I had a dream the other night which engages me on several levels. In the dream I am at a medical facility. There is a group of 6 or 8 doctor types gathered around me. They are telling me that they need to do some kind of highly invasive procedure that will be quite painful. They tell me that there is no guarantee that they will be able to gather any useful information but they MIGHT get some answers to some questions they have. They want me to sign the paper so they can go ahead with this. I very calmly look at them and tell them no. No, I don't want that procedure. What? They are aghast! What do you mean no? This is what we have to do in order to attempt to fix you. You will have to submit to this procedure or we can not help you any more. You might die. Okay then, I say calmly. So be it.
Weird, heh? I like that I say no in the dream. I like that I make the decision for myself. No one is going to railroad me into something that doesn't work for me. I suppose I could be seen as foolish. After all, they are trying to "fix" me. I should comply with them. But I am not interested in the painful, invasive procedure. Not if there isn't a payoff. I don't like their attitude. It is as if they know what's best for me and I should take their word for it. Guess what, peeps? I am the only expert on me.
I suppose part of this dream might stem from the sadness and frustration I feel about my friend Lesly's recent death. Lesly and her family fought with cancer for over three years. If she had known from the start how this was going to end, would they have fought the battle so long? The last six months were especially difficult, fighting always for some, if not improvement, at least pause in the cancer's progression. Such a hard time and yet the ending came anyway. Far too soon. Who knows what avenue I would take in a similar situation but I wonder if I would carry on as long as Lesly did.
Showing posts with label Lesly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lesly. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Speaking of Anger
Last night my good friend and neighbor Lesly died. She had been diagnosed with cancer in the fall of 2009 and lived the ups and horrible downs of life with cancer ever since. There is a huge hole in the world this morning with Lesly's departure. She was a smart, creative, caring, and fun person. She leaves a beautiful family mourning her death. Her presence in the community was quiet, helpful, and always accompanied by good wishes. She was a highly valued employee of FedEx and the customers along her route cheered every time she returned to work after facing yet another round of chemo. We will miss her.
Lesly was the parent of two children. Her insurance with FedEx paid for not only her medical care but that of her children. She accrued retirement benefits and those should be useful for her family, right? "Should be" - operative words. Lesly was not married. In fact, Lesly was legally not allowed to marry her life partner. Even though Stacey and Lesly were committed to each other for 27 years and had two now teenaged children together, they could not legally marry. A very practical outcome of this situation is that Stacey cannot access Lesly's retirement account. It died along with Lesly. Social Security benefits died with Lesly too. That enrages me.
I am married and have two children. If my husband dies, I am entitled to his retirement and SS benefits. Stacey and Lesly would have been married if the love they had for each other was recognized by the state of California. Stacey, Clare, and Ian would have at least had some kind of financial security if that marriage had been recognized. I understand that some people hold onto a belief that marriage is a union only between a man and a woman. Explain to me, please, how Stacey and Lesly's union cannot be recognized as the marriage that it was. Certainly people are entitled to their own beliefs and, trite as it sounds, if you don't support gay marriage then simply don't choose that option for yourself. But it is wrong to deny benefits to couples like Stacey and Lesly simply because your religious beliefs stand in the way of such a union for you.
Lesly was the parent of two children. Her insurance with FedEx paid for not only her medical care but that of her children. She accrued retirement benefits and those should be useful for her family, right? "Should be" - operative words. Lesly was not married. In fact, Lesly was legally not allowed to marry her life partner. Even though Stacey and Lesly were committed to each other for 27 years and had two now teenaged children together, they could not legally marry. A very practical outcome of this situation is that Stacey cannot access Lesly's retirement account. It died along with Lesly. Social Security benefits died with Lesly too. That enrages me.
I am married and have two children. If my husband dies, I am entitled to his retirement and SS benefits. Stacey and Lesly would have been married if the love they had for each other was recognized by the state of California. Stacey, Clare, and Ian would have at least had some kind of financial security if that marriage had been recognized. I understand that some people hold onto a belief that marriage is a union only between a man and a woman. Explain to me, please, how Stacey and Lesly's union cannot be recognized as the marriage that it was. Certainly people are entitled to their own beliefs and, trite as it sounds, if you don't support gay marriage then simply don't choose that option for yourself. But it is wrong to deny benefits to couples like Stacey and Lesly simply because your religious beliefs stand in the way of such a union for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)