The men in these photographs are soldiers who were wounded in Iraq. Two of them were wounded in firefights. One was delivering ice. Another walked off into the desert on a bathroom break and stepped on a mine. One was wounded while blowing up a munitions dump. Two of the soldiers who look the least damaged are blind, far more damaged than the camera can record. Whatever they may feel about their condition now, these men tend to sum up our involvement in Iraq in simple, blunt phrases. Like this, from a double amputee: “The reasons for going to war were bogus, but we were right to go in there. Saddam was a bad guy.”
Returning from Iraq, the Damage Done.”
As you may or may not know, I am currently on a mental health placement. That is why the last bunch of posts have just been interesting things to read…but little commentary. I’ve been busy! I think for some, the implications for OT are obvious, whereas other articles are general physical/mental health interest, or relate more broadly to occupation.
I can’t believe there are only two weeks left to this! I’m enjoying…but I think I ought to work harder, better, faster, stronger.
I’m hesitant to write more about my placement experience, because I am cognizant of the implications of posting potential personal health information on the interwebz, but I will likely do a summary at the end :)
Summer is nearly here…time to engage in some sweaty occupations.
My mom treated me to a massage for my birthday. It was great, but I couldn’t relax. The entire time I had this running dialogue in my head: “my traps are so knotted” “is that my levator scap she’s pushing on right now?” “ugh, following along the inferior border of my scapula…so goooood”
anatomy problems.
![theatlantic:
Radical Life Extension Is Already Here, But We’re Doing it Wrong
Not everyone is thrilled by the prospect of radical life extension. As funding for anti-aging research has exploded, bioethicists have expressed alarm, reasoning that extreme longevity could have disastrous social effects. Some argue that longer life spans will mean stiffer competition for resources, or a wider gap between rich and poor. Others insist that the aging process is important because it gives death a kind of time release effect, which eases us into accepting it. These concerns are well founded. Life spans of several hundred years are bound to be socially disruptive in one way or another; if we’re headed in that direction, it’s best to start teasing out the difficulties now.
But there is another, deeper argument against life extension—the argument from evolution. Its proponents suggest that we ought to avoid tinkering with any human trait borne of natural selection. Doing so, they argue, could have unforeseen consequences, especially given that natural selection has such a sterling engineering track record. If our bodies grow old and die, the thinking goes, then there must be a good reason, even if we don’t understand it yet. Nonsense, says Bennett Foddy, a philosopher (and flash game developer!) from Oxford, who has written extensively about the ethics of life extension. “We think about aging as being a natural human trait, and it is natural, but it’s not something that was selected for because it was beneficial to us.” Foddy told me. “There is this misconception that everything evolution provides is beneficial to individuals and that’s not correct.”
Foddy has thought long and hard about the various objections to life extension and, for the most part, has found them wanting. This is our conversation about those objections, and about the exciting new biology of aging.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4e5mrKCWE1qcokc4o1_1280.jpg)
Radical Life Extension Is Already Here, But We’re Doing it Wrong
Not everyone is thrilled by the prospect of radical life extension. As funding for anti-aging research has exploded, bioethicists have expressed alarm, reasoning that extreme longevity could have disastrous social effects. Some argue that longer life spans will mean stiffer competition for resources, or a wider gap between rich and poor. Others insist that the aging process is important because it gives death a kind of time release effect, which eases us into accepting it. These concerns are well founded. Life spans of several hundred years are bound to be socially disruptive in one way or another; if we’re headed in that direction, it’s best to start teasing out the difficulties now.
But there is another, deeper argument against life extension—the argument from evolution. Its proponents suggest that we ought to avoid tinkering with any human trait borne of natural selection. Doing so, they argue, could have unforeseen consequences, especially given that natural selection has such a sterling engineering track record. If our bodies grow old and die, the thinking goes, then there must be a good reason, even if we don’t understand it yet. Nonsense, says Bennett Foddy, a philosopher (and flash game developer!) from Oxford, who has written extensively about the ethics of life extension. “We think about aging as being a natural human trait, and it is natural, but it’s not something that was selected for because it was beneficial to us.” Foddy told me. “There is this misconception that everything evolution provides is beneficial to individuals and that’s not correct.”
Foddy has thought long and hard about the various objections to life extension and, for the most part, has found them wanting. This is our conversation about those objections, and about the exciting new biology of aging.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]
A reflection on a mother’s life, and how advancements in medicine have extended our life expectancy, and have made it more difficult for us to die:
ME: ‘Maybe you could outline the steps you think we might take.’
DOCTOR: ‘Wait and see.’
NEUROLOGIST: ‘Monitor.’
DOCTOR: ‘Change the drugs we’re using.’
MY SISTER: ‘Can we at least try to get a physical therapist, someone who can work her legs, at least. I mean … if she does improve, she’s left without being able to walk.’
NEUROLOGIST: ‘They’ll have to see if she’s a candidate.’
ME: ‘So … okay … where can you reasonably see this ending up?’
NEUROLOGIST: ‘We can help you look at the options.’
ME: ‘The options?’
SOCIAL WORKER (to my sister): ‘Where she might live. We can go over several possibilities.’
ME: ‘Live?’
The Spoon Theory
Compulsive reading if you want to know what it’s like to live with an invisible disability or chronic illness.
This is an amazing read.
JUST KIDDING GUYS
but no srsly thanks for following!
(Source: thechibbsjermaine)
“One of the participants was also able to use the investigational BrainGate system to pick up a bottle of coffee and drink from it. This was the first time in nearly 15 years that she had been able to pick up anything solely of her own volition. The smile on her face when she did this is something that I and our whole research team will never forget,”
This story is all over the web. Some of the nicest coverage is on The Guardian.
