Letters: Apr 10/14

Apr 09, 2014

Re: Euthenasia

In Jule Koch's letter (Re: Euthenasia, April 3/14) about an assisted suicide bill, she mentions that Aspirin was only marketed in 1900. She supposes that before aspirin, people just stoically suffered without help or hope, or at least that's the way I read it. I have been a chronic pain sufferer my entire adult life, beginning with premature joint and disc disease in my late teens, then a spinal fusion, brain surgeries, aortic abdominal aneurism, a firearms accident, and a catastrophic encounter with a falling stove which smashed my left leg, ankle and partially amputated my foot. All this to say that I have had to rely on a variety of painkillers, both prescription and non, and I have often had to beg different practitioners for relief as I am neither a stoic nor a silent sufferer. Several people in the recent past have made comments about what we did before we had the oxy drugs and other well-known prescription meds to alleviate pain, and now Jule mentions Aspirin as the beginning of pain management in1900.

To all of you readers (and my family doctor) who don't know how pain sufferers managed in "the old days" let me say, LAUDANUM...first named by Paracelsus, the liquid opioid was further refined by a Doctor Thomas Sydenham in the 1600s and is still available by prescription in some of the United States!

Let me repeat LAUDANUM...Basically, opium dissolved in alcohol...highly addictive but very effective in the relief of traumatic and/or chronic pain. Maybe in the 1600s practitioners were more concerned about suffering and less concerned about, but willing to monitor, possible addictions.

Please note that the abuse of prescription medications should not skew the statistics of the effectiveness of any drug. Chronic drunks drink Listerine, but that doesn't mean that the bottle in my meds cabinet is any temptation or danger to me. And no, I don't want any Laudanum, thank you.

Ray Fletcher

Re: Marriage and the Charter

I am responding to the ongoing thread (Letters, Frontenac News, Mar 6/14) in regards to the issue of gay couples raising children. If you go to one good reference friend “Google”, you will find the following:

A Cambridge University's Centre for Family Research study found that "Overall we found markedly more similarities than differences in experiences between family types."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html

A George Washington University same sex adoption study showed that “Overall, children start exhibiting gender behaviour during the preschool years, with girls wanting to play with toys like dolls, and boys wanting toys like trucks and cars. This study found that all the children showed similar gender behaviour as their same-aged peers, whether they were raised by same-sex parents or by heterosexual parents.

The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.”

http://www.goldencradle.org/how-do-children-same-sex-adoption-fare

University of Texas, Mark Regnerus concludes: “Do children need a mother and father to turn out well as adults? No, if we observe the many anecdotal accounts with which all Americans are familiar.”

 As John Adams so aptly put it: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/83281/what-the-research-really-says-about-gay-parents-and-kids

If I am convinced of anything, it is that a good life for all is to adhere to one golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Jocelyne Steeves