Earthquaking Britain

I'm a pretty heavy sleeper and my son is a really heavy one, so he didn't wake up at all last night. But I woke up with my heart racing from an unknown adrenalin rush.. then my husband (who was still up anyway) came in and said "oh my god did you feel that, it was an earthquake". I didn't realise that was what had caused my adrenalin rush, but somewhere in deep sleep my body recognised something amiss.

I guess this is not the first time an earthquake has happened here, the last one being in 1984. We experienced one similar to this living outside of Chicago a few years ago. You can read this little news bit about it. Nothing broken in our house, but some folks faired a little worse, like the man in Barnsley, Yorkshire whose chimney fell in, on top of him! The island could be cracking up...

Freedom of what??

I was shocked when I read on Veronika's blog, this piece about the Maryland (US) school authority forcing parents to have their children vaccinated or risk being imprisoned. Apparently, there is no law in Maryland stating that vaccination is mandatory and yet the school authority is strong-arming parents into compliance 'for the public health'. Among the included required vaccines is the chicken pox, which is a relatively new vaccine, and does not fall into the deadly childhood disease category. In fact the chicken pox vaccine does not confer lifelong immunity, like actually acquiring the disease does. So if you obtain the vaccine as a child, and get chicken pox as an adult, watch out indeed, as it might turn out twice as serious for you.

But I'm not writing this to get into a vaccine debate, I'm writing it about the state of affairs in America, concerning freedom. I also read on newstarget a piece from last year about a teen called Abraham Cherrix in Virginia who refused chemotherapy as a treatment for his cancer, instead opting for an herbal/dietary approach and was ordered (forced against his will) by the court (after Virginia social services took the family to court) to have treatment. He since won the 'right' to proceed with his preferred method of treatment. In a country that claims all manner of freedoms, it begs the question, do you have freedom to own your own body? Ultimately it is only ourselves that can protect our own health both body and mind and we should be asking serious questions about the government's 'protection' of our common health, especially in a country where vaccinations and pharmaceuticals are big business.

You won't get the chicken pox vaccine here, because its not deemed necessary and the NHS won't pay for it. Whether you are pro-vaccine or not, you should still be asking questions and finding out the implications for yourself. Its not just the doctor's job (and the doctor certainly won't know everything), not when it concerns your own body (or that of your children), and we certainly shouldn't assume the benevolence of companies like Merck, etc. Because if what they are doing was entirely for the benefit of the common good/health, or for science, then shouldn't they be non-profit corporations?

Hooray for older mums!

I just came across this tidbit of info courtesy of workingmums.co.uk.

The Observer (Oct. 28, 2007) in The Guardian Newspaper noted a report citing a new book by Professor Elizabeth Gregory that says women who have their first child in their 30s or 40s live longer. This is good news for me as my first was born when I turned 30 and my second at 36. I never considered having children any sooner and at one point in my early twenties, thought I'd never have children at all!

In her new book Ready: Why Women Are Embracing The New Later Motherhood , Gregory says older mums are more prepared for motherhood, more likely to be financially stable and more focused on the family. I have found this to be absolutely true for myself. Apparently this is because they have already realised career and other ambitions, are more likely to be in settled relationships and/or have a good support network. This has also been the case for myself, not that I have given up all previous desires, but I did lots of clubbing, drinking, travelling, cavorting, finished university etc., in my twenties, and have no real need for those things now. I certainly don't feel like I'm 'missing out' due to the kids. The career thing is ongoing, and I assume will find its place in my life again when the time is right.

I'm looking forward to reading this book as it also says that older mothers live longer than their younger counterparts and cites a report by the Population Research Centre at the University of Texas which suggests the best age for childbearing is between 34 and 40. Reasons for this include older women are more settled, less likely to engage in risky behaviour and have a more healthy and conscious pregnancy.

Another another study was also cited which shows that women who give birth after 40 are four times more likely to live to 100 plus. I'm not sure that I even want to live that long, but since there's been some negative press about older mums and health risks associated with it (like increased risk of Downs Syndrome), I find this new information refreshing. I was also surprised to learn that the average age of new mothers in Britain is 29, despite having the highest teen pregnancy rate of all European countries.

Collecting conkers and thinking about peace...

Its definitely autumn and I love being surrounded by conker-dropping trees- except of course when they manage to find the target that seems to be on the top of my head.

Both the kids love conkers, feeling the smoothness, observing the richness of the colours, but they never want to smash them. My daughter is starting to collect things as she finds them now, pine cones, conkers, rocks.. its wonderful to see her discovering the natural world. As I walk through nature, I feel extremely peaceful and realise that this is such a gift. I know it is a gift when I think about all the turmoil happening in many parts of the world.

Last night I became aware of the current uprising in Burma. I watched the tv news (not something I do very often) which showed images of Buddhist monks protesting in the streets. They are taking a great risk for themselves, but are doing it for the benefit of all people in their country. I hear the U.S. is now showing a glimmer of interest about the regime and talking sanctions, but I can't understand why only now.. when it has been so terrible for so long. Why is it so hard to live peacefully? Even in a predominantly Buddhist country?? Its not just military regimes though, its everywhere, even in the simplest of lives.

People get drunk, fight, hurt each other, hurt themselves, why is it so hard to live peacefully? I certainly don't know the answer. The Buddha has said that all of life is suffering, and that's not to be pessimistic, its just a fact. Even in our happy moments there is suffering. Escaping samsara and rebirth is the only way out, which entails becoming enlightening..no easy task. I just try and remember the mantra for myself, Peace begins with me, similar to what Gandhi also said about being the change you want to see in the world.

Over protected childhood?

According to The Children's Society, Britain's kids are in danger because of over-protection by adults. The article on Yahoo news here, says that fewer kids are forming long-lasting friendships due to adult fears for their safety. They are not being let out on their own, nor given freedom to play without adult supervision, resulting in increased depression, alienation and anti-social behaviour. I can certainly see these effects present in the younger population now and don't doubt it. But as a parent, it is very difficult to let go and trust that your child will be safe. How young is old enough? Some seven year olds are let out to play on their own, and there is chatter about irresponsible parenting.

I know I've written about this before, and it is the dilemma of parenting. Thinking about my own childhood I recall freedom to walk to and from school from about 8 years old.. and not only that, but there were no 'after-school' clubs, we just went home with our key and let ourselves in..while mom still worked. At 12 I snuck off with my best friend on the bus 'downtown', which was downtown Chicago.. we survived, found our way around and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd have a heart attack if my kids did that!! But ever since I have been the one who is 'good' with directions, can always find my way and can read all sorts of maps (GPS may take away the art of map reading soon). I also drove my best friend's mom's car when I was 15, on the motorway... we weren't trouble makers by a long-shot, and yet we did take risks. There were times indeed when I felt maybe I'd taken too big of a risk, yet I dealt with it and since then have taken calculated risks, including in business.

So was I neglected then? Well, I don't feel that way, and I did well in school, etc. etc. But now as a parent, I wouldn't consider leaving my eldest on his own any time soon -- and then if I did, in this country, social services would probably be knocking on my door rather quickly. So what's happening? I do want both my children to have freedom, and to be independent and well adjusted.. I know what I was capable of, despite my parents best intentions, and yet as parents do, I don't feel my children should do the same.. but won't they be equally capable if I allow them to? If I teach them to be? Every child is unique, and has different capabilities at different ages, so I know such decisions will have to come from my gut, and I'm hoping I'll know when the time is right. Arghhhh..the conundrum....

Men on the Pill??

From Yahoo News
today:

British scientists are developing a male contraceptive pill which can work in a single dose, it has been claimed. The pill could be taken hours before sex but allow a man's fertility to return to normal, with no-side effects, within hours, the Daily Mail reported.
The new hormone-free pill is being developed at Kings College
London and could be on the market within the next five years, the newspaper claimed. It is the latest development in continuing work to develop a male pill, as well as other methods such as implants and injections for men. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/27112006/344/male-pill-work-single-doses.html

I don't usually include other stuff like this on my blog for some reason, but when I saw this, I was surprised indeed, and needed to comment. I wondered about how they are developing something which appears to be so safe, is hormone free (not damaging as some women's pill options are) and has no side effects??!! I think is brilliant that such a thing should exist for men, the question is, will they take it? But my real question is why can't such a thing be developed for women? I know our bodies/reproductive system is more complicated, considering we grow the baby within us and give birth, but surely there can be a safer development of the pill for us? One that doesn't screw up our hormones, make us gain weight, give us cancer or acne or deep vein thrombosis or any of the other possible side effects??

Of course a male contraceptive like this doesn't cover the risk of STD's. I haven't taken the pill for over 10 years, but did in my early twenties only to encounter disasterous effects on my hormones AFTER going off of it. It took my body many years to recover and even now, I'm not entirely certain it hasn't done permanent damage. But that's just me. I know some women who have been on it for 20 years and have no problems with it. I just can't help thinking though, that men would not tolerate taking something that would have a negative effect on their hormones, and yet women have to? How about something equally safe for us.