Ash Wednesday - beginning of Lent

Today marks the beginning of Lent, a season of fasting, reflection and preparation for the death and resurrection of Christ. Here's a brief explanation from catholic.org:

Lent is about conversion, turning our lives more completely over to Christ and his way of life. That always involves giving up sin in some form. The goal is not just to abstain from sin for the duration of Lent but to root sin out of our lives forever. Conversion means leaving behind an old way of living and acting in order to embrace new life in Christ. For catechumens, Lent is a period intended to bring their initial conversion to completion.

Being brought up in a baptist/protestant tradition, we didn't celebrate lent. I didn't really know what it was until my late teens. Now I see it as a valuable exercise in examining one's life and removing or giving up things that prevent us from knowing Christ more fully... giving up a worldly habit and instead using that time to focus on Christ. Easier said than done, but still a useful practice, any time of year.

So what will I give up this year? Useless TV viewing and Internet usage. (some TV is useful... can we say UEFA Champions League Soccer?). That should save me at least an hour or so each day... more time to reflect, read, pray. Draw near. Lent.

What will you give up?

Attack on Conscience... again

The CBC Edmonton website had a random article today about a pro-life doctor who refuses to provide referrals for abortion. Dr. Johnston was commenting on the upcoming review of standards by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, where they may require physicians to refer a patient to an abortion center if the patient asks. This would essentially make it illegal for a doctor (myself included) to use our moral judgment in advising and treating our patients. And a brief reading of the comments shows most people do not understand the nature of medicine or the nature of abortion.

Practicing medicine is a moral activity. We, as physicians, recommend to our patients what they ought to do with their bodies/health. It is then up to the patient to proceed. As such, we must use our clinical judgment, but also our moral judgment in recommending what we feel is best for our patients. If we cannot do this, then the autonomy of the doctor is hampered and we become simply automatons of the system. Just because a law is in place does not make it right. And just because a patient demands for a procedure does not make it right, either. Particularly when there are so many negative sequelae to that procedure. See Abort73.com for excellent overviews of the abortion topic.

A fitting quote from Theodore Dalrymple in his book, "Life at the Bottom":

If the doctor has a duty to relieve the suffering of his patients, he must have some idea where that suffering comes from, and this involves the retention of judgment, including moral judgment. And if, as far as he can tell in good faith, the misery of his patients derives from the way they live, he has a duty to tell them so - which often involves a more or less explicit condemnation of their way of life as completely incompatible with a satisfying existence. By avoiding the issue, the doctor is not being kind to his patients; he is being cowardly. Moreover, by refusing to place the onus on the patients to improve their lot, he is likely to mislead them into supposing that he has some purely technical or pharmacological answer to their problems, thus helping to perpetuate them.

Rumors of Transcendence

Philip Yancey has a great article in this month's First Things, titled "What Art Can - and Can't - Do." He reflects on the closing words in Ecclesiastes: "The words of the wise prod us to live well. They're like nails hammered home, holding life together. They are given by God, the one Shepherd" (Ecc 12:11, the Message). He talks about artists spurring on others to action "as a goad", and others as being firmly embedded nails, reaffirming truth. Some points stood out:

Civilization once looked to art as the means of passing on wisdom from one generation to the next. The act of writing was invented, after all, to convey the sacred: Permanent things must be passed on in a permanent way, hence the hieroglyphs on Egyptian tombs. But a civilization that no longer believes in permanent things, one that holds to no objective truths, resorts to deconstruction, no construction.

Our civilization doesn't believe in permanent things, or objective truth. What will that mean to the next generation? Yancey gives the example of Russia and their experience with communism: "A regime that tried harder than any other to kill of God instead ended up committing suicide."

Another quote:

Perhaps the existence of art - its inherent, permanent-seeming worth, as well as its echo of original Creation - can be a pointer to a grand artist, a rumor of transcendence."

I think this should apply to everything in life... are we living in such a way that points to a grand artist. Are we spreading rumors of the transcendent? Yancey suggests that even "writing in the sand" can make a difference; after all, that's the only "art" Jesus ever did... no paintings or books or videos... just some random writing in the sand when the Pharisees came to condemn the woman caught in adultery. In so doing, Jesus created time for reflection, and left rumors of transcendence on the hearts of man.

What is Poverty?

Currently reading "Life at the Bottom: the Worldview that makes the Underclass", by Theodore Dalrymple. He makes some interesting and very honest observations from his perspective as a psychiatrist in England. Here's some food for thought:

What do we mean by poverty? Not what Dickens or Blake or Mayhew meant. Today no one seriously expects to go hungry in England or to live without running water or medical care or even TV. Poverty has been redefined in industrial countries, so that anyone at the lower end of the income distribution is poor ex officio, as it were - poor by virtue of having less than the rich. And of course by this logic, the only way of eliminating poverty is by an egalitarian redistribution of wealth - even if the society as a whole were to become poorer as a result.

Such redistribution was the goal of the welfare state. But it has not eliminated poverty, despite the vast sums expended, and despite the fact that the poor are now substantially richer - indeed are not, by traditional standards, poor at all. As long as the rich exist, so must the poor, as we now define them.

Dr. Dalrymple goes on to talk about the squalor in England and the condition of some of his patients. Their squalor is chosen, since many in similar circumstances were able to overcome it, and it is not material or economic, but a spiritual, moral and cultural poverty, a lack of self-discipline, a life without meaning, without God.

To be sure, poverty in the developed world is different from poverty in the third world where most live on less than a dollar a day and each day survived is an achievement, worthy of self-respect. Rather, Dr. Dalrymple suggests first world poverty is the worst kind - it is poverty of soul. I tend to agree. I can see it spreading deeper and deeper into our culture and society. Movies, music, TV, advertisement, academia, politics... poverty of soul is becoming more evident each day. Just listen to the news. Even in small things, like a young dating couple walking hand in hand, talking and texting on their own cell phones, paying no attention to the flesh and blood person beside them, but rather wasting efforts on their impersonal handheld devices. Ah, young love. Oh, Just wait - I need to text someone.

SuperBowl Ads - eTrade Babies

If you haven't seen the eTrade babies yet, check 'em out on YouTube. They're hilarious! The "Outtakes" video is below. A few of the ads were running during the SuperBowl, and that's how I found out about them - searching for good SuperBowl ads. My favorite is the one that wants to punch the economy in the face!... BUT, my baby's cuter!

Bowzer defeated!

After a several-month hiatus from the Wii, I finally picked the Wii-mote up again and set out to defeat Bowzer and rescue the Princess. Surprisingly, it didn't take too long from my previous saved game. Somehow I skipped a bunch of galaxies and went straight to Bowzer. An hour and one sore thumb later, and Bowzer was humiliated and the Princess escorted safely back to her castle.

I was never big into video games. Although my brother and I always wanted one, our parents never bought us a console; they just told us to go play outside instead. And we (generally) had no trouble complying. So when Ashley won a Wii from work, I was all over it. We played fairly regularly for the first few months, but eventually the novelty faded. The Wii is an incredibly cool system, though. And if one had to play video games, the Wii is probably the better choice (vs. XBox, Playstation) - involves slightly more physical movement (I won't even call it activity), and the games are safer and often family oriented.

There's been a few studies about the Wii. According to one study in the British Medical Journal, one uses more energy playing Wii than XBox or Playstation. But, the Wii has also resulted in some injuries (not to mention broken TV's)... dubbed Wiiitis by this researcher and others.

With all that said, however, outside is where its at! Hey kids, go out and play already!!... I've got some other galaxies to explore.

Caleb's Moods

A morning in the life of a newborn! Fun times!

24

Waaahhhhh! How does this guy survive? How does he do it? Jack Bauer is crazy!

My wife and I just watched 2 hrs of the current "24" season... #7, I believe. Missed the first few episodes, but man, does it pull you in quickly! On the edge of my seat the whole time. So was Ash. Caleb just sat in our laps and looked at us. The shooting and explosions didn't phase him.

This last episode (3pm to 4pm) Jack made an interesting comment: something along the lines of not just doing what's right, but doing what's necessary. The idea of figuring out the rightness or wrongness of an action later, dealing with the consequences later. I suppose an argument could be made for that philosophy in acute crisis-type decisions (like where the president's life is on the line, or in this case, the "first gentleman"), but as an overall philosophy, probably not the best ideology.

In reality, though, that notion has been gaining popularity. For the past few decades, our society has increasingly rejected the idea of absolute truth, or an objectively correct way to act. Relativism is the philosophy of the day. Thus the rightness or wrongness of an action or behavior only depends on the one doing that action. If they deem it necessary, then it is acceptable, with the general caveat that it not infringe on the "rights" or "freedoms" of someone else, or perhaps that there is a greater net happiness in the world due to that action - utilitarianism. Thus Jack Bauer can threaten and torture and kill, and justify himself because his immoral methods help save lives. That's a tricky one. And the worst part is, we're cheering him on.

I think Jack Bauer might need to rethink his ethics in the long term. Meanwhile, he's dealing with a national threat. Tune in next week...

4 deliveries, 1 operation, 1 sleepless night and too many cervixes to count!

Typical night on call last night. Currently doing Obstetrics and Gynecology, and last night was busy. The day was quite slow... watched the Oilers game (boo Nashville), and flipped between the SuperBowl and the replay of Nadal-Federer (next time Feds!), and then it started.

Beep-Beep-Beep.
The sound many have grown to despise.

So, after the third set of Nadal-Federer, the fun began. And it didn't stop until sign-over at 8 the next morning. When all was said and done, the title was the result: 4 deliveries throughout the night, 1 c-section and a whole bunch of pregnant women thinking they're in labor but not really in labor (each requiring one to two checks of their cervix). Speaking of which, what's the plural of that? Cervixi? Cervixes? Cervi?

I think it's time for bed.