Letters to the Editor
LetterWriter
Published Letters: 6 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Talking about problems versus solutions
[Read the article: Does "problem talk" depress girls?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The connections that others have already pointed out to the mental health professions are interesting. Just talking about your problems over and over, with no end in sight, is depressing! There is a lot of money to be made from certain forms of "therapy" that encourage expression without promoting actual change. What does appear to be effective are treatments that are relatively time-limited, that focus on finding and implementing solutions to life's problems, that identify and challenge reasons to NOT get better, and that foster a proactive approach to relapse prevention. In other words, problem-solving with a heavy helping of psychological insight.
Of course, community and social change is a large part of this as well. It will become much easier for girls to problem-solve and change their lifestyles when they are able to perceive viable alternatives to being sexbots, airheads, overresponsible mother figures, or any of the other unsavory choices our culture seems to force upon young women. In the meantime, it's unlikely that talk alone is going to solve anyone's problems.
The results of this study surprise me not in the slightest.
-
More cafeteria criticism from the science-illiterate
[Read the article: The science of strippers' tips]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now I haven't read the actual study, but I've read others like it, and I would bet money that this study suffers from many of the same flaws as others in this subfield of evo psych. In other words, this study is probably holier than the pope.
The problem is, I would bet even MORE money that if this had been an uncontrolled, poorly cobbled-together study proposing some link between lipstick and breast cancer, the critical tone here would be nonexistent.
The different approaches you take to discussing research findings - those you like and those you don't - comprise the "hate" part of of my love/hate relationship with Broadsheet. Here is Broadsheet's science lesson as I see it: Science is ultimately to be judged by the acceptability of its practitioners' conclusions, not by the appropriateness of the methods or the integrity of the data. We pick those apart only if we decide a priori that the take-home message is distasteful to us. We think with our feelings first and judge the facts later to be consistent with what's in our hearts! We'll gleefully accept the poorest science with open arms if it confirms something we'd like to believe, but try implying something that makes us uncomfortable and we'll all become armchair journal editors!
The pink girly blog once again suffers from living up to the very stereotypes it so vehemently opposes. For heaven's sake, hire a scientist to write about science; it's obvious that the scientific sophistication of your staff is right on par with that of most Americans.
-
Why downplay hormone replacement therapy?
[Read the article: Life will kill you]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was annoyed at what appeared to be the author's dismissal of the notion that hormone replacement therapy is linked to breast cancer, and that breast cancer deaths have decreased markedly since the publication of the Women's Health Initiative study findings. For all her talk of estrogenic chemicals being linked to breast cancer, it seems damn odd that she would so readily brush this idea aside.
And speaking of medical hormones, if exposing teenagers to herbicides is so bad, how about feeding our teenage daughters estrogen and progestins from the age of 15 or 16 to prevent pregnancy, promote clear skin, and prevent menstrual woes? Not a word on this!
Perhaps this was cut from the interview, or there simply wasn't enough time to address these issues. My guess, though, is that like everyone else in this field, the author is tied - financially and otherwise - to a specific agenda. The author seems to embrace even the most tenuous evidence to support her claims while ignoring major risk factors that are irrelevant to her agenda, no matter how plainly they are staring her in the face.
-
Home birth safety
[Read the article: Beyond the Multiplex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Contrary to the fantasies of some, out-of-hospital births are not solely accepted within poor developing nations. For instance, home birth is relatively common in the Netherlands, and the Dutch roundly kick our fat American asses in most if not all measures health-related (infant mortality included). But, to be fair, their health care system is structured such that, when the occasional emergency does require a home birth to turn into a hospital birth, the transition is relatively smooth. So if there is any safety concern for a home birth in an uncomplicated pregnancy, it would be wise to examine the extent to which our fractured health system itself may contribute to poor outcomes. That said, the hard data seem to support the conclusion that home birth is safe under the supervision of a health professional even in the U.S. Anecdotes about home birth failures are fine but they are not strong evidence to the contrary.
I believe that Americans' ignorance and fear of birth is largely a product of a for-profit health system. Fear = money.