Alexandra

No, it's not OK for people to kill their infants by starvation. No, it's not OK to abandon them to simply die without care. It's also not OK to throw newborns out of windows (as I just this second heard that a 14-year-old--the baby's "mother"--did yesterday in the Bronx). I do not equate babies with nonviable fetuses, though. And no, I can't firmly define "nonviable" for you. But--to me and so far to the law--a fetus in an early stage of development is simply not a person (yet) and as such does not have rights (yet). And once again, we're back to the "where does personhood begin" discussion, to which there is no one answer that makes sense to everyone. It absolutely breaks my heart that that 14-year-old was so scared, so uneducated, and so unsupported that she felt a window was her best option. Unless we can fix ALL the problems she faced, making girls and women with unwanted pregnancies into captive, unwilling incubators will improve exactly nothing.

Again, this sort of thing MUST be decided on a case-by-case basis. Was your aunt brain-dead? Did she have any thoughts on the matter? If she did, the right and moral thing would be to take her desires into account and act accordingly. As an adult, she has a say in the matter. Generalizations are extremely hard to make and exceptions can always be found, which is why I believe the government has no place in these decisions.

To my mind, it's analogous to removing a patient from life-support machines. If it's unable to maintain life on its own for any length of time, it will die in very short order if left alone. Society should not be in the position of picking up the cost of assisting unwanted, undeveloped babies to "live" in these situations. But the way to prevent these things from happening is to allow MORE access to abortion, not less. It's the people who wait too long, who don't tell anyone about their pregnancies, who are scared to pick up the phone and DO SOMETHING about their pregnancy until it's too late that create these situations.

I was thinking more along the lines of following proper procedure for disposal of medical waste, whatever that is. Since any facility performing abortions has to deal with the complication of live births (failed abortions), a reputable one would have actual procedures to handle it that don't involve the laundry room.

Well that's my point. What sort of hospital puts aborted fetuses (alive or dead) in the Soiled Linen Room? One that doesn't want to own up to doing abortions.

Unless you need a procedure to remove an already-dead fetus. That's who's likely using the "Comfort Room."

Lovely practice for a religious institution, NOT. Does that sound like something that would happen in a reputable hospital? If it did happen, it was probably to hide the fact that a doctor was performing a procedure frowned upon by management, and that couldn't be done in the light of day and under normal hospital procedure. Ugh, all around.

This room is probably used MOSTLY for the comfort of parents who lost a child in utero, which was "aborted" (i.e., delivered stillborn) to save the life of the mother, or was delivered and allowed to die due to birth defects. I can't even fathom the mind of a person who would voluntarily and purposefully terminate an unwanted pregnancy and then want keepsakes or mementos of that baby. The institution where this room is clearly has an agenda, and so the facility is presented in the most appalling light imaginable to make its point.

I have two children now, who were planned. The experience of being pregnant only solidified my belief that women must have control over their own bodies. Whether I could have another abortion in the future depends solely on MY personal circumstances, and while I might make a different decision in the future it is still MY decision to make. One problem is that if we grant the state the right to intervene in pregnancy to "protect" the fetus, we must also grant the right to intervene for other reasons. Forcible abortion sound good to anyone? That's the logical extension of pro-life laws, just with a change of direction. Adding into the equation the "value" of the fetus may be an obvious reaction to some, but it's by no means a universally held belief. Science--not religion--has to hold sway here, since we're talking about medical standards of care. I do believe that there is a point during the development of a fetus when it becomes viable outside the woman's body, and if there is a way to deliver a live baby then reasonable efforts should be made to do so. (That does not include removing 20-week micro-, micropreemies to live out their short, painful lives in incubators at vast taxpayer expense.) However, those decisions MUST be made at the patient level, on a case-by-case basis, by the mother and her doctor. No. One. Else. Adoption is a wonderful alternative, sure, but it's just not right for everyone. I know women who remain far more regretful of having given babies up for adoption than they are of having had abortions.

I'm sure this is a sad story and it's a shame this woman went through it. The question I have is why did she wait so long? (I'm sorry, but I can't watch the video right now--maybe the question is answered in the report?) But in any event, why, no matter how awful this experience is for her or any other woman (and I had an abortion myself, so I know whereof I speak), does anyone conclude that it should therefore be someone ELSE'S decision? I'm not picking on you, gadgetlady--you may not think this way at all, I don't know--I just don't understand the leap from "abortion is sad and painful and hard" to "let's outlaw it." The only way to decrease the incidence of abortion is to decrease the incidence of unwanted pregnancy. Period. Leatha, what that doctor did to you was unconscionable. THAT, of course, was and is illegal. I'm so sorry you have to remember that. My abortion was early, reasoned, safe, and I have never felt any negative emotional repercussions. The alternatives would have been much worse.

Kathy's exactly right. When you click on the exclamation point to report inappropriate posts, and e-mail is sent to the moderators. One of us usually comes running to delete the threads entirely. It is annoying, but I admit I get a little jolt of glee when I send these things to oblivion!

This week has been a complete derail as far as my taking care of myself goes. To make a long story short, my husband is recovering from surgery for testicular cancer. He'll be fine, we're sure, but starting this past Monday it's been a pretty weird week. The first two days were pretty much worry, then while waiting around during surgery I hit the tray of gourmet Cookies. That was the beginning of the end. We got the diagnosis on Tuesday evening and while we were relieved, since then I've been experiencing an absolute orgy comfort eating. I spent a lot of money at Trader Joe's on Desserts and Snacks, without even trying to stop myself. Yesterday, after a normal, nutritious Breakfast and lunch, I had: popcorn, LOTS of dark-chocolate-covered raisins, a caramel-pecan turtle (220 calories RIGHT THERE), three oatmeal-cranberry cookies under two or three scoops of vanilla ice cream, and four or five mandarin oranges. Oh, and for dinner I had two "tacos" which were made of tortillas, ground beef, melted cheese and sour cream. Now I feel like absolute shit. and even worse because the extra energy that being worried gave me is gone. This was NOT a good thing to happen when I have no fill at all. Blech, blech, and triple blech. Today is another day, and I really have to get a handle on this. Michael is going to be fine, and he's about 80% recovered from the surgery so I don't even have to pull extra duty anymore to make up for his laying on the couch. I have no excuses, and have to somehow regain control of my hand-to-mouth behavior. Ugh. Thanks for letting me vent. Fill is scheduled for 12/14 and now I have more work to do. Moving right along...

Bev, you really have to call your insurer to find out if they cover bariatric surgery in general, and then lap-banding specifically. You are medically qualified, with a BMI of 44, but every policy is different and we can't say whether yours will pay.

ShayShay, each state has its own rules about whether individuals can apply for health insurance. Where do you live? In states with "guaranteed issue" individual policies, you can buy individual policies that might cover bariatric surgery, but they're expensive. Many other states allow insurance carriers to base their coverage decisions on medical underwriting--which means coverage for people who are morbidly obese is extremely expensive if not completely impossible to get. If you live in NJ I can help you out, but otherwise you should start with ehealthinsurance.com and you can find out what options there are for individuals in your state.

And thanks, everyone, for the good wishes for my husband. He went to work today and was able to spend the day effectively. He's happy--the worst thing about this whole ordeal was, for him, the time he had to take off from work!

Today was not really a better day, I'm afraid. I had fish and cheese for Breakfast (good intentions), skipped lunch and then spent the afternoon eating popcorn. I have absolutely no restriction and I'm just glad it was only popcorn on offer! But I learned a painful lesson this evening, when I went to volleyball on just a bellyful of very salty popcorn. After a half hour, I had a VERY painful cramp in my calf that benched me completely! My theory is that it was due to the amount of salt in the popcorn--and the fact that I hadn't had anywhere near enough Water to counteract it. This was two hours ago and I can still feel the cramp! Sigh. I am really punishing myself and there's no good reason for it. What am I doing?

IrishGirl, this isn't a question of a pre-existing condition exclusion, so don't let anyone try to tell you it is. I think whether they cover this will depend on how your doctor "codes" the procedure. If there's any way they can categorize the surgery without referencing the band they should try to do that. From the language you copied above it's clearly the intent to exclude this procedure based on it being related to your earlier bariatric surgery. Even though you may not be trying to lose weight any longer (congratulations on your success, btw!!), the lap-band is clearly a bariatric procedure and as such, anything related to it would be excluded. The other problem is the reason for the port being moved at all. If it's being moved because there is a "risk" of erosion in the future, they won't cover that just based on its not being a treatment of any kind. At this point, this procedure is purely elective, there's no diagnosis at hand. If, on the other hand, the port has already begun to cause damage to your tissues, the surgeon might be able to code the surgery as a treatment for that. I'm sure there are patients who have subcutaneous ports for other reasons who need this procedure done, so maybe there's a generic code for "subcutaneous portocatheter relocation due to skin damage" or something like that. Good luck!!

The insurance hurdle can't be generalized, Stacy; it's completely dependent on your situation. Mine took almost a year to square away. If everything in your situation is a go, and you don't need a lot of pre-op testing, you get green lights all the way and your insurer approves within a week (which is very fast), it will still likely be several weeks between meeting with the doctor for the first time and actual surgery.

I lost 70 lbs in the first year, and a bit less than 50 in the second year. (I hope that answers your question--it wasn't very clear.)

Abso-effing-LUTELY!! Thanks, everyone, for your words. It's SO TRUE what Jack says. Today I'm still overdoing it, a little, but have managed to do so on healthy foods (so far). And I'm busier today, which helps. I also managed to get to the gym and 5-miles-on-the-bike later, I'm feeling almost human!!

That's a good question, and one that points up how meaningless labels are. With banding there are loads of people who are still losing 3 and 4 years out, because they've discovered how to make it work for THEM. Except in the small percentage of cases where the band is causing damage to the body (erosion, dilation, nerve damage), it seems to me one could only say it's "failed" when the patient concludes there is nothing further to be won by continuing on with it and moves on to something else. Even if a banded person has had no or only limited success through noncompliance, there is always another chance to make it work as long as the band is still in place. Unfortunately medical research is all about quantification. Clearly it's ludicrous to demand the same 50% loss rate of banding in the same time frame applied to RNY. Double the time, at least, would seem necessary.

This part of the document makes no claims about what sort of "Creator" did the endowing. If something exists, it's logical to say it was "created" no matter how it came into being. I believe in God, I just spell it differently: N-A-T-U-R-E

No question about it--finding ways to fill the time we used to fill with food can be a challenge. Particularly for people who don't work or who have no families, food could easily have been a main focus of their day and now there's a void. It's crucial that we find ways to occupy ourselves that don't involve food. That's why places like LBT exist and why they can be such a help!

Pretty much pleased, I think; no real surprises. Well, I guess surprise that I've been married twice, but the first one was so short I'd give myself props for practicing until I got it right. And probably surprised that I'm a surburban insurance broker rather than working in NYC at a nonprofit or in the arts. I'd be proud of myself for quitting smoking, having had a great job for many years, and for finally taking good enough care of myself to be healthy for my two daughters as they grow. I think, overall, my 18-year-old self would be pretty chuffed for my 45-year-old self. :biggrin1:

That's not at all what I did. I just took the (I think very reasonable approach) that less intervention is the best way to start. As a healthy person who needed serious help to eat less over the long term, banding seemed to me to be a great tool for that purpose. And it has proved to be one, for me, so far. I'm very encouraged by all the people I see who have had to have their bands removed for one reason or another and who can then move on to life without a band, rebanding, or another bariatric surgery. Of course repeated surgeries are not without risk; the FIRST surgery wasn't without risk and I'm dead set against having any more unless they're absolutely necessary. But I continue to believe that for lots of people--like me--banding is safest, gentlest, and can be very effective as a first choice for bariatric surgery.