Medical Musings

[kerravonsen]

Mixed bag of things, really.
I got my eyes tested on Friday, first time in fifteen years (yes, boggle away). The optomitrist asked me questions about my health, and pounced when I mentioned the sleep apnea. I asked her why on earth would sleep apnea have anything to do with my eyes, and she said that the oxygen deprivation would likely have affected them. It didn't sink in at the time, but later on I started worrying about whether I had brain damage from all those years of being undiagnosed... so I googled about sleep apnea and brain damage, and found some surprising information -- that a preliminary study had shown, yes, that those with sleep apnea had more brain damage than your average person, but also that (a) some of the brain damage was uneven, suggesting it hadn't been caused by oxygen deprivation and (b) that there was a higher percentage of childhood stutterers amongst the sleep apnea group (38% as opposed to the average of 7%). This caused the researchers to theorize that mild brain damage in the areas that control speech and breathing, as a child, could lead to sleep apnea as an adult.

Oh my. This was highly, highly relevant to me, because I fell out a two-story window when I was a toddler, and had concussion, and while I recovered without any obvious damage, that doesn't mean that there wasn't some un-obvious damage. Particularly as my sleep specialist said that I'd probably had sleep apnea all my adult life.

Another welt of guilt zapped: I don't have sleep apnea because I'm fat and lazy; I have sleep apnea because I fell out a window when I was a child. On the other hand, I could be completely wrong about that. It's just a guess.

And there was another interesting paper which linked sleep deprivation with obesity; which means that it's likely the other way around too: I don't have sleep apnea because I'm fat, I'm fat because I have sleep apnea. Well, not that simple, of course, it's a whole tangle of things interacting, but that has got to have been a factor.

Also in my googling I discovered www.cpaptalk.com. That was a mixed bag too.

On the plus side:

Really good to find fellow sufferers and made me realize how very fortunate I was, hearing some of the horror stories about dealing with the US medical system, or at least, some portions of it. And finding that I really have had relatively few problems with my CPAP setup. And being astonished that one of the problems that keeps happening is non-compliance; yeah, I get depressed that I'll have to wear this thing for probably the rest of my life (and that is very depressing) but I wouldn't dream of "not bothering" to wear it. But I guess people with mild sleep apnea don't have my incentive to put up with the adjustment period.

On the minus side:

On of the folks on the board is a Libertarian, who spits on public healthcare and keeps on quoting Rand. His callousness makes me so angry -- I flip-flop between that and contempt and ridicule. Please, mistraltoes I really, really, really need you to explain to me, in words of two syllables, why someone as nice as you are, who is a Christian, could ever espouse such a creed as Libertarianism. I cannot see a single thing good about it. At least, not today.

Comments

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

I apologize for the length of time it's taking me to answer your interview questions. I've thought about it a lot, but there are so *many* reasons I prefer Libertarian philosophy, it's hard to boil it into anything coherent.

One thing that I'd like you to understand is that there's a difference between an Objectivist (a proponent of Rand's philosophies, which I suspect the fellow you ran into above is) and a generic Libertarian. Objectivists think selfishness is good, and that it's wrong to help people. But Objectivists, however vocal they may be, do not speak for all Libertarians. There are many other Libertarians (and I assure you I am this latter sort) who think that it's right and even necessary that we help each other, but that government is the wrong agency through which to do so.

Eh. Going to stop now before I get ranty; I've had to back up and erase some. I'll keep trying to formulate something less ranty for my own journal. In the meantime, you might feel better if you read this post (http://mlouise.blogspot.com/2004/08/what-is-christian-libertarian.html) by my friend Marsha, about the reasons a Christian might be a Libertarian.

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

Eh, no, that should be some of the reasons a Christian might be a Libertarian. They're not the only ones.

[kerravonsen]

One thing that I'd like you to understand is that there's a difference between an Objectivist (a proponent of Rand's philosophies, which I suspect the fellow you ran into above is) and a generic Libertarian. Objectivists think selfishness is good, and that it's wrong to help people.

Yeah, he was an Objectivist all right. I've never heard the term before, and I think it's likely that all the Libertarians I've encountered were also Objectivists. And it's a creed that I utterly despise; making greed and selfishness into virtues is utterly disgusting.

There are many other Libertarians (and I assure you I am this latter sort) who think that it's right and even necessary that we help each other, but that government is the wrong agency through which to do so.

Ah.

you might feel better if you read this post by my friend Marsha, about the reasons a Christian might be a Libertarian.

Hmmm, interesting.
Government's just role is to protect God's gift of life, liberty and property. What you, as an individual, have a legitimate right to do in self-defense of those gifts is what government has a legitimate right to do on behalf of individuals. Period.

That sounds good, but it doesn't sit right with me. Not sure why.
My gut understanding of the role of government is: to protect the weak against the strong; the strong can protect themselves.
And I don't just mean the physically weak, I mean the financially weak as well.
Over and over again in the Bible one comes across condemnations of the rich for oppressing the poor, and all the descriptions of Libertarianism that I've encountered seem to want to eliminate all government interference in economic matters, which, as far as I can see, is a carte blanche for the rich to oppress the poor.

I do actually agree that it isn't really the government's role to try to legislate morality to the degree that they appear to be trying to do in the US. None of us are living in ancient Israel, where the religious law and the civil law were one and the same thing. Now is the era of pluralist societies, and governments should not be running around trying to legislate things which are really up to an individual's conscience -- but it may well be that where you draw that line and I draw that line are different.

Another aspect of this is that, because the US government is more extreme in what it is legislating about, there is a backlash, and the backlash is more extreme -- hence, Libertarianism. Am I wrong in saying that the majority of Libertarians are in the US?

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

My gut understanding of the role of government is: to protect the weak against the strong; the strong can protect themselves.
And I don't just mean the physically weak, I mean the financially weak as well.

I'll agree that when we talk about weak, we're also talking about financially weak. But otherwise I'll have to disagree. A government should protect all its citizens; compared to a large national government, every citizen is weak. Besides that, if it protects all citizens, the weak are automatically included in the all.

Over and over again in the Bible one comes across condemnations of the rich for oppressing the poor, and all the descriptions of Libertarianism that I've encountered seem to want to eliminate all government interference in economic matters, which, as far as I can see, is a carte blanche for the rich to oppress the poor.

Agreed that the Bible clearly says not to oppress the poor. But God leaves obedience to that command up to the free will of the individual; nowhere does he suggest it should be encoded into law or made a duty of government. We're supposed to not kill anybody; not steal from anybody; not cheat anybody--not just the poor and weak. Judges were instructed to judge fairly. Those types of things are Biblical law, and they apply to everyone. Alms-giving and the like, however, were the moral duty of individuals.

And I have to admit that I'm always puzzled by your conviction that there would be more oppression of the poor under Libertarianism. The goal of Libertarianism is to protect all its citizens from physical and economic aggression. Businesses would be required to deal fairly, in the sense of performing whatever agreements they make with customers or employees. There would be no protectionism, no bail-outs of sinking corporations by governments, no subsidies of products that nobody wants. I don't understand how protecting everybody equates to oppressing the poor in your judgment.

Now is the era of pluralist societies, and governments should not be running around trying to legislate things which are really up to an individual's conscience -- but it may well be that where you draw that line and I draw that line are different.

And the fact that we do draw the line differently is key to my position. My goal is that, as far as possible, each person should be allowed to live by his personal moral code, and with respect to his own belief as to what the purpose of life is. Because nobody has any proof of what the purpose of life is. And that's too important of a thing to allow 51% of the population to force onto the other 49%. It's like the legislature of one of our midwestern states trying to make a law that pi equals 3.15; making a law doesn't make it true. Worse yet, it's like giving a roomful of people a complex math problem to solve, and then taking an average of all the different answers; some of the people might have had the right answer, but after you take the average, there's no way.

Libertarianism is about giving people the freedom to pursue whatever they perceive to be life's ultimate goal, as long as they don't harm others in the process.

[kerravonsen]

And I have to admit that I'm always puzzled by your conviction that there would be more oppression of the poor under Libertarianism. The goal of Libertarianism is to protect all its citizens from physical and economic aggression. Businesses would be required to deal fairly, in the sense of performing whatever agreements they make with customers or employees.

Holding people to contracts is not enough, when the contracts themselves are unfair. That's the level at which I think government interference is good. And, no, free market competition is not enough to make sure that companies play fair. Because competition only works when (a) there are no monopolies or near-monopolies and (b) companies don't go into collusion to fix prices or fix wages, or to make unsafe products.

There needs to be a balance of power; but not just a balance between government and business; between government and business and trade unions. No group with power is incorruptable, I know. So in this sad, fallen, world, it seems to work better to play them off against each other...

Now, it may also be, that the most vocal Libertarians I've encountered have been Objectivists, and I'm absolutely certain that there would be more oppression of the poor under Objectivism.
There would be no protectionism, no bail-outs of sinking corporations by governments, no subsidies of products that nobody wants. I don't understand how protecting everybody equates to oppressing the poor in your judgment.

I wonder if that sort of thing happens more in the US? I'm thinking of the situation where Ansett Airlines went bankrupt. The government didn't bail it out -- but they did help the staff get the money they were owed. Is that an unfair bailout? I don't think so.

Yes, the Australian government does subsidise things. It subsidizes medicine, so that people don't have to pay too much for essential medications. It subsidizes petrol prices for country farmers, because they have such long distances to travel. There may be some subsidies that are unfair, but Australia is much less protectionist in its trade than the US is.
I don't think we've ever had such insane things going on as people destroying perfectly good crops in order to keep the prices up.

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

Another aspect of this is that, because the US government is more extreme in what it is legislating about, there is a backlash, and the backlash is more extreme -- hence, Libertarianism. Am I wrong in saying that the majority of Libertarians are in the US?

No, and maybe, and yes. I don't think we're more extreme about what we're legislating about, just different. You're the one living in a country that voted to provide artificial fertilization at taxpayer expense to any woman who wants it, whether she's infertile or not. That doesn't even strike me as sane, so once again, it's where one draws the line.

As to whether Libertarianism constitutes an extreme backlash, I'd have to say backlash maybe, but extreme, no. Libertarian philosophy is much, much closer to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution than the philosophy of either of the major parties. Like our founders, the central Libertarian value is freedom; we want to prevent the government from becoming the oppressor it's supposed to be protecting us from. It's extremely different from the more liberal nations of Europe and Australia, but being extremely different isn't quite the same thing as being extreme.

And yes, I'd say that the biggest portion of Libertarians are in the U.S. - I noticed a page in your country called 'Sydney Libertarians', but didn't look to see if their beliefs are anything like U.S. Libertarians.

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

Actually, I misspoke above. It's too late to prevent our government from becoming the oppressor; but we'd like to reverse the trend. I don't expect we'll ever live in a country that meets Libertarian ideals, but I believe that promoting those ideals is the only way we can avoid becoming something that resembles B7's Federation.

[kerravonsen]

You're the one living in a country that voted to provide artificial fertilization at taxpayer expense to any woman who wants it, whether she's infertile or not. That doesn't even strike me as sane, so once again, it's where one draws the line.

I don't like it either, but some people considered that it was more "fair" to do it that way. I'm not sure of the background of that particular law -- was it specifically voted in Parliament, or was it ruled upon under the Anti-Discrimination act? Because if it was the latter, it wasn't that the country voted for it, it was that the judges decided that it was discriminating against fertile women not to give them the same subsidies as infertile women. One could examine the sanity of the judges, but one couldn't say that we voted for it...