Breaking my arm wasn't the most painful thing I've ever experienced, but it wasn't a walk in the park, either. I became grateful for all the pain management lessons that I've heard throughout my life. I did a lot of controlled breathing: Deep breath in. Deep breath out. Close my eyes, clear my mind. No problem.
The pain started getting more intense once I arrived at the hospital. I quickly learned that if I didn't stay positive about my pain, then I was going to lose it, and I wasn't sure I'd get it back. So I'd breathe in and breathe out and joke with the nurses and smile and chat with Rob about anything besides the current situation. And that worked well enough for a long time. The pain was manageable.
But when you appear to be in very little pain, the hospital staff lays low. I didn't get drugs until I had already been there for almost 3 hours. And that wasn't a problem until about the 2 1/2 hour mark. By then my ability to manage my pain was hanging by a thread. Deep breath in. Deep breath out. "I'm not going to cry. I can't cry." I knew that if I started crying, I might not stop for a long time. Rob started interpreting for me: "Umm, she says she's okay, but she's not. She's in a lot of pain." I closed my eyes and silently chanted, "Don't cry, Tamra. Don't cry."
I started visualizing a happy place. Once upon a time someone told me that was a good pain management exercise. What surprised me was the 2 "places" that came to my mind. It wasn't something I chose, it was just what came to me. What felt right. And while I visualized, I gave Rob a brief verbal tour.
The first was Mt. Washburn in Yellowstone. I visualized myself standing at the top, taking in the 360 degrees of mountains. I was standing there, taking it all in. I was smiling and happy and I could have stayed there forever. The verbal tour went something like this: "Find a happy place. Mmm. Mt. Washburn. All the mountains. Mmm. That's a nice place."
And the second place was an intimate one. I was laying in bed on my side, facing Rob who was arm's length away, covers up to our shoulders. He reached his hand over and softly stroked my hair and smiled at me and we didn't say anything. I'm pretty sure that's Heaven right there. Rob said, "That's a very nice place."
The doctor came in and told me that they'd have to set my arm. He was in the middle of describing how they'd lift my arm up and... when I started laughing. I was having so much trouble managing my pain that I couldn't imagine being in more pain. I figured I would pass out if they moved my arm. I said something almost-incoherent like, "Right. Right." He looked at me and then said, "We can put you under for that." I half-whispered, half-cried, "That would be great."
Deep breath in. Deep breath out. Cry a little. Deep breath in. Deep breath out. Make some sort of noise. "No, Rob." Deep breath in. "Don't talk to me." Deep breath in. Deep breath out. And that's when they brought the morphine and set me free of the pain. It was magic.
Modern medicine is magic.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Love That Talk
I'll just be honest here and say that President Packer's talk ticked me off. I was so mad that I basically didn't listen to the rest of Conference. His talk spoiled it for me.
To some people, this clearly makes me an apostate. And if that's what it makes me, I'm okay with that. But I DON'T think it makes me an apostate. I feel no need to defend my position, but I would like to put down some thoughts on this issue.
In 2008 I posted a Facebook note about Prop 8, after Prop 8 was over and done with. I thought it was an innocuous statement (something like: "I'm in favor of gay marriage and I'm a Mormon, and I think that's okay"), and generally it was well received. I strive for middle ground when I discuss this issue. Mostly I say things like, "This is a hard topic," cause it is a hard topic. People making it an easy topic frustrates me. I've spent hours and hours thinking about this issue, agonizing over it, and respectfully discussing it. I still can't find the easy answer.
I learned from my Facebook note that I shouldn't ever again make a politically-angled innocuous note on Facebook. I was "turned in," if you will. That's wrong on so many levels, and I'm not going into that. Fortunately things ended well enough, but I was still upset about it, I realized, even almost a year later.
I bring this up to highlight the fact that this has been an on-going issue for me. I have a dear friend who is gay and a member of the church, and I believe that it only takes knowing ONE such individual--who is trying with all their might to be righteous and good, who is praying to be changed, who is serving a mission and keeping himself in line, who is hoping that God will have mercy and take away his "problem"--to make you seriously question whether ANYONE would choose to be gay. If it was a choice, wouldn't it be easier to choose something else? Again, nothing's easy about this subject.
There are studies ... But Mormon's don't care about studies.
There are NICE talks by General Authorities, even Apostles, about this topic. Elder Oaks in particular has a good talk or two where he is soft and takes a middle ground position. (I found this one by typing it "Oaks" and "homosexuality" into lds.org's search engine.) But Packer's is the latest, so people latched onto it. Packer wasn't nice or soft. He wasn't looking for any middle ground. He wasn't saying, "We don't know what causes homosexuality." He said, in essence, "You can change if you pray hard enough." He sent the message, "You weren't born with it, it's a choice, so stop choosing and get with the program." And, worst of all he said (and this one is a REAL quote now), "Why would God do that to anyone?"
The Church has done some serious backpedaling since Packer's talk. I wish people knew that so I didn't have to hear teacher-led gay bashing in Gospel Doctrine class. I wish they knew that the Church changed some of Packer's words for the talk that will appear in the Ensign, and completely removed the most offensive quote that I just cited (you can already read the slightly changed version on the Church's website). I wish they knew that the Church did an official press release with a much softer take. And most of all I wish they knew that Uchtdorf gave a talk this last Sunday AGAIN giving the soft answer.
I don't know why President Packer felt compelled to say what he did. I don't know why he had to be mean-spirited about it. I don't like feeling ostricized because I feel that this is a complicated topic, and I don't need to hear that if I was more righteous I'd be totally on board with Packer's message. Uchtdorf isn't on board with Packer's message, either, and I think he's pretty righteous.
I'd like to tell people to back off. But then I swallow my pride. We're all just trying to do what is right, and we're all trying to decide for ourselves what Right is. I can respect that.
To some people, this clearly makes me an apostate. And if that's what it makes me, I'm okay with that. But I DON'T think it makes me an apostate. I feel no need to defend my position, but I would like to put down some thoughts on this issue.
In 2008 I posted a Facebook note about Prop 8, after Prop 8 was over and done with. I thought it was an innocuous statement (something like: "I'm in favor of gay marriage and I'm a Mormon, and I think that's okay"), and generally it was well received. I strive for middle ground when I discuss this issue. Mostly I say things like, "This is a hard topic," cause it is a hard topic. People making it an easy topic frustrates me. I've spent hours and hours thinking about this issue, agonizing over it, and respectfully discussing it. I still can't find the easy answer.
I learned from my Facebook note that I shouldn't ever again make a politically-angled innocuous note on Facebook. I was "turned in," if you will. That's wrong on so many levels, and I'm not going into that. Fortunately things ended well enough, but I was still upset about it, I realized, even almost a year later.
I bring this up to highlight the fact that this has been an on-going issue for me. I have a dear friend who is gay and a member of the church, and I believe that it only takes knowing ONE such individual--who is trying with all their might to be righteous and good, who is praying to be changed, who is serving a mission and keeping himself in line, who is hoping that God will have mercy and take away his "problem"--to make you seriously question whether ANYONE would choose to be gay. If it was a choice, wouldn't it be easier to choose something else? Again, nothing's easy about this subject.
There are studies ... But Mormon's don't care about studies.
There are NICE talks by General Authorities, even Apostles, about this topic. Elder Oaks in particular has a good talk or two where he is soft and takes a middle ground position. (I found this one by typing it "Oaks" and "homosexuality" into lds.org's search engine.) But Packer's is the latest, so people latched onto it. Packer wasn't nice or soft. He wasn't looking for any middle ground. He wasn't saying, "We don't know what causes homosexuality." He said, in essence, "You can change if you pray hard enough." He sent the message, "You weren't born with it, it's a choice, so stop choosing and get with the program." And, worst of all he said (and this one is a REAL quote now), "Why would God do that to anyone?"
The Church has done some serious backpedaling since Packer's talk. I wish people knew that so I didn't have to hear teacher-led gay bashing in Gospel Doctrine class. I wish they knew that the Church changed some of Packer's words for the talk that will appear in the Ensign, and completely removed the most offensive quote that I just cited (you can already read the slightly changed version on the Church's website). I wish they knew that the Church did an official press release with a much softer take. And most of all I wish they knew that Uchtdorf gave a talk this last Sunday AGAIN giving the soft answer.
I don't know why President Packer felt compelled to say what he did. I don't know why he had to be mean-spirited about it. I don't like feeling ostricized because I feel that this is a complicated topic, and I don't need to hear that if I was more righteous I'd be totally on board with Packer's message. Uchtdorf isn't on board with Packer's message, either, and I think he's pretty righteous.
I'd like to tell people to back off. But then I swallow my pride. We're all just trying to do what is right, and we're all trying to decide for ourselves what Right is. I can respect that.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
iPod Fun
I love my iPod. It's my radio in the car, so I don't have to listen to crap unless I want to. Not that my music is necessarily better, but I chose it and that's somehow important.
But here's my problem with the iPod. I've been trying for about a year to find a way to listen to all my songs, one after the other. Since I'm a reasonably intelligent person, you'd think it'd be easy for me to figure out how to do that.
My tactic was to pick a song on my Song list and then set the iPod to random play. Then I would have a good travel mix (I listen almost exclusively in the car), and I would be able to go through all 1789 songs.
But then, the kids would ask for a particular song, and I'd say something like, "But I'm on song 348!" My husband would give me a look as if to say, "You're pathetic," and I'd be guilted into changing the song to Popcorn or Fireflies or Never Say Never. And you can't just go back to the same random play list. The iPod creates a new random play list every time.
I never got past song #500 or so.
And then, in a flash of brilliance, it came to me: Listen to the songs in alphabetical order. Then, if the kids requested a song, or if I wanted one day to listen to a certain artist, all I had to do to get back on track was remember what song I was on and go back to it. And, as it turns out, alphabetical order is pretty much a random play list (until you get to "Christmas" or something. Then you have to skip 8 songs at a time).
I am happy to report that last night I finally finished listening to my songs! All 1789 of them. And it only took me 3 months.
Be happy for me!
But here's my problem with the iPod. I've been trying for about a year to find a way to listen to all my songs, one after the other. Since I'm a reasonably intelligent person, you'd think it'd be easy for me to figure out how to do that.
My tactic was to pick a song on my Song list and then set the iPod to random play. Then I would have a good travel mix (I listen almost exclusively in the car), and I would be able to go through all 1789 songs.
But then, the kids would ask for a particular song, and I'd say something like, "But I'm on song 348!" My husband would give me a look as if to say, "You're pathetic," and I'd be guilted into changing the song to Popcorn or Fireflies or Never Say Never. And you can't just go back to the same random play list. The iPod creates a new random play list every time.
I never got past song #500 or so.
And then, in a flash of brilliance, it came to me: Listen to the songs in alphabetical order. Then, if the kids requested a song, or if I wanted one day to listen to a certain artist, all I had to do to get back on track was remember what song I was on and go back to it. And, as it turns out, alphabetical order is pretty much a random play list (until you get to "Christmas" or something. Then you have to skip 8 songs at a time).
I am happy to report that last night I finally finished listening to my songs! All 1789 of them. And it only took me 3 months.
Be happy for me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)