Family-assisted suicide

Dr. Kevorkian was pilloried and branded "Dr. Death" because he was willing to help terminally ill people who had come to a decision to end their lives voluntarily. "Physician-assisted suicide" became synonymous with the macabre, the unprofessional, the criminal.

And yet, when religious beliefs enable people to do the same thing by withholding essential medical or nutritional aid, we chalk it up to religious "freedom" and "patient rights."

I'm brought to these considerations because a dear woman in our family circle was allowed to starve to death because she had instructed her family not to intervene when a physical condition made it impossible for her to take food. I don't know what the physical condition was, but from all appearances she had a very large growth in her abdomen. It might have been a fibroid or some other kind of tumor that had grown so large it could have compressed her digestive system to the point where she could not take food normally. We will never know because she was a Christian Scientist and was sequestered in a Christian Science "care" facility where no medical diagnosis is allowed, much less medical treatment.

So I am presented with the stunning picture of a starving woman insisting that her children in attendance not allow her to take nutritional sustenance. After about two weeks of starvation, the woman died. No surprise there. Yes, she was elderly and frail and who knows if something else was eating up her innards, but to die from starvation when food in some ingestible form is available seems like a macabre tragedy. But what makes it outrageous is that her children took turns watching her die that way. As far as I know, none of them even suggested that a medical diagnosis be given, simply to see if some natural means might be used to keep her alive.

I was a deeply committed Christian Scientist for over 35 years, an advanced student who had been elevated to the position of "teacher," so that others might learn how to "heal" through prayer alone. I eventually (after far, far too long) realized the lunacy of this belief system and severed all ties both official and psychological with Christian Science. But my deep knowledge of the intricacies of that system reveal several "outs" with which these children could have probably prolonged their mother's life. Specifically, there are passages in the "sacred literature" that allow for consultation with medical experts on "the anatomy of the case." Meaning, that they could have at least known the physical situation that was causing their mother distress. Perhaps in that "anatomy" there could have been a workaround that would have allowed the poor woman to receive essential nutrition. And continue living.

However the four children of this dear woman had been raised from birth in this belief system, which probably explains why they found it at least tolerable to sit mutely by and watch their mother starve to death. I've found that "lifers" like this are firmly imprisoned in their ways and despite all rational explanations to the contrary just cannot let go of a reverence for a system that believes there is a "spiritual" power available to the faithful that can reverse natural processes of life and death. There isn't. Plain and simple. There isn't. And those of us who did not get programmed at an early age to believe the lunacy find it a little easier to let go. But brain pathways so deeply imbedded are very, very difficult to reroute toward the reasonable.

There will be a memorial service for her at a Christian Science church in her area, and I have been asked to not attend if I cannot celebrate her life instead of being swayed by the tragedy of her death. Her death is not the tragedy. It is the manner of her death that is so odious. That her children, her church members and friends are asking reasonable people to come to "celebrate her life," is almost too preposterous to contemplate. Perhaps I can be removed from the mawkish "celebration" by helping to park cars, babysitting or something.

My dear son, whose mother-in-law was the victim of this Family-Assisted Suicide, knows better. But he is a more gentle and tolerant man than I will ever be. I know that he would not want his family to let him die from neglect. And neither would I! Yes, the medical establishment is not perfect. Insurance companies, political pressure groups and the huge industries that profit from the physical frailties of humans make caring for each other a difficult choice. But I would hope that reason, sweet reason, might prevail should he -or I- be the victim of some malady that gave my family the power to facilitate my life or death.

Religion may be more than a headache for non-believers

The damage that religion does may start in the brain of the believer. This post cites findings of a team of researchers in Italy who found that "damage to a specific region of the brain (the posterior parietal cortex) can increase a person’s feelings of “self-transcendence,” or the feeling of being connected to others and to the universe." If so, I'm not sure if surgery is the cure for this affliction. In my case, there was no surgery, just a growing recognition of the basic insanity of religious beliefs and practices. But perhaps this was abetted by brain changes. In any case, there's something not quite right about people who fervently espouse religion, but I doubt there will be a physical cure for this anytime soon.
If and until then, education and honesty will still be the most effective liberator.

I am published!

** In December '09 my friend/drummer Rick and I arranged to record five of my songs at Ex'pression College of Digital Arts in Emeryville. We gathered most of the RedHouse AllStars plus a bunch of other musicians and recorded the old fashioned way, on two-inch tape. While I continue to work on the rest of the songs, and on some new ones, I managed to get the first two songs published on iTunes, amazonmp3.com and a few other online stores. When the present crop of songs is finished I intend to publish them all as an album.

In the meantime, here's a link to the current offerings online:

Vets Day second thoughts

While not intending to disparage veterans, it's hard to honestly thank them for their "service." We've had a volunteer army for many decades now so they know what they're getting into. It's more important to remember that our soldiers haven't really "defended" us from anything in a long, long time. Most of the lives and bodies expended since Vietnam have been in the service of politics, in undeclared wars of occupation in sovereign nations far from our shores.

PS: I do thank them for being willing to defend with their lives in the case of any actual attack.

My response to LATimes article on spiritual healing and legislation

Thanks for your article "Healthcare provision seeks to embrace prayer treatments." As a former Christian Science practitioner ("healer") for over 30 years I can vouch for the statements from the critics to which you refer:

But critics say the measure could have a broader effect, conferring new status and medical legitimacy on practices that lie outside the realm of science.

There is no true "spiritual healing." Most of what passes for it are anecdotes where there is no objective diagnosis or controlled testing, from people whose main problems are psychosomatic. Herbert Benson, MD and others have shown that a "relaxation response" accounts for the relief from such problems.

Toward the end of my involvement with Christian Science, and becoming suspicious of the claims I had been taught, I carefully observed if my prayer or lack of it made a difference in my patients. It didn't. People who believe in spiritual healing, and Christian Scientists in particular, are quite defensive about challenges to their faith in this approach to health care and eagerly strive to provide "evidence" for its efficacy. It's also why the Christian Science church in Boston has a large department of people who do nothing but lobby around the world for the kinds of accommodations being advocated in the present health care legislation.

I agree with Dr. Norman Frost, quoted in your article, that more resources need to be devoted to "evidence-based medical practices" and less to long-disproved, and dangerous, systems.

Deus ex machina galore!

My impressions of “The Lost Symbol”

Dan Brown is no William Gibson. He's obviously writing a movie treatment - you can see the shot setups, the key dialogue bits, etc. His language is pedestrian and utilitarian, and strains when it attempts to be dramatic or deep.

Thematically, the book is a kind of cross between “What the Bleep” and “The DaVinci code.” It launches from the kinky field of “noetics,” a pseudo-science that attempts to give verification to the power of the human mind to alter the physical world. It drapes itself in the mantle of human progress, when all the world will be united in benevolence because of the universal power for good that each person can possess. This is, of course, pure BS, though as a former believer I can attest to the attraction of this hypothesis. Brown is playing to the significant segment of the population that disappointingly believes in mystical dimensions. He also pimps the Masons.

The book starts up slowly but eventually gets interesting as the plot action unfolds. Chases, encounters with the villain and various CIA characters, and some historical info provide a modicum of interest, though there is not much that’s surprising in any of this. We know that Robert Langdon, as the central and continuing character of Brown’s previous and certainly future books, will not really die, even though he is encased in a box that fills with water, which he eventually involuntarily inhales (i.e. he drowns). The explanation for his survival depends on the doctrines of noetics, i.e. he doesn’t really die since his soul can exit and enter his body at will. Kinda.

There are puzzles everywhere, but they are ultimately simplistic and subservient to moving the “spiritual” plot along. They are also predictable, if you’re interested in that sort of thing. For example, it’s not hard to guess that the final chapter will be #133 (although an “epilogue” will cue the triumphant big orchestral strains of a glorious new world a-dawning). Even the villain’s true identity is easily guessed - or at least comes as no surprise when it’s revealed. There’s plenty of deus ex machina action.

Brown’s motive for writing this book is also obvious - he has to provide another treatment for a movie that will make much more money than a mere book. My advice is to skip this potboiler and wait for that movie and the more interesting talents of Mr. Hanks and the producers.

God on the brain

Sam Harris worked on a study using fMRI that sought to compare the brain's behavior when it considered two kinds of topics: god and "tables and chairs." In other words, intangible vs. tangible objects. What the study found is that belief in god was functionally the same as NOT believing in god. Both were identified as "facts" by the person being studied. However, either experience was not considered by the brain as being as solid as the "facts" of physical objets. A different part of the brain is engaged when considering "tables and chairs" and the like. The conclusion is that there is room for some degree of doubt about abstract things. So a believer may reserve just a teeny bit of doubt about the existence of god, and the atheist may have a slight suspicion that god exists.

I have been trying to get in touch with the authors of this study to ask a question that pertains to my experience: what is going on when someone turns into an atheist after having been a believer? And vice-versa. What happens when a "fact" becomes seen as an error - and vice-versa. Maybe I'll find a way to ask.

I still feel the religious "twitch" even though I now am so convinced that theology is the study of fantasy, not of anything real. I suppose one doesn't unlearn twitches that were 60+ years in the making. According to Gladwell, I have way more than 100000 hours of repetition of religious concepts, beliefs and practices. And it is the one "skill" I wish I didn't have. I wonder what I might be now if I had put in even half that time into musical study. Maybe just another burnt out junkie. But maybe not.