...is the best approach here for both the LW and his wife, and hopefully they'll get some from a professional counselor. Of course, Cary's letters are usually full of compassion, but the situation for this LW and his wife seems to call for a larger dose of it. So, assuming what the LW considers the worst scenario, that she chose to end the pregnancy...

The LW may actually feel that if his wife really loved him, she would have wanted to have the baby regardless of her own issues with depression. I'm not sure that can ever be a "true" statement, even with a completely healthy mother, given that there are signficant differences between loving one's mate and wanting to have a baby with him. The reality is that a pregnancy always requires a greater physical commitment from the mother than the father. And whether or not she wanted a baby is less important, perhaps, than whether she was well enough to have one. Doesn't sound like like she was.

Those nine months can seem interminable if one has any serious discomfort at all. Also, there is still an awful lot of disagreement just on whether a depressed woman should continue with her medication during a pregnancy. I can only imagine what pregnancy would be like while depressed. And the stress of trying to make such a coin-toss decision while depressed? Yikes.

Years ago, I heard some kind of professional on an NPR program saying how important it was to treat any depression in a marriage before trying to counsel the couple. Later, I repeated that to my own partner when we were at a similar crossroads and one of us had a health issue that needed a significant amount of time for healing. I'm not sure we'd still be together if I hadn't heard that interview, and taken that longer perspective at the time.

I doubt that the LW would really have expected his wife to continue with a pregnancy if she had some other illness that would be just as dangerous to her life as depression can be. Because depression kills if not successfully treated, the most compassionate way to respond is to be grateful that his wife was able to put her own life and needs first, in spite of how devastating it must feel to each of them. Assuming, that is, that she did make that choice. We don't really know, but I couldn't fault her if she did. Depression is a real illness, not just a character flaw.

As for essential fatty acids and nutrition, even tho' they really are important, they are not a magic bullet, since there can be other reasons for depression. But, there are other sources for Omega 3's than salmon and other fish with their mercury issues: e.g., sardines which do not have that problem (given their smaller size), walnuts, some brands of eggs, etc. And any foods high in anti-oxidants are great, too (brightly colored fruits, dark chocolate, green tea, etc). But protein is also important, and getting enough carbs, and our culture allows little space for respecting the individual dietary differences that each person needs. And, I suspect there will probably always be women (and men) for whom dietary solutions, for whatever reason, are not enough. They should be able to use the drugs that help them without feeling forced into situations-- like a pregnancy-- where they must choose whether to risk their own well-being.

...and yet it is still being funded by taxes from people like me who opposed it from the very beginning. Not to mention generations to follow who will have to ante up to pay the balance due, since some of it was fought on credit from the Chinese and others.

A war to be paid for by future generations?! Now that's really taxation without any kind of representation. Moral or fiscal.

Hypocridiot!

Across the globe, undeclared wars and internal armed conflicts have reached an unprecedented number. There have been more than 250 major wars since the end of World War II, resulting in over 23 million casualties. Modern warfare is no longer confined to battlefields; around the world, non-combatants are in the direct line of fire, suffering greatly and becoming the anonymous and undercounted casualties of violent conflicts. In today’s wars, 90 percent of casualties are civilians, 75 percent of whom are women and children; a century ago, 90 percent of war casualties were male soldiers. [emphasis mine]

I already knew that women and children suffered disproportionately in war, but these stats that I came across last week really bring it home. How can this possibly be the most effective way to respond to terrorists? And how is our presence in Iraq any different?

http://www.womenforwomen.org/why.htm

...and I don't mean Al Gore's involvement, or whether he's going to run for President (tho' I would really love that!). Actually, since CEO Scott made this decision last October, is it possible that this is one major example of the Katrina Effect?

I have not been a big fan of Walmart, and I don't shop there, but even so, I was impressed by their efforts last year in trying to deliver aid to the Gulf Coast... especially since the government didn't make it easy for them.

Is it possible that CEO Scott (or someone else, who then convinced him) immediately made the connection between the intensifying hurricane seasons and global warming, and realized that, given our government's ineffective response, that this was something they could and should tackle head-on? And perhaps do it better?

If so, I might reconsider my minimal shopping habits, but, since I was born in Missouri, I'm going to wait a bit.

In the meantime... my mantras:

"Everyone gets to vote. Every vote gets counted."

"Save the planet-- re-elect Al Gore!"