Heal Thyself

Friends ask me why I don't go to doctors. I do have osteoarthritis in my knees, which prompts the next question about why I don't have replacement surgery. My answer to both questions is that I want to give my body the chance to take me as far as it will without all the prodding, pills and punctures.

I enjoy a wonderful quality of life, rarely if ever thinking about my health. Except for the knees, I'm amazingly healthy with only an occasional cold. My thinking on the subject is this: If I were to discover some disease or major illness, the rest of my days would be spent fretting and dealing with such a diagnosis (or misdiagnosis). And even if it were real, I find letting things be gets me from day to day with a great outlook on life and a feeling of peace.

It's not that I've never gone to physicians or that I have a phobia about seeing them. After all, I've had five major surgeries, the latest almost 30 years ago. And the last time I went to see a doctor, almost four years ago, I had a suspicious mole, which my GP removed. (Biopsy showed it was benign.) What I don't do are the yearly checkup and the tests that include blood work, blood pressure check and the like. I wait for something specific to occur before I make an appointment.

To set the record straight about my medical preferences, I do think that psychiatrists and chiropractors are quacks. Close family members have been treated by both and I believe the methods of such doctors are suspect at the very least. GPs are my favorite doctors, especially those who actually listen to patients. Beyond that, the more basic medical treatments the better for me. I grew up going to country doctors only for such things as pneumonia or a deep cut from barbed wire. Too many tests these days. Too many procedures.

For many years, I said that if I were to reach a certain age -- no, I won't say what age -- that everything after that would be gravy. I reached that age three years ago. We'll see what the future brings.

Feeling Sick Isn't Fun Anymore

When I worked for a living, being able to take off a day because I had a headache or cramps made the day -- and whatever illness -- better. No getting dressed up. No commute. No dealing with editors. Just sitting (or lying) on the couch and reading a good mystery.

The first 20 or so years I was employed at the newspaper, a company nurse would come to the house of any employee who called in sick. The boss called the nurse who then drove to the employee's house where she said her job was to see if she could provide any assistance to the sick one. Sure it was. She carried nothing more than a thermometer and aspirins. Her job -- and we all knew it -- was to check up on us. Were we really at home? Were we really ill? How ill? Could we return to work the next day?

The company also employed a doctor. If we became ill at work, we were to go see him. He could diagnose, give us a few pills, and most of the time we could resume working. It was all about keeping the employees at work so the newspaper could be printed and delivered.

Eventually, the doctor and his office disappeared. The nurse remained for a time until she and the manager of the cafeteria were caught taking hams and turkeys, bought with company money, to their cars after work. A fitting end for the company nurse, who made her living primarily by ratting out her co-workers.

These days, I'm retired from that company. When I'm sick, there's nothing good about it. No calling a number, then settling back with the knowledge that I'm getting paid for doing nothing. No being happy that my co-workers had to work and I didn't. The past 10 days or so, I've been dealing with an illness that, for now, is undiagnosed. Why is that? For various reasons, I suppose. Mostly, it's because I don't want to enter the medical system. Without knowing what I have, there would be one test after another. Frankly, I just don't feel like dealing with all of it.

Meanwhile, I have some good mysteries at hand, iced tea ready to pour, plenty of OJ and soup, and ginger capsules when I feel a bit out of whack. What's missing is the elation I used to feel when I knew I didn't have to go into work. Retirement is great. However, there are things that it lacks, things that only those who enjoyed being sick on a work day can understand.

Abortion: All Liberals Don't Support It

Elections are won and lost when the subject of abortion becomes part of the campaigns. And these days it always does. This past week, abortion also entered the health care debate on Capitol Hill with congressmen saying that once abortions are free, even more women will get them. And one nutty Kansas representative even said that if abortions had been free in the 1960s, President Obama's mother might have chosen to abort him.

I believe abortion is today's Civil War issue. There's no middle ground. You're either for it or against it. As for my own view on abortion, it's my guess that many people might misjudge me, pigeonholing me on the wrong side. Because I'm a liberal, people assume I'm for a woman's right to choose. Because I'm a registered Democrat, I'm a supporter of abortion rights. Because I'm a woman, I think women should feel free to choose abortions. Because I'm not religious, I support abortions.

If you expect all of those to be true about my abortion views, you'd be wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. I am 100% against abortion. My reasons are many:

1) I don't know how any woman can have an abortion after looking at an ultrasound of a weeks-old fetus moving around in her uterus.

2) I don't accept the "her own body" argument. Yes, the fetus is inside the woman, but she is the keeper, the carrier. She doesn't own that baby.

3) When a woman decides to kill a fetus -- baby, to my way of thinking -- she is making a decision for someone else, someone who has no voice.

4) I believe birth control, not abortion, is the ultimate right to choose. I also believe in birth control beforehand, not after the (f)act. Too many women use abortion as birth control. This is the 21st century, for god's sake! Birth control pills have been around for 50 years. Since that time, many other contraceptives have arrived on the market, obliterating unplanned pregnancies for women who use their heads when they're going to have sex with men. Or, at least, that's the way it should be.

5) Too many women go along with men's pleas to have sex without condoms and the women themselves either are too lazy or have decided not to use birth control because of the slight possibility of side effects. If you haven't learned to say NO, then at least take the damn pills or use whatever kind of contraceptive you want. A few side effects are minor compared with killing a human being. A woman who allows herself to become pregnant when it's something she doesn't want should understand that a baby might be conceived because of her decision. There are consequences and one should not be the life of an innocent baby.

With that said, I want to counter something that the Religious Right, pro-life crowd do -- or don't do. They fight abortions with all of their might. That's their choice and I support them on this one issue. At the same time, once the babies who aren't aborted are born, many of these same people do little to support such children. For example, the Right fights any increases in the Head Start program, and they vote against school lunch programs and welfare increases for poor children. There are even politicians who say hunger inspires children to work.

It's admirable to fight abortions, but you had better decide what to do with children who will be born if abortions once again become unlawful and difficult to obtain. (Remember the orphanages of the past?) There are consequences no matter which way you go. For me, a live, healthy baby trumps just about anything else. And I believe everything should be done to keep him that way once he's here.