've put, you speak thoughtfully and with passion, it's clearly something you feel strongly about.
"Men are more likely to be believed, more likely to receive quick and accurate diagnosis, more likely to receive appropriate support."
They still die. I think it has to do with how late they tend to admit that something is wrong.
Totally agree that there is an issue with women and minorities not getting the diagnosis's they deserve in a quick manner
I'll admit I have a sadness about assisted death, I've never been in their position but Terry Pratchett was my first public example of it and that hurt.
Thanks for being open minded about it. I am passionate about it, as I've had several femme/minority friends be much worse off than I and struggle greatly with their conditions, and have lost a few as a result. I've also experienced firsthand the disparity in treatment, though I've been luckier than many with a comparatively "mild" condition and a robust support system. I don't disagree that there are problems in the system for every chronic patient, regardless of their sex, gender, race, etc and every loss is sad. I just get frustrated when people are flippant about the reality that many of us face - "well, at least you're alive" is of no comfort when death may feel like the only chance at peace.
Thanks for the discussion, regardless, and I wish you as many years of happiness and relatively pain-free enjoyment as you are able and wish to find. It's certainly not a competition out here, we should all be trying to advocate for all of us :)
Do women experience more years in poor health because they're living longer than men, and those extra years are all while they're older and poor health is much more common?
I can only speak anecdotally, but almost all the women in my life have some sort of chronic health issue. Weird stuff too like blisters on their wrists during their period, or a slanted cervix causing pain during sex.
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
Oldest
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).