Wednesday, 23 May 2012
HUZZAH! IVE REACHED 1000 VIEWS!
I logged on to my blog at lunch and, whaddya know, my blog has now been viewed 1027 times!
So I just wanted to say a quick thank you to the friends who read my blog, the friends who comment (which is none of you :( why are you all so scared to leave a comment) and also a huge thank you to the people I DON'T know who have read my blog- people from Japan, Belgium, and even Russia according to the stats.
Thanks again, and I promise I'll keep putting up pointless Ruminations to bore you :)
xoxo Miss.
Monday, 21 May 2012
How is it possible I haven't blogged about Euthenasia yet?
Ah, Euthenasia (not Youth-In-Asia as I thought the term was when I was 12)... The pinnacle of freedom. For others the slipperiest of slopes. For some the impossible to conceive. How have I not written about this topic yet, when it is one of my all time favourite thiings to ruminate on?
An article on Jezabel reminded me of this topic, it can be viewed here: http://jezebel.com/5912031/our-obsession-with-longevity-is-making-our-lives-miserable
In a nutshell, the article talks about how the "miracles" of modern medicine are keeping people alive for longer, but often with devastating economic, and of course emotional, consequences. What Mother wants her adult children to see her wither away into a demented state, a state where she oftyen doesn't recognise them, wanders off and causes panic for them, even in some cases assaults them? Or, the alternative, where the mind remains sprightly but the body fails, kept alive on machines and personal carers while you suffer the indignity of not being able to control your bowel movements.
I have always been a passionate advocate for Euthenasia, to the point where I considered contacting Exit Australia and smuggling back Nembutal from Mexico to donate to their cause (Nembutal is the clinical name given to the drug veterinarians use to euthanise animals- it is rigourously controlled here but freely available from pet stores in Central/ South America. It is the drug that Exit Australia condone using for end of life as it is relatively painless and very effective). But Legalising Euthenasia is not a popular song to sing in my particular field. Why you ask? I'll try and explain why...
Firstly, we have to define what we mean by Euthenasia. Sounds simple? Not really, but I'll give it a shot, in classic Missy confusion:
- Voluntary Euthenasia is when a person who is terminally ill/ has a disability or condition that will ultimately lead to death, performs an act (injecting a substance into themselves, swallowing a pill etc) that will kill them. The key is it is an action that the person takes themselves.
- Assisted Suicide is when a person has a terminal illness and has someone assist them with ending their life (most often has a doctor prescribe and administer the substance that will kill them). This is very controversial, there is a common argument that the more people that are legally allowed to be involved, the more likelyhood of coersion. It is also controversial as there are businesses set up who profit from assisted suicidde (The Dignitas facility in Switzeland, for example. Nicnamed the "Death Hotel", it has been condemned for making money out of providing a space and means for people to end their life).
Note that both Euthenasia and Assisted Suicide are illegal in Australia. What is legal in Australia is Advance Medical Directives, which is basically a legal document that states that, once you get to a certain point, you don't want any medical intervention that will prolong your life. This makes me uneasy because even if you're not actively prolonging life, by not having the medical treatment and allowing whatever illness to overcome you, you are likely to be in a great amount of pain.
Anyway, back to why people working in the disability sector don't tend to agree with the legalisation of Euthenasia. Most of the arguments used for Euthenasia centre around what I desribed above- not having the ability to attend to ones own toileting needs. Many people with significant physical and/or intellectual disability need personal care to help them with their toileting needs... Why does society think we are not of value if we cannot perform these tasks on our own? A lot of the arguments used for the legalisation of Euthenasia have a very narrow view of what a person should be able to do, and if they can't, then why not dispose of them because they OBVIOUSLY have no quality of life!?!
In addition to this, is of course what is colloquially known as the "slippery slope" argument. Disability advocates have argued that voluntary euthenasia will lead to pressure on people to assist in the killing of people with disability, as they are such a drain on both economic and emotional resources. Much like the legality of aborting foetuses that have a very slim chance of living outside the womb has led to the legalisation of aborting foetuses who have Downs Syndrome or other chromosomal abnormalities, but would live for many years if born.
Adding to this already potent mix of arguments is the grim knowledge that Hitler and the Nazi Party used the term Euthenasia to justify killing people with disability that were "plaguing" Germany at the time.
So as you can see, I'm just rambling non sensically here, I have no argument, no point. I guess writing about these things just helps me to get it straighter in my head. I acknowledge the challenges and the concerns about legal Euthenasia, however I still whole heartedly agree with it. Because, at the end of the day, when you ask yourself "Do I want to be able to decide when to leave my family and let myself rest?" The answer, invariably, is YES.
For more information on Exit Australia, visit their website: http://www.exitinternational.net/page/Home
An article on Jezabel reminded me of this topic, it can be viewed here: http://jezebel.com/5912031/our-obsession-with-longevity-is-making-our-lives-miserable
In a nutshell, the article talks about how the "miracles" of modern medicine are keeping people alive for longer, but often with devastating economic, and of course emotional, consequences. What Mother wants her adult children to see her wither away into a demented state, a state where she oftyen doesn't recognise them, wanders off and causes panic for them, even in some cases assaults them? Or, the alternative, where the mind remains sprightly but the body fails, kept alive on machines and personal carers while you suffer the indignity of not being able to control your bowel movements.
I have always been a passionate advocate for Euthenasia, to the point where I considered contacting Exit Australia and smuggling back Nembutal from Mexico to donate to their cause (Nembutal is the clinical name given to the drug veterinarians use to euthanise animals- it is rigourously controlled here but freely available from pet stores in Central/ South America. It is the drug that Exit Australia condone using for end of life as it is relatively painless and very effective). But Legalising Euthenasia is not a popular song to sing in my particular field. Why you ask? I'll try and explain why...
Firstly, we have to define what we mean by Euthenasia. Sounds simple? Not really, but I'll give it a shot, in classic Missy confusion:
- Voluntary Euthenasia is when a person who is terminally ill/ has a disability or condition that will ultimately lead to death, performs an act (injecting a substance into themselves, swallowing a pill etc) that will kill them. The key is it is an action that the person takes themselves.
- Assisted Suicide is when a person has a terminal illness and has someone assist them with ending their life (most often has a doctor prescribe and administer the substance that will kill them). This is very controversial, there is a common argument that the more people that are legally allowed to be involved, the more likelyhood of coersion. It is also controversial as there are businesses set up who profit from assisted suicidde (The Dignitas facility in Switzeland, for example. Nicnamed the "Death Hotel", it has been condemned for making money out of providing a space and means for people to end their life).
Note that both Euthenasia and Assisted Suicide are illegal in Australia. What is legal in Australia is Advance Medical Directives, which is basically a legal document that states that, once you get to a certain point, you don't want any medical intervention that will prolong your life. This makes me uneasy because even if you're not actively prolonging life, by not having the medical treatment and allowing whatever illness to overcome you, you are likely to be in a great amount of pain.
Anyway, back to why people working in the disability sector don't tend to agree with the legalisation of Euthenasia. Most of the arguments used for Euthenasia centre around what I desribed above- not having the ability to attend to ones own toileting needs. Many people with significant physical and/or intellectual disability need personal care to help them with their toileting needs... Why does society think we are not of value if we cannot perform these tasks on our own? A lot of the arguments used for the legalisation of Euthenasia have a very narrow view of what a person should be able to do, and if they can't, then why not dispose of them because they OBVIOUSLY have no quality of life!?!
In addition to this, is of course what is colloquially known as the "slippery slope" argument. Disability advocates have argued that voluntary euthenasia will lead to pressure on people to assist in the killing of people with disability, as they are such a drain on both economic and emotional resources. Much like the legality of aborting foetuses that have a very slim chance of living outside the womb has led to the legalisation of aborting foetuses who have Downs Syndrome or other chromosomal abnormalities, but would live for many years if born.
Adding to this already potent mix of arguments is the grim knowledge that Hitler and the Nazi Party used the term Euthenasia to justify killing people with disability that were "plaguing" Germany at the time.
So as you can see, I'm just rambling non sensically here, I have no argument, no point. I guess writing about these things just helps me to get it straighter in my head. I acknowledge the challenges and the concerns about legal Euthenasia, however I still whole heartedly agree with it. Because, at the end of the day, when you ask yourself "Do I want to be able to decide when to leave my family and let myself rest?" The answer, invariably, is YES.
For more information on Exit Australia, visit their website: http://www.exitinternational.net/page/Home
Monday, 7 May 2012
Loneliness is a four letter word
Maybe it’s because I’ve been pretty lax on my medication
lately, or maybe it’s because I’ve been listening to far too much Angus and
Julia Stone, but this weekend just gone was by far the loneliest for a long
time. I literally did not say a word yesterday, saw exactly one person when I
looked out onto the street from my balcony. I found out on the Friday that I am
going to be made redundant at the end of June (38 days and counting!), and
since then there has been this mounting restlessness. When you have a shock or
a big event, you want a partner, someone who will sit there and talk about it
in endless circles, until you figure it out. I know I have friends who would
say that they are there for me, but it’s not the same thing talking to a friend
as talking to a lover. So I wrote a poem, as a way to express the vacancy in my
heart, and take my mind off the fact that I will be unemployed very soon.
Loneliness is a Four Letter Word
Hot shoe shuffle under the sheets
Turn your head so the tears don’t pool
I wish I wish
Someone was here to swim through the pain
Stone cold crawl out to the couch
Turn your mind so the emptiness fadesI want I want
Someone to scrub out the silence and fawn
Loneliness is a four letter word
Turning against your precarious soulIt morphs it morphs
Into hatred of the self
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
It begs the question...
So, lately I have found myself having this conversation with
a number of people, and hearing different opinions on the topic. The topic is
street beggars.
When I visited some family friends in Vancouver a few years
back, the woman told me “never give money to beggars here, half of them aren’t
even homeless. Some of them even own shoes but take them off and hide them
while they’re begging to get more sympathy…” Bleeding Heart Social Worker Miss
had to bite her tongue very hard to not come back with some hilarious quip such
as “Now, is that manipulative, or good business sense? Wait there’s no
difference between the two in the Business World, why should there be here?”
And that is basically the crux of my argument. If people
choose to have it their job to sit out on the street and beg, then that’s their
job, just like you go to work everyday, they go to their street corner with
their mangled “Going through court, need money for legal costs” or “need place
to sleep, not drugs” signage that sits behind their squashed hat to catch 5c
pieces. Why should we judge this? An answer to this Q that deserves some
consideration is “because they are duping/defrauding people to feel sympathy
for them”. But I’ve thought this over, and I still believe that this is ok. Whether
or not it’s an act/performance, people choose to freely give them money. And
the givers feel a sense of righteousness because they have spared money on a
poor person. So if you think about it like that, people who beg on the street
are doing society a favour, they are providing the public a service by which
they can feel smug at their deed of altruism.
What do you guys think?
Monday, 9 April 2012
Just another fist shake at abstinence, really
YES! Just the engaging topic for a Monday morning… What was
that, it’s Tuesday? Oh, well, can I still write about it? I’m at work? and
should be doing the job I’m paid to do? Oh fine, I’ll be quick…
This article that popped up on Huff Post made me want to
bang my head into a brick wall: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/08/tennessee-sex-education-b_n_1411100.html?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily%20Brief&utm_campaign=daily_brief
To summarise, Tennessee in the US has an “abstinence only”
law for it’s sex education curriculum. In itself this is nothing but shameful.
Sex is a primal urge and teaching kids to say “no” to it isn’t going to take
that urge away!!! But, what’s even madder is that they’ve amended the law to
state that schools should also teach kids to say no to “gateway sexual activity”.
Now the article points out that no one has been specific as to what constitutes
“gateway” sexual activity, but could be interpreted by individual schools to
mean kissing, hugging, even just holding hands, which if you can recall your
early teens, was the most innocent but most thrilling sensation ever!
These poor gateways. Pot is a gateway drug, toy guns are
gateway weapons, holding hands is gateway sex… next cheese will be gateway fast
food, and be banned.
The sex education in Australia is poor enough, but the sex
education in the US sounds insanely pathetic! Haven’t these conservative
parents/schools/law makers heard that ignorance is NOT bliss? Education, in all
facets of life, is so important, don’t they want their children to make
informed choices, rather than struggle against perfectly natural hormones, fail,
and end up putting their health at risk? GRRRRR I wish I had the answers; I
wish I could make people see abstinence is not the answer! The end of the
article states “a 2010 study
published in the journal Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine found
that abstinence education can delay sex among teens”, but what it doesn’t state
is that, once these teens do start having sex, even if it’s “delayed”, they may
not be having safe sex; fully understand how to negotiate consent around
different sexual acts, or be too afraid to speak to people if they are having
issues related to sexual activity.
You’ve reached
the end of another pointless rumination. Leave a comment to show that you care!
Thursday, 29 March 2012
It's "No Shit Sherlock" Day!
Or, "Rant About Advertising- Part 2"
When I read the title for this article on The Conversation - 'Why schools and corporate brands shouldn't mix', my immediate reaction was, that's right, "no shit Sherlock".
The article, which can be viewed here: http://theconversation.edu.au/why-schools-and-corporate-brands-shouldnt-mix-6087 states that
"Over the past two decades, fast food companies, financial institutions, supermarkets and other businesses have found increasingly innovative ways to build brand awareness among not only teachers, but also a captive and impressionable audience of school children."
I recall when I was in primary school Coles had a promo where you brought in dockets and your school would be rewarded with X amount of computers for every bajillion docket (yes, back then they were dockets, now for some reason every one calls them receipts. What's with that?) Maybe my super awesome brain is immune to brainwashing, but I don't have over positive associations with Coles lingering from those times. Probably because they supplied Apple Computers, which were shit back then (and still are). Also what happened to the "Machintosh" that used to follow the "Apple"?
The point is, I usually go to the supermarket that is nearest to me, not the one that gives prizes to schools. And certainly not ones that hurt Australian Farmers bty slashing the price of milk just to keep a strong hold on their oligopaly.
The last paragraph of this article is a classic too: "Of course children should be exposed to the outside world, and the corporate world forms part of this exposure. But marketing is all about trust and the promise of a better life." Marketing is about trust!?!?! Oh, shit, I've been completely wrong, here I was thinking it was all about selling a product!?!? Silly Miss!
That's all for now- Happy Friday!
*** UPDATE ***
Another one for the "No shit Sherlock" file: http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/29/study-911-dispatchers-experience-ptsd-symptoms-too/?iid=hl-main-lede
xoxo
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
A Mid Week Smorgasboard of Mini Rants!
A couple of news items have held my attention over the past week or so, but as I am currently quite unwell, I don't have the stamina to write a whole blog about each. So here's a collection of whats grinding my gears at the moment:
1) US in talks with Australia over station on Cocos Islands
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-military-eyes-cocos-islands-as-a-future-indian-ocean-spy-base-20120327-1vwo0.html
I'm sorry, but haven't Australians been very vocal to their politicians that we wish to decoup,le ourselves from America's Warmongering ways after the multibillion dollar disasters that were Afghanistan and Iraq? Perhaps, just perhaps, we should have learnt our lesson even earlier than that and realised from the Vietnam War that no good comes from chasing invisible enemies...
2) The Trayvon Martin Case
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/trayvon-martin
The incident itself is intense. The reaction from communities throughout America have been intense. The several different accounts that George Zimmerman has told the Police are intense. I am on the verge of being obssessed with this case. I am hopeful, but not optimistic, that this Zimmerman will be convicted of manslaughter. Amid all the different accounts of what happened (and I'm not going to insist this Zimmerman guy is a racist from the little I've read about the case- we just don't know what motivated him) no one is really speaking about what all other countries thing is the crux of the issue: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO JUST CARRY AROUND FIREARMS? UGH America's Laws, in particular laws relating to guns, just make me want to vomit! So many deaths could be prevented if stupid yanks amended their stupid gun laws!!!
3) There was something else, but I've forgotten... Oh well, two mini rants to a non existant audience is good enough...
** UPDATE** Just remembered number 3...
3) Legalising sex workers for PWD...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-27/call-to-legalise-sex-workers-for-people-with-disability/3915538
EVERYONE who even vaguely knows me knows that I'm a huge advocate for equal rights, for everyone, but in particular for people with disability. But reading this article irritated me to no end- why only legalise prostitutes for pwd? It just seems so pointless to me. NSW has shown that legalising prostitution has generous benefits for the community, for example more education and therefore less spread of STIs. Why is SA choosing to focus on only sex workers who provide services to PWD? I.Just.Dont.Get.It!!!!!
Feel free to share the news items that have made you angry recently :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
