Same-sex marriage is immoral--philosophical and economical arguements

Same-sex marriage is a hot topic. I am opposed to it for philosophical, pragmatic, economical and religious reasons. While some regard religious reasons as irrational and pointless, they are the most powerful, but I'll save them for last.
Philosophically, if everyone in the entire world did some action and our world was a better place, that is a moral action. Conversely, if everyone did this action, and our world would be worse off, then that is immoral. If everyone in the entire world were homosexual, our world, our species, would be in bad shape. Therefore, why should I uphold what I philosophically oppose?
Pragmatically, religious and other semi-religious organizations (such as the Boy Scouts of America) oppose homosexuality, and they are being punished for doing so. The Catholic church in Massachusetts for a century placed orphans into loving homes. But because they religiously opposed putting orphans into homes of same-sex married couples, they lost their adoption license. Other religious organizations are being penalized in other ways. Pragmatically, our society depends on religious organizations to teach citizens to be morally upright. Society will not function if its citizens are immoral, only obeying the law out of fear of punishment. Societies need religions to do what government can't do: instill values into the citizenry. Don't punish religion because religion warns of (divine) punishments!
Economically, I oppose allowing same-sex couples to enjoy the tax benefits of marriage. A "byproduct" of marriage is another generation of tax payers. Same-sex couples physiologically do not make more tax payers.  Here me and my wife are, making another generation of tax payers (which is not the most easy job in the world), dumping money into the economy (or at least the disposable diaper sector, the child textile sector, etc), and instilling moral values into the future adult citizens of the nation. Why should same-sex couples get spousal tax benefits, spousal social security, etc. when between the spouses, they physiologically don't make tax payers to support them?
Religiously, I know that morality isn't relative; it is absolute. Science depends on absolute standards so that results can be compared between labs, generalized to other fields, and applied for the benefit of humanity. Can you imagine what science would be like if every scientist measured distance in their own footsteps? Religion and science have different ends, but similar means: they both convey (the discovery) of truth. Why should we allow science to have absolute standards, but deprive religious people of their claims of absolutes?  Homosexuality is immoral, and that is an absolute truth.

Healthcare in America

I once met a lady who had been a "frequent flier" of the healthcare system. At the time I met her, she was only slightly morbidly obese (pushing 300 lbs), but she had been up near 400 before a surgeon finally agreed to do a lipo-suction (despite her body being in horrible shape for anesthesia and the stress of surgery). Prior to that, she had bariatric surgery (or something like that) to shrink her stomach, she had had multiple surgeries on her knees since they were in a chronic state of pain (can you imagine how your legs would feel if they had to carry 4 times the weight they were meant for?), and she was also known as a 'doc shopper,' going from one doctor to the next since something they did erked her. This lady was pretty well informed about her healthcare, but she had near zero understanding of her health. She felt it was the doctors job to fix her up. And in a way it is, but there is a very tiny amount a doctor can do to help in comparison to what people can do to help themselves.
I don't know what I think about the new healthcare system in America that Pres Obama wants. On one hand, I am happy that more people will have access to better healthcare, but on the other hand, I am ashamed about any part of the legislation allowing easier abortions. Also on this hand, I think it will make our system more like other social medicine systems, s l o w. As if things aren't slow enough already...
I really hope that the new healthcare system gets people more interested in their health, rather than the attitude of the lady I met--focused solely on healthCARE and not on improving her own health. Maybe people will realize that they won't be able to get their health problems taken care of the day after a problem arises, so they will be more careful about their health. It is sad to see people in the hospital that made bad choices about their health and have basically given up a significant portion of their lives for it. And now they are hoping and praying that the healthcare system can undo what they did...
Moral of the blog is 1) don't smoke, 2) don't drink, and 3) if you think you maybe should do something about your health or well-being, just do it.

street vs book smarts

So I met a few folks from my Alma Mater earlier today, and was thinking back to the awesome time I had there. I also remember talking with a lecturer who was a self-made business owner and had made enough money to basically retire in his 40's but still taught business to keep busy. He heard I was going to a medical scientist training program, and he looked at me and said something to the effect of the following. "So, I've been thinking, and you know what could make you one of the richest men in the world? Find a cure for cancer. All the baby-boomers on the planet would spend their fortunes to save their lives."

Here was a guy with a lot of street smarts--he had used them successfully and made lots of money in the process. But his book smarts are a little rusty. There are literally thousands and thousands of scientists and doctors that have devoted their lives to curing cancer, some for altruistic reasons, some for monetary, many for both.

Anyways, it made me think which one I would rather have if I could only have one... Then it hit me "Duh! You DO only have one, and it's book smarts!" And that's that.

Car washes

It seems like whenever we get the car washed, it rains soon after--kinda like the act of washing the car is a modern-day rain dance. Not this time! I was about to get the car washed the day before yesterday, and I decided against it last minute, and so I'm not sad at all that it is cloudy today. Ha, take that, mother nature!

Expert or Just Rich and Famous?

Why are Jim Carrey (who dropped out of high school), Jenny McCarthy (a model and actress), and Robert F Kennedy (an attorney by training) qualified to influence people about vaccinations? Is it because they are experts in human biology and immunology? Or is it because they are rich and famous?

I get a little frustrated seeing people eat up what Jim Carrey said about how the one-size-fits-all mentality does not apply to vaccines. He is partially right--one size actually only fits about 99% of kids. There are an extremely few individuals with immunodeficiencies (but soon all 50 states will be testing all newborns like they do in Wisconsin) that leave them with lives like "the bubble-boys." But when it comes to vaccines, the genes that control our immune systems are over 99% identical regardless of where you live and who you are (no that is not including the hypervariable VDJ recombo regions in our lymphocytes, but if you know what I'm talking about then you probably aren't anti-vaccine).

And what makes me mad is that people take what Jenny McCarthy say she 'thinks' about vaccines as guidance over what scientists, doctors, statisticians, and the 400,000 participants in the most recent and biggest vaccine efficacy/safety study say. It all seems to me like beauty and emotion are winning more people than logic, evidence and experience.

And what is a lawyer by profession saying about too many vaccines being a problem for kids? Kids and adults are exposed to BILLIONS of microbes every day, so limiting the amount of microbial peptides in a vaccine is not going to make them any safer--it will just make them less effective.

People argue that the science behind vaccines is over 200 years old. It is older than that--it is as old as humankind!--scientist just came to understand it then and use it for good. Just like electricity--it's always been there, we just haven't been able to do anything with it. And like with electricity, our understanding is getting better, so that's why the list of bugs covered by vaccines is growing and that's why they started to add adjuvants like thermisol (which contains mercury) in the first place--to make them better. But even when thermisol was in vaccines (up until the early 2000's), there was still more mercury in a tuna sandwhich than any vaccine. And mercury poisoning and autism are 2 completely different beasts, so it goes to show that people claiming the vaccine and autism link haven't studied medicine.

I'm tired of actors and politicians misusing their power and making little kids sick when it could have been prevented!

So that was on my mind and it's off so I can study in peace for my immunology test.

Illusion of Independence

So I have been studying (read "cramming") for a psychiatry test, and I have repeatedly thought "If only people didn't have the idea that they were completely independent and could do things on their own, they wouldn't have this problem in the first place."

No one is independent these days--we all rely on farmers to make food for us, and even farmers who grow their own food rely on store people for fertilizer, tractors, etc.

The psych lecture I was listening to that got me thinking about this was about people (especially doctors) thinking they didn't need help for depression and then they let it get worse and they end up doing things they regret in their saddened state.

Then the next lecture was about child psychiatry, and how families don't want to admit they need help with kids, but then once a crisis happens and help is forced on them, the child improves dramatically.

Independence is not right mindset--interdependence is better!!! See Stephen Covey's "7 Habits" book for more on interdependence;)

Global Warming Solutions

First off, if you like Al Gore, stop reading this.

A few years ago, I got an email from my dad about Al Gore, and how at the time he made his film on global warming, his mansion was the ultimate sign of hypocrisy.

Yesterday, I just found out about how Al Gore in 1997 recommended limiting family sizes to help solve global warming (yes, I'm over 10 years behind in my news). He has 4 kids, so what about himself?

I just want to say if you want to persuade people, set an example; don't be a hypocrite.

History lessons at medical school

I have enjoyed the few history lessons I have received while at medical school. The first was actually one I read about on my own on a study break. It turns out many think that the doctors taking care of George Washington may have sped up his death by "bloodletting," an old practice used to supposedly let the bad stuff out by cutting a person and just letting them bleed. But thankfully medicine has taken a role as a side-kick to science so that scientists do the dirty work on computers, cells and mice so doctors don't do stuff that out-right kills people.

Another history lesson I heard today may end up happening again thanks to Jenny McCarthy and Oprah. First things first: the history lesson.

Back before the 30's, whooping cough or pertussis was a common occurrence, and before antibiotics, it killed 50% of people it infected and infected up to 90% of people exposed to a sick person. Thanks to antibiotics, it only kills 1/500 infected people, but infections last weeks if not months and include a deep, long-lasting (15-20 seconds) cough and possibly neurological problems in up to 4% infected.

But scientists came up with a vaccine and antibiotics for it, and so whooping cough became rare. The only bad thing was the vaccine caused a fever in 50% of immunized kids. One guy around the 80's tried to convince people that those fevers were causing neurological problems worse than what the pertussis bacteria could cause, and a lot of people bought into it. Japan, Russia, the UK, and Australia were a few of the countries that stopped the pertussis vaccine. Unfortunately, what followed were whooping cough epidemics. A disease that annually only hospitalized hundreds of kids across the world skyrocketed to putting tens of thousands of kids in the hospital in only a few short years!

I pulled this graph from an article by a researcher named Gangarosa published in 1998 in "The Lancet," which is a world-renown medical/scientific journal.

It shows on the right how the US kept on vaccinating, but Australia had a huge increase in incidence thanks to not vaccinating.

Now back to what I mentioned about Oprah and Jenny McCarthy, who claim MMR vaccines cause autism: countries like the UK that fell for the pertussis story are falling for the MMR/autism story, and measles vaccination rates are dropping while incidence is climbing just as fast! History is repeating itself, except instead of pertussis, it is measles, mumps and rubella.

What many people don't realize is that even though we may be vaccinated and immune to diseases caused by bacteria and viruses, we still carry the germs! So we can pass along the germs to those not vaccinated without even knowing it...

I've learned a few other history lessons in medical school, but I'll save them for later.

Meet the Mormons debriefing

So we had a "Meet the Mormons" night at my school. It was a dinner and panel for fellow students to ask questions. Of the 80plus people there, there were only about 30 Mormons. There were 3 students who had heard much about the Mormons and were asking questions in a rather attacking manner, but the rest had great friendly questions. Almost all the panel members ended up sticking around for a few hours after the 2-hour long dinner and panel discussion to talk more with the 3 in particular and a few other that didn't get their questions in. I was talking to my friend who had a conversation with one of the 3 about how the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, so if my friend believed in the Book of Mormon, he couldn't believe in the Bible and was, therefore, not Christian.

I heard this later and was a little frustrated with the misinformation out there. The Book of Mormon doesn't contradict the Bible any more than the Bible contradicts the Bible. For example, Exodus 7:3, the Bible says that the Lord told Moses "I will harden Pharaoh’s heart," which is contradictory to basically to everything else in the Bible about God's love and His desire for all on earth to be humble. There are a few more things that the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible fixed that make the Bible not contradict itself so much, but the Book of Mormon doesn't contradict the Bible any more than the Bible does itself.

WWJD

So I'm involved with a group on campus that is trying to get people of different faiths together (actually, they are all children of Abraham) for a dinner to hear some speakers from different faiths talk about how their faith has helped them in their career. The Christian group here on campus won't come though because their goal is to celebrate Jesus, not other different faiths.
I'm a little sad that the group wanting to celebrate Christ won't emulate Him as well--what did Jesus preach about Samaritans, who were of a "different faith"?
Oh well...

Church and State

The term "separation of church and state" has taken come to mean that we shouldn't mix our religious beliefs with politics. I think the writers of the Constitution didn't intend on completely abolishing anything spiritual in government run programs or buildings--in fact, I am glad that congress starts off with prayers--it shows that they understand that people can have a religion and it doesn't make them or their government any less valid.
The intent of separation of church and state was to prevent a state-sponsored church, like what the case was in England. I highly doubt that their intent was to disable teachers from decorating their rooms with anything relating to spirituality (like Christmas decorations or the 10 commandments), yet that is how far it has come. Why do atheists have a problem with people displaying their beliefs or telling Bible stories in school but not have a problem with fairy tales, when to the atheist they are the same thing?
Atheism has become the federally-sponsored religion, and I am sick of it. Our country was founded on people voting their beliefs, and those beliefs held by a majority of people become law. Why do we need to enforce atheism when the majority of us believe in Deity? Who let those unelected judges make it ok to stop a girl from refering to what she believed in (see link)?
Is this not state-sponsored atheism?

Meat, anyone?

So people out their that have a problem with others eating meat, please let me know what you think about lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!) and other carnivores. Please also let me know your ideas on why mother nature gave us canine teeth with the expectation not to use them.

I agree that we should cut back on our meat intake, but to stop entirely from eating meat seems like we'd be wasting some our coolest-looking teeth, the canines.

Nationalized health care

So whoever actually implements nationalized health care needs to be aware of a fundamental principle of economics: Supply and Demand Curves. Let me know if I don't understand this right, but I remember learning that the cheaper something is, the more people will consume or use it.
While I agree people should not be turned away from emergency medical care due to lack of funds, to give medical care for free would cause people to go to the doctor a lot more than they do. From what I hear at medical school, we are short on competent care-providers, especially in geriatrics. Also, the United States is getting older and older. The combination sounds like it would lead to problems or a Canada-like system (no offense to our neighbors to the north) where people with problems that can wait do just that--wait in pain.
In fact, I never went to the doctor except for summer camp physicals or shots. But my junior and senior year of college when I learned about the free doctor on campus, I went just about everytime I got sick, and only 1 of the 4 times I remember did I get a prescription for antibiotics--the other times were all just things that needed to run their course. So by giving me free access to the doctor made it so that 3 out of 4 of my visits were pretty much a waste of time.

I'm not saying don't nationalize healthcare--I am saying take a different look at how to solve the problem of too high of prices rather than making it free for all. I believe gearing up the supply side by letting more people in to medical schools, removing organizational limits on how many trainees there can be at a time, etc. would help the problem more than turning into Canada would. The only people I see suffering from this would be the doctors--instead of being in the top 10 percent income bracket, they'd get bumped down to the upper 25 percent. (I know, asking doctors and medical training organizations to play by the capitalist rules would not be very nice on their pocketbooks, but hey, capitalism works for other fields, why not ours?)
And don't tell me that letting more people in to medical school would mean we'd have dumber doctors; we already have people in medical school that maybe shouldn't be there--a fellow Californian med school classmate thought Nebraska bordered Canada.

Artificially lowering prices of healthcare would artificially fix the problem. Why not go by the rules of economics and make medical training organizations do away with their policies to protect their members' pocketbooks?

Question about FOCA

So I have some questions about the Freedom of Choice Act or any other pro-abortion enforcing laws out there. I am going to be a medical professional someday, and I feel that a fetus is another individual from the moment that it has it's own DNA regardless of whether or not it is in constant need of another individual or not--don't we all constantly rely on others? (Don't tell me you pieced together your own computer from some rocks and minerals you found with your bare hands, or the fact that you rely on farmers for food, policemen for security, etc.) That's just my belief.
So how is it that people can expect the government pay for an elective procedure (correct me if I am wrong about that) for a woman that doesn't want a child, when it won't pay for elective procedures to sterilize men who don't want children either?
How can people expect to require doctors or even med students (who are people with beliefs, too) to perform elective procedures despite it going against their beliefs all on account of educating them? We wouldn't require Jewish people going through law school to defend the atrocious acts of the Holocaust to facilitate their learning experiences, would we?
If someone has the answers, I would LOVE to hear them.
Oh, and by the way, I am pro-choice--"pro" as in Latin for "before" and a "choice" of condoms, or IUDs, or sponges, or pills (including day-after's), or shots, or even abstinence should be enough options to prevent unwanted children. There should be no need to stop another individual's beating heart just to evade responsibility.