Jamie Clark74 said:If I could see an X-ray, I might actually be able to tell you what's going on.
Look, I get that you’ve learned a thing or two about certain medical fields through trial and error, but this sounds like a massive stretch to me.
For what it's worth, my mom deals with serious spinal issues. When she was constantly dizzy and couldn't even move her arms properly, the only thing that actually worked was spinal manipulation. You can't "fix" worn-out vertebrae, obviously, but you can definitely get them back where they belong. Also, she used to rely on injections because she’d be so stiff in the morning she couldn't even walk—one leg would be so locked up she practically had to fall out of bed just to get standing. Standard medicine could only offer her pills, which absolutely trashed her stomach and gut, so now she can only handle basic Tylenol before things go south; everything else requires shots. We aren't exactly talking about treating a perfectly healthy person here. Plus, those migraines she used to get all the time? Gone.
I dealt with lumbar sciatica when I was 13 or 14. I still remember this one tournament where I begged a friend to sit on my back while I did that floor stretch—you know, the one where you sit and reach for your toes—just so I could get enough mobility to actually perform my kicks. I couldn't even lift my foot to my waist, and I needed to land headshots. I spent months in physical therapy, and then a chiropractor cracked my spine right back into place.
By the way, this is about a family friend living in Germany. He's only in the States occasionally, and he told my mom straight up that he has no clue who to send her to for treatment because he doesn't know which doctors are actually trustworthy.
Yeah, I'm pissed. Honestly, the level of pure malice dripping from that quote is so intense I don't even know how you managed to read it and stay alive. I’m so angry I could go out and wipe out all the elderly people myself. Just a human cull. You put down a horse to end its suffering, so why not a person? Nobody is going to miss old people when they pass away. We should just get rid of them so we stop wasting the federal budget on them—so they aren't whining about tiny Social Security checks, and so they stop taking up space where we could build new movie theaters, playhouses, or concert halls. Be my guest, quote me while you're shaking in your boots.
Jamie Clark74 said:Can you even wrap your head around living with chronic pain 24/7? Dealing with a CPAP mask every single night, barely being able to walk more than a block before collapsing, not sleeping for two days straight only to crash for twelve hours... or staring at the ceiling until 4 AM every single night because sleep just won't come?
A kid, only nine years old, dealing with cancer pressing against his spine (I don't know the exact details, I had my own ordeal at 11), could barely move his fingers, taking fluids by the spoonful or through an IV depending on how bad he felt. They had to use a catheter to clear mucus from his airways because he was too weak to blow his nose, and he was completely paralyzed from the waist down. He spent all day in agonizing pain, getting maybe a tiny bit of sleep here and there.
I think he would have realized he’d witnessed a miracle if he managed to survive more than a year after the diagnosis.
But your pain? That's hitting hard right now. I totally get it.
I heard about this woman who was married for years and had two kids, only to find out she’d been living with HIV since before they even met. Her husband and children were all negative.
I have no clue where you'd find them... maybe at the Eye Care Center in San Diego, but I wouldn't bet on it. They're Bausch & Lomb, so I'm guessing wherever you picked up your last pair, they should have them.
It’s because by the end of the cycle, they’re just caked in protein buildup and all kinds of other nasty junk. Plus, since they hold less moisture, your eye struggles to breathe. And when your eye can't get enough oxygen, those blood vessels start creeping to the surface just to compensate, which looks absolutely terrible. Not to mention you're way more prone to picking up some random eye infection. That's pretty much it.
She handed out A's first, then some Cs, one B, and absolutely shredded anyone who got a D. I just sat there cursing myself for being such an idiot and staying up too late the night before. Then she grabs my paper—which is "exceptionally original." Apparently, because I wrote from a personal perspective, it lacks "scientific rigor," but since it was original, it earned an A. 😍
So yeah... I went up to say thanks 🙂 and give her some credit 🙂
Soft contact lenses—I'm using the three-month ones from Bausch & Lomb (is it actually Bausch & Lomb or what?). My eye doctor told me I don't even need the cleaning tablets. I might toss one in once or twice every few months if I happen to take an afternoon nap and wake up fifteen hours later. I clean them with Ren Multi, which supposedly works so well you don't even need the tablets. Why would I risk my eyes breathing through dirty lenses if there's no reason to?
And they aren't exactly breaking the bank either; a box is about $25 with 24 tablets inside. If you use four a month, that’s less than $15 every six months. For comparison, a big bottle of solution costs around $15 and runs out way faster. An eye exam is like $150, I think (whatever, Mom's paying so who cares 😁), and I have no idea if the ointments or drops for corneal inflammation require a prescription. Honestly, without my lenses, I can't see a damn thing. (I got that inflammation while I was on vacation, and my old doctor said I didn't need the tablets. Long story short, I ended up taking the lenses out and cleaning them three times a day, then went to get my eyes checked. My old doctor retired in the meantime, and her successor told me I definitely need the tablets for extended wear. So I switched to the three-month ones. I don't have issues with them now, but I still keep the tablets on hand just in case—even though this new lady doctor insists they're necessary for the three-month types.)
J-C said:Maybe if people actually listened, they’d start caring about their health three years before getting sick, instead of waiting until three days before they die.
Look, we're talking about nine-year-olds getting cancer. I don't know a single kid who caught some bullshit disease because they were part of a "high-risk group" or being irresponsible with their body. You can make those arguments about some sixty-year-old guy who spent his youth drinking heavily, driving like a maniac, getting into wrecks, and now he can barely walk because his back is shot or can't breathe because he smoked three packs a day for fifty years. But kids? Give me a break.
I’m honestly starting to wonder how common this actually is... Not too long ago, a guy I truly cared about passed away in his sleep. It was sudden, nobody even knew anything was wrong. Now I look around and see so many people who know someone young fighting some kind of cancer.. it's just horrific.
Hannah Scott69, she's young. Her body should be strong enough to fight this. I know a few people who dealt with leukemia in the past and they're totally fine now, living their lives just like everyone else🙂
Who actually said that living means becoming human? And did they even phrase it that way? I feel like I stumbled across something similar in a philosophy book recently...
ironbadger31, can you give me a hand with the context here? I'm totally stuck on what to write. Context touches every single part of morality—you can't look at any one piece in isolation. Period. So now what??
Look, I don't know if you actually understood the question. I just transcribed exactly what this lady gave us on her handout.
And I can't "clarify" the question because that is literally how it was written down... It's under the section "Moral Patient I," and there's a note right under the heading saying it's partially linked to the concept of human rights. So, if in this context a "person" is anyone who thinks, does that mean someone in a coma isn't a person?
New question 😁 What is the actual purpose of the principle?
Human well-being
Restricting individual liberty
Reducing human suffering
....???
Okay, so if we're talking about a principle being some kind of fundamental rule... If I say it's like traffic laws—if we didn't have them, it would just be a massive pileup of car wrecks because everyone would do whatever they want without a second thought. Rules exist so things run smoother and everyone gets where they're going faster and safer. Am I missing the point here? And what would the ultimate goal be? Also, how can restricting freedom actually be the *purpose*? Isn't that just a side effect? Like, limiting one person's freedom just to protect someone else's... (I might be rambling, but hopefully you get what I'm driving at).
Alright, question again.. How exactly does something become a primary value for us? What’s the mechanism there? What even is the source of value? I’m starting to feel like a complete idiot here. I have my own list of values, sure, but I’ve never actually stopped to think where they come from. If someone asked me, how am I supposed to explain the "source" of love or health? It makes no sense.
And has anyone ever settled the debate once and for all: are we actually free, or is everything just determined? Like, if some guy beats up another guy just to prove humans have free will, is that even a thing? Are we born evil, good, or just neutral?
Also, how do you even answer the question of what a person actually *is*?
Please, give me something to work with here... before I lose my mind and start crying out of sheer frustration.