Not As Hoped

August 3, 2021 — my birthday — my wife and I were enjoying our first overnight trip since the Covid-19 pandemic began in early 2020. We didn’t know then that it would be the last we’d have together living with the independence we take so much for granted.

We decided to keep it simple, making a road trip from our Maryland home to Pennsylvania and spending time at various points of interest in the southeastern part of the state.

We had a lovely lunch in Havre de Grace, Maryland, in the outdoor seating of a restaurant overlooking the Susquehanna River.

My wife at Tyler Arboretum

We stayed in a hotel in Chadd’s Ford. From there we visited the Tyler Arboretum and the town of Media, where we did some shopping and bought bubble tea.

We had a great dinner for my birthday, outdoors at a nearby restaurant. The summer Olympic Games were occurring in Tokyo, postponed from the year before, and we watched a few events on the television that night.

Our children were off living their lives, moving ahead after the long wait caused by Covid-19. Both called that day.

That summer our oldest had moved out to begin graduate school at Pennsylvania State University. He called to discuss how he and his girlfriend were settling in at their new apartment.

Our youngest was working at a summer camp as a counselor. He called to share how things were going, along with some frustrations regarding the camp staff and how situations were being handled.

Despite the fact that our kids were elsewhere — or maybe because of it — my wife and I felt that we’d mostly left behind us the concerns and restrictions from the past year and a half. It was an enjoyable bit of freedom.

And of hope. We began to see the light at the end of the dark tunnel created by the Covid-19 pandemic. We were feeling that we’d survived, that life would go on, that we could enjoy some of the dividends of having made it this far — through parenting, through a global contagion, through the more difficult years of our lives.

But all that would be halted just five months later. When my wife experienced a ruptured aneurysm in January of 2022, life would not be as we’d hoped.

We’ve spent the last four years adjusting to what is too easily called the “new normal.” Thoughts of a quick recovery have proven to be unrealistic. My wife lost her job and the ability to do many of the things she enjoyed. She applied for (and ultimately received approval for) federal disability payments.

Instead of living out our later years with travel and some well-earned ease, we are now in the positions of being caregiver taking care of one who’s lost their independence.

Perhaps the timing of it all is what’s most frustrating. We put in the work, we endured the hardships, but now are unable to reap many of the benefits.

It doesn’t feel fair. But I also realize that fairness is not a guarantee for anyone.

What’s left is a constant feeling of discontent, softened now and again by some of life’s simpler pleasures. But I can’t help the urge to look once in a while at what’s not available, and think about whether it might ever be available again.

Hand Sanitizer and the Disease

This week I happened upon the fact that the Food and Drug Administration is updating their policy for testing alcohol hand sanitizers for the presence of methanol.

The notice rightly points out that methanol–unlike ethanol, the alcohol in beer, wine, and spirits–is poisonous. It goes on to say that “FDA became aware of reports of fatal methanol poisoning of consumers who ingested alcohol-based hand sanitizer products that were manufactured with methanol or methanol-contaminated ethanol.”

What??

Surely I misread that. Why is anyone ingesting hand sanitizer? Do they mean just accidentally licking it off one’s hands? Should I be concerned?

So with a little internet sleuthing, I tracked down one of the FDA’s sources of information, a study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study says that “cases of ethanol toxicity following ingestion of alcohol-based hand sanitizer products have been reported in persons with alcohol use disorder.”

So that’s it. People suffering from serious alcoholism have been known to be so desperate as to resort to drinking hand sanitizer.

It’s hard for me to imagine someone having so little to live for that they are seeking solace in whatever small, temporary effect one can get from consuming hand sanitizer.  These are people who need serious help, who probably have lost all connection with friends and family, and with the beauty that still can be found in life.

So the FDA’s response to this is to ensure that hand sanitizer does not accidentally kill these people.

Wouldn’t the more humane response be to actually help these people live a better life? Am I the only one who thinks that we are merely addressing symptoms here without even pretending to try to cure the disease?

Do either the FDA or CDC acknowledge this gap in response?

No.

The FDA takes a formalistic approach by pointing out that methanol is not an acceptable ingredient in any drug product and should not be used due to its toxic effects.

The CDC takes a hands-off, public health approach by admonishing against drinking hand sanitizer and requesting that public health officials keep track of times when people do.

But compassion for the down and out? No.

Much can be done in the United States to alleviate poverty and suffering. We do, in fact, know exactly how it can be done. However, we, The People, have generally chosen not to do it. And yes, it is a choice.

That says so much about us, doesn’t it?

Smoking Outside

I acknowledge that smoking tobacco can lead to various health problems. This today is widely known. Anyone who claims to not know has not been paying attention.

Specifically, the bad effects of smoking arise from first hand smoke. As in, I choose to smoke a cigarette and I am inhaling the smoke into my own lungs of my own free will.

So let’s get to the other stuff.

It has gotten to the point where smoking anything is disallowed nearly everywhere. So I think we have unfortunately moved far beyond what is protective of public health and into a new phase of social disapproval.

Specifically, I wonder why smoking is explicitly disallowed in places where it won’t harm anyone other than the smoker. Outdoors is my primary example. Who is being protected when smoking is forbidden outside and away from other people?

There are legitimate concerns about second hand smoke when the smokers smoke all day in enclosed spaces such as a car or at home, and the nonsmokers have no choice but to regularly breathe the smoke into their lungs.

That is not the case outdoors. Smoke blows away on the wind, yes? It is dispersed, becomes less concentrated. So unless you are sitting outside within a few feet of a smoker who is blowing smoke directly into your face, I don’t see that there is a problem.

And if a smoker is blowing smoke directly into your face, that is extremely inconsiderate and you have every right to ask them (tell them?) to stop. It is basic manners and social intelligence.

So back to the ban on outdoor smoking. Why is that a thing? Perhaps it’s because those in charge of such outdoor spaces feel that people cannot be trusted to self-police their own smoking with civility.

Honestly, common courtesy does seem to be diminishing these days, as more and more people think it’s okay to issue death threats when they have a simple disagreement. Maybe making a blanket ban just removes the potential for violent dispute.

But we are dangerously close (if we’re not there already) of moving from legitimate social disapproval for the sake of public health* to a moralistic society where smokers are seen as flawed, dirty people.

Maybe that’s what was intended all along. I don’t know. But it’s never a good idea to make an entire class of people somehow less human. We’ve seen where that can lead and it’s nowhere good.


*Legitimate social disapproval for the sake of public health includes the disapproval of, among other things, poor personal hygiene (not washing hands, defecating outdoors, etc.), not wearing seat belts in motor vehicles, not wearing face masks to prevent the spread of infectious disease.

For Better or For Worse

Traditionally, wedding vows are along the lines of “I take you to be…blah…blah…for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”

Having been through the “or worse” and “in sickness” bits more than once, I can tell you that most people, when they get married, don’t want to deal with that part and don’t expect to deal with that part.

In the hospital.

By that I mean, neither partner envisions themselves to be the “or worse” and deep down does not really want their spouse to go through the pain of having to suffer though the worst part of themselves.

I bring this up now because my wife is in the hospital, and has been for over a month, due to brain hemorrhage related to her chronic health condition. It is an exercise in patience and endurance for both of us. The relief provided by medication and proper health care (her) and an understanding employer (me) is appreciated, but it does little to alter the fundamental terribleness of our situation. 

Of course, people claim to want a spouse who will stick with them through thick and thin. But it’s like insurance. We are in favor of the idea of having it, as long as we never actually need to use it.

In reality, people don’t want that. They don’t want to face the ugliness of it, or the grim reality of it.

Because the spouse who is “in sickness” is not sexy. And the grieving spouse who is trying desperately to hold it together is not sexy. The sights, the smells, the broken body, the seemingly endless bedside vigils.

Absolutely none of it is sexy, believe me (unless you’re into that kind of thing).

Of course, popular culture would have us believe otherwise. We have movies such as Dying Young and Now is Good and While You Were Sleeping, none of which I have seen, but I’m pretty sure they gloss over the reality of what they think they are depicting.

A more realistic take on such things is a book titled Alice & Oliver, by Charles Bock. Read it – I highly recommend it.

So if ever you are tempted to think that a dying lover is somehow more attractive, or the long-suffering spouse or family member is somehow attractive, stop right there. They aren’t, and never can be.

Trust me.

His Turban Was Magnificent

His turban was magnificent, a rich bluish purple. He came into my wife’s room and introduced himself.

“I am a neurologist,” he said, “and I would be happy to treat your wife, if it weren’t for the pregnancy.”

She had just recovered from a seizure less than an hour before. She had the worst headache anyone could ever imagine. She was nauseated and her vision and hearing were impaired. We didn’t fully know what was wrong yet, but something clearly was.

And our second child was at risk. Her pregnancy was only 33 weeks along, but the seizures were a threat to the growing baby.

I’d rushed to the hospital, seen the seizure, knew it was a complicated situation. Neurology was not something I had anticipated needing. Someone had to make a decision, and had to make it fast.

“It’s just that…since you are pregnant…I think it would be better to transfer to you a facility with more experience,” he said. I wasn’t sure how to feel in the moment. His warmth and composure was reassuring; his recommendation that she be moved made logical sense but was unsettling.

My wife said “My head is killing me; if you are going to make a decision, make it quick.”

It was done then. The neonatal team would perform an emergency C-section. My wife, still sedated, would be flown by med-evac helicopter to Baltimore, a city I knew almost nothing about.

The ICU doctor–also Indian–would give me a warm hug and tell me it would be alright in the end. And I got in the car with a friend and drove into the night.

He was right, the ICU physician. Things are alright, 16 years later.

But I never saw the neurologist with the turban again.