I am completely sick of the spinning of both Obama and Clinton camps, too, and I think both have strengths and weaknesses versus McCain. Given the way any of the primaries have turned out and the general arch of the primary process on both sides, I sure would not hazard a guess as to who would do best against McCain. But I think the Obama and Clinton camps going against each other has made both stronger candidates for going against McCain.

I like both of them way better than I did either of them, say 8 months ago. I thought that Clinton would have it all lined up and would roll into the nomination. I thought of her as resourseful and tough, but I did not think she had the flexibility and bravado she has shown in "coming back." I felt that Obama just had not been tested in anything difficult politically. He has been now, and has come through very well. At this point, to me he has demonstrated that he really does have the right stuff. If either of these two had pulled way ahead a long time ago, I am sure that I would like either. I am not sure that I would be as confident as I now am in both.

This was a touching letter and I thought Cary's response was excellent, too. He is dead on with the Buddhist reference. I cannot find it on the web, but I recall the statement "upon enlightment, the first thing the Buddha said was 'there is suffering.'" And Cary is right about how to overcome suffering. It sounds to me like the writer is utterly burned out at this point. Fertility drugs are profoundly strong and if I were here I would not discount the possibility that part of what I was feeling came from the powerful stresses that had been placed on my body. So I agree with Cary that the important thing is to grieve, recharge, and see where things, including one's own internal process, take one.

I, too, however, find the decision that "we will never adopt," jarring and incongruous. I suspect that if this couple really does want kids, they will go the adoption route. I am sympathtic to their being burned out and feeling like this is too much to bear right now, and that is logical. But it does not seem logical over time in the future to say I would do anything to have the dream of my life of having children, but I insist on the universe providing me with children in this one specific way or I will consider my life to have been a waste.

And I think another writer was accurate in saying the writer has having children on pedestal. I love my children more than anything, and they and my wife have been the most important things in my life, but I do not think that children are capable of changing all of the suffering into nirvana. There is something scarily idealistic about the way the writer talks about having kids. The biggest gift my children gave me was to teach me flexibility. Not everything in life, even with those I love the most, comes out the way I thought it would or the way I thought I wanted it. But that does not meant it does not come out better.

Maybe that is the karmic lesson for the writer. You can't always get what you want, and we are all better off for that. Where there is attachment, there is suffering. There may be that motherless child in the world that needs you, and that, frankly, you need, more than you ever needed to physically procreate. So take it slow, observe, reflect, and there may be enlightenment.

The article is exactly correct that these clinics are a step forward in convenience and cost savings, and that the consumer should surely have this option. It is parternalistic to force consumers to go to highly trained incredibly expensive professionals for the most minor of maladies because of the off-chance that something might less minor than it appears or to encourage people to get regular check-ups physicians or whatever the theory is. I do not take my car to a highly trained mechanic to have the oil changed.

And I know people that have been involved with medical reform on the legislative level who clearly conclude that the medical establishment in the United States intentionally limits the number of medical school graduates in order to limit the supply of doctors and thus maintain high fees. Sure it takes an enormous effort to become a physician in the United States, but this is somewhat artificial. The medicial establishment makes it take an enormous effort in order to limit supply. Being a physician is still relatively highly paid and prestigious. Requiring medical schools to produce more physcians would increase the overall quality of medical care and reduce its cost. There is nothing inherent in medical school that requires that it be as selective as it purports to be--medical school like everything else has its preferences, of course, such as for the off-spring of doctors.

Most doctors are bright enough, but they are not geniuses and it does not take a genius to do most medical work.

If clinics make in-roads into the control the medical guild has over the most minor of "medical" concerns, it will be to society's advantage. I think folks that use such clinics on some level recognize this, too.