There is a guy at work today who wore a blue and white vertically striped shirt and a green and black rep tie. I can't even begin to explain how painful it was to sit across from him at a meeting this morning.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 26 March 2004 at 12:51 PM

I found this article on Google News today. Apparently a woman in Utah, Melissa Rowland, refused repeated requests that she undergo a Caesarian section in order to save the lives of the twins she was carrying. This woman has now been charged with murder for the stillbirth death of one of those children. Prosecutors allege that she refused the surgery because she feared scarring. In one of the many other stories on the subject Ms. Rowland claims that this allegation is ridiculous. She further claims that her other two children were delivered by C-section. (If true, the prosecution will have a hard time making scarring the motive for the crime. The lines from previous surgeries can be reused for a C-section.)

Perhaps there is more to this than the articles I've read have indicated, but this seems like a clear case of prosecutorial over-reaching. Medical science is not infallible and there are risks associated with all forms of surgery including Caesarian sections. This prosecution begs a number of questions. If someone is about to be shot, will I be charged with murder if I don't step between them and the bullet that has been fired at them? Am I obligated to risk my life in order to save someone else? At what likely percentage of survival am I obligated to step in and help someone else? And who is qualified to assess that risk?

You could certainly argue that a mother has greater obligations to save he (unborn) child than I have to save a stranger on the street. And if we are only assessing the morality of the situation you might well win the debate. However, doctors routinely perform abortions when the life of the mother is at risk. Where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable risks? And how confidant are you in your doctor to make those decisions for you? And how do you feel about jail time for not listening to a doctor's advice?

Don't get me wrong on this. I'm very much in favor of C-sections. And I'm a living testament to the safety of the surgery to both mother and child. Nonetheless, I prefer that the government not intrude on medical decisions in this fashion. It opens a box that they will quickly wish they'd never opened. First, how will they handle the fact that Ms. Rowland's discussions with her doctor are protected by doctor-patient privilege. I doubt Ms. Rowland will be willing to waive privilege in this instance. Also, how will the prosecutors answer the charge that this is a witch hunt directed at Ms. Rowland? Why aren't her doctors being prosecuted for not forcing her to have the C-section? Why aren't they charging parents who take fertility drugs, become pregnant with multiple children, and then abort the weakest children? This is, I understand, a relatively common practice when taking fertility drugs because the drugs often lead to quads and quints. And it certainly falls under the same umbrella as Ms. Rowland's prosecution.

Anyway, enough about this. It's just an interesting case and I wanted to bring it to your attention.

Comments: 2 Posted by david on 13 March 2004 at 8:11 PM

What's up with all of these mid-season replacements starting in March? I thought the traditional approach was to show them during February sweeps. Anyway, the only new show I've seen so far is Fox's "Cracking Up." It's the show with Jason Schwartzman (of "Rushmore" and the band Phantom Planet) and Molly Shannon (an SNL alum) that you have no doubt seen more than a few ads for. I don't watch commercials because of my TiVo-like device, and I've still seen quite a few ads for it. Anyway, based on the show I saw yesterday, "Cracking Up" has the potential to be good. The pilot had a lot of set up, so I'm reserving judgment until I see tonight's episode (8:30pm on Fox).

The other interesting thing about "Cracking Up" is its DVD-like website. There are a bunch of behind the scenes clips available and they even have a blog.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 10 March 2004 at 3:19 PM

When our apartment building was purchased by Reserve at Forest Park, we began receiving monthly flyers from the management staff at Reserve. Until today I'd never taken the time to look through it, but today I needed to find the phone number for maintenance, so I gave the flyer a try. The first thing I discovered was that there are no phone numbers listed in the flyer. Every staff member who works at Reserve at Forest Park, from the Property Manager to the three Groundsmen, are listed (all fifteen of them), but they didn't give me a way to contact them. The rest of the flyer seems to be devoted to upcoming movie and dvd releases, recipes, and a less than useful calendar. I did learn that the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race is held on March 6 through March 21 and that March 4 is Hug a GI Day. Also, I was pleased to see the Reserve at Forest Park giving "Three Cheers for Moms!"

We'd like to wish happy Mother's Day to all of the mom's [sic] in our community. Your job as mother is so very important. Let's hear it for moms!

Now, I'm in favor of both mothers and Mother's Day, but I usually wait until May to start celebrating. I guess the Reserve is just trying to get a head start on things.

Comments: 1 Posted by david on 8 March 2004 at 9:43 PM

Does anyone know of a good book group in Saint Louis? Or, failing that, is anyone interested in starting one with me? I guess we could run it online with a bulletin board or something, but it would of course also work if we ran it the old fashioned way with in person meetings on a semi-regular basis.

Comments: 4 Posted by david on 2 March 2004 at 10:13 AM