May 132009
 

Issues of bioethics don’t often flare up in small Minnesota towns, but that’s exactly what’s happening this week in a New Ulm courthouse this week. The case centers around Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old with Hodgkin’s disease who is refusing additional chemotherapy treatment because it’s contrary to his family’s religious beliefs. Daniel and his parents are adherents of Nemenhah, a Native American faith that advocates the use of alternative homeopathic remedies. The county is asking the judge to intervene and require Daniel to resume chemotherapy. 

I spent a little time just now glancing through the final court filings in the case. Daniel’s attorney doesn’t spend much time discussing his client’s faith and for good reason. Minnesota caselaw provides strong precedent for courts to intervene when parents look to only spiritual means for a child’s health care. Instead, counsel argues that Daniel’s parents made a rational decision when choosing to pursue alternative medicine rather than chemotherapy. I’m not sure the judge is going to buy that argument. Most medical experts cited in the briefs believe that Daniel has at least an 80% chance of being cured with chemotherapy. Daniel’s attorney offers no support that alternative medicine offers the same odds.

He might have also argued that Daniel has the capacity to make decisions about his medical treatment and is entitled to decline chemotherapy. Some courts in other states have ruled that adolescents have a sufficient degree of maturity to make such decisions independent of their parents. Making that argument on behalf of a 13-year-old (as opposed to, say, a 16-year-old) might be challenging, but it’s a stronger argument than relying on unscientific “expert” testimony.

A ruling is expected soon.

May 122009
 

Martha Mason, who spent six decades of her life encased in an iron lung, passed away recently. Her obituary notes that she excelled in academics as a young woman, had a brief career as a columnist for the local newspaper in her small North Carolina, and eventually wrote an autobiography entitled Breath. Even though more portable ventilators eventually became available, she chose to remain in the iron lung because it “let her breathe without tubes in her throat, incisions or hospital stays, as newer, smaller ventilators might require.” The obit also describes how she still managed to enjoy a rich social life that might not have been possible outside a sleepy Southern town. She had frequent visitors and hosted many dinner parties. She was one of a dwindling handful who still use iron lungs as a form of life support.

I have a hard time imagining what Mason’s life must have been like on a daily basis. And that seems ironic, considering that many of you reading this blog might think the same thing about me. I don’t care how many visitors she had; the isolation and immobility must have weighed heavy on her at times. But she made the most of it, which is all any of us can hope to achieve.

May 112009
 

Some of you might assume that blindness and photography are two irreconcilable concepts. Some of you would be wrong. Time is showcasing photos from Sight Unseen, an exhibit featuring the work of noted photographers who are blind or visually impaired. They’re pretty great. Some have a spectral quality while others are vivid in their hyperrealism. I’m especially fond of Annie Hesse’s view of the Eiffel Tower’s lattice structure. She captures the light perfectly. The rest of the exhibit can be viewed here.

May 102009
 

I knew that J.J. Abrams’ entry in the Star Trek franchise was going to be a reboot of the mythology. Five television series and ten movies have created a crushing mass of continuity that would give any screenwriter a migraine. But wow, they weren’t kidding about the “reboot” part. I can’t say much more without revealing major spoilers, but one plot point left me agape in shock and thinking “Wow, that took balls.”

And that’s probably why this is the most invigorating Trek movie since Kirk and Spock went whale sightseeing in The Voyage Home. It’s got all the best things of classic Trek. That shiny futuristic optimism. Cool-looking starships that get into some spectacular battles. Familiar characters with familiar quirks. And hot green women. But the movie also adds some new elements to remind us that this isn’t the hippie-dippy Trek of Roddenberry’s time. We see that Vulcans can be total douchebags. We see that Kirk and Spock weren’t always best buds. We see that Spock and Sarek both share a thing for the human ladies. We don’t see Kirk’s stunt double.

I’m really curious to see where Paramount takes the series from here. A sequel is already in the works. But the original continuity still spawns countless books and comics. Will all that fall by the wayside or will the studio tend to each universe separately? It seems like keeping both up and running would create even more opportunities to cash in, but it might require the average fan to start keeping a flowchart to keep track of events.

And because I’m a hopeless geek, I’m going to allow myself one nitpick. A water turbine? On a starship? Really? I was so reminded of the scene in Galaxy Quest where, upon discovering a particularly bizarre obstacle built into the starship, one character says to the other: “It makes no logical sense! Why is it here?”

May 092009
 

Early tweets and Facebook updates indicate that Star Trek is going to pwn my fanboy heart when I see it later today. I’m trying to accelerate time by brushing up on my Klingon and browsing Trek-related content on the web. Here are a few of the more interesting items I’ve come across:

The Onion pokes fun at Trekkies and their willingness to sit through some pretty awful previous movies, while also informing viewers that Gene Roddenberry created the original Trek “back in the forties or something.”

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As ‘Fun, Watchable’

In many respects, The Next Generation series was as corny and stilted as the original, but sometimes the writers managed to hit one out of the park. Slate sings the praises of “Chain of Command”, a two-part episode that dealt thoughtfully with the issue of torture and remains one of my favorites.

Even the foodies are getting in on the fun by writing essays on the cuisine of Trek. And now I’m in the mood for a glass of Romulan ale.

May 082009
 

Sometimes the English language’s elasticity can get a little annoying. The latest flash-in-the-pan neologism to get its moment in the digital sun is thrisis. A thrisis is that moment when you realize you’re now in your mid-thirties and you still can’t figure out who you are and what you want to be when you grow up and you can no longer ignore the fact that you’re getting kind of old and uncool. Or something.

I’ll confess to be a little more aware of life’s complexities in the last couple years, but I’m not feeling compelled to hit the panic button just yet. My prediction: “thrisis” will have a slightly shorter half-life than “metrosexual” but slightly longer than “rickrolled”.

May 072009
 

The Chicago Tribune recently ran a profile on Sean Stephenson, a motivational speaker and psychotherapist with osteogenesis imperfecta (sometimes referred to as “brittle bone disease”). Stephenson speaks in the language of self-help books–he’s a big critic of something he terms self-sabotage–but one of his quotes near the article’s end caught my attention:

Being 3 feet tall and in a wheelchair is about 2 percent of who I am.

On good days, my disability is about 10% of who I am. Other times, it looms much larger in my self-image. I’d be a terrible motivational speaker. “My disability is an integral part of my character, but then again, my character is more than a teensy bit neurotic” is not a message that is going to sell many books or get me on the morning talk show circuit. More power to Stephenson and his sunny band of extroversion.

May 062009
 

A few of my friends are currently contemplating or actually completing master’s programs in public policy, which has stirred up my own latent ivory tower leanings. I’m not sure an M.P.P. would do much to further enhance my career prospects–my law degree has served me pretty well in that regard–but I think I would enjoy wonking out with other policy geeks for a couple years. And I write a mean term paper. But school costs money and I’m not eager to saddle myself with a fresh load of debt. And, if I’m being completely honest with myself, I like only having to worry about finishing my next book club reading. I’ll have to be content with listening to my friends’ academic exploits and proofing their papers.

May 052009
 

A proposed bill in Congress would make it a federal offense to use any form of electronic communication to “cause substantial emotional distress to a person” via “severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Which pretty much sums up everything I’ve written in this blog about Stephen Hawking and Michelle Bachmann. Maybe some of us bloggers can pool our money together to hire a lobbyist to kill this thing. Because there’s no way I’m doing time for making Stephen Hawking cry.

But just to be safe, I’m now accepting donations to the Mark Siegel Legal Defense Fund. Cash donations only, please. I’m not interested in your old office furniture or faded rock concert tees.

May 042009
 

On the way home, I passed a little kid and his mother on the sidewalk. I heard the kid say “Mom, what’s wrong with him?” And I thought that was actually a pretty perceptive question. A little self-analysis can be quite healthy so here’s my attempt to articulate a response to the question “What is wrong with me?”

  • I’m a terrible procrastinator.
  • I own way too many pairs of khaki pants. 
  • I never read any Milton.
  • I can’t seem to get through a day without rolling my eyes at someone at least once. 
  • I get annoyed when people use “impact” as a noun verb.
  • Have you seen the size of my head?
  • I use the term “dude” with alarming frequency. 
  • When I want to relax, I backup my files.
  • I can spot the differences between the original and director’s cut of Blade Runner.
  • I blog stupid lists when I’m desperate for content.