Alternatives

I've never been an all-or-nothing kind of person. I see the world in shades of gray rather than in black and white.

So when it comes to issues of health, I'm open to all kinds of therapies, treatments, etc. For me, there is a place for many philosophies: "traditional" medicine (as we know it here in the U.S.), osteopathy, chiropractic, massage therapy, acupuncture, nutrition, exercise and even spiritual healing (for me, that is more a positive thinking sort of thing than it is a religious sort of thing). I'm open to whatever it is that will make me feel better when I'm sick and feel even healthier when I'm healthy.

That's not to say I always practice what I preach. I have plenty of unhealthy habits (I consume a lot of caffeine and my fair share of junk food), and many quirky opinions on what is or isn't healthy (I believe canola oil is very unhealthy despite the hype that says it's safe). All I'm saying is that I'm open to alternatives.

Most of you know that I recently had my gall bladder removed. That was a very routine "Western medicine" procedure, and I'm OK with that. It was removed primarily as a preventative against the possibility of cancer later, and I'm definitely OK with that. What I want to share, though, is what happened after the surgery. Lying around recuperating sounds like a restful way to spend a few days, but the inactivity caused my back to ache and the muscles in both my back and abdomen to be tense nearly all of the time. I can't say I was in pain, but I was really uncomfortable, and having trouble sleeping because of it.

My first thought was that I needed to see my chiropractor, but the thought of being incision-down on the table for him to pop my back sounded awful. Then I remembered that a few years ago I had seen a wonderful physical therapist who also administered Cranio-Sacral Therapy, a type of very gentle massage therapy. I decided I might like to go see her again, but she's an hour away; I've lost her contact information and was unable to find it online. I'm sure I could find another therapist closer to me, but instead of that, I also remembered that during my massage therapy sessions I had bought a Still Point Inducer, so I used that. I don't use it exactly as intended; quite by accident, and following my body's own cues, I found my own way of using it that results in a treatment very similar to what my massage therapist would do in a session. After 10-15 minutes on the inducer, all the tension in my back was gone, as was most of the tension in my belly. I slept like a rock that night, too. That was Monday night, and I'm still tension free.

This brings to mind a few of things to consider. First, because I'm open to alternatives, I was able to make myself comfortable without taking pain killing drugs or sleep aids that don't set well with me. I believe there are times when meds are called for, but that this wasn't one of them. Second, by listening to my own body instead of someone else's directions or opinions, I was able to give it what it needed. I was able to see that using my inducer might be a good option, and also able to use my inducer in a way that was most beneficial to me. And third, I was reminded that whatever works, works. It doesn't matter if someone else thinks a therapy is quackery. If holding a straw between my teeth and dancing the hula works for me, then I'm going to stick with it.

I'm still learning. Like many people, I was raised to believe that "doctor knows best". And I'm sure there are times when doctor does know best. But there are certainly other times when I know what's best for me.

I know at least two of my readers (and probably another one or two) visit alternative medicine practitioners with good results. What about the rest of you? Are you open to alternative therapies or are you more comfortable with traditional Western medicine? What kind of results are you getting?

Laser Surgery Is Not An Option. Now What?

A few months before Shane and I met, he had laser surgery to correct his vision. When I started wearing glasses a few years ago, he suggested that it might be something for me to consider. I didn't give it much thought until the last six months or so.

I am farsighted and also need tri-focal lenses. Bi-focals were no problem for me, but after about a month of wearing tri-focals and hating them, I "split" them, by ordering a pair of glasses with my near and distance corrections (for driving, watching TV and general activities) and another pair with my near and mid-range corrections (for computer work, looking at items on store shelves, sewing, etc.) This has worked great for me in terms of vision, but it's been inconvenient because I need to switch glasses often throughout the day, and occasionally forget to take both pairs with me when I leave home.

So, yesterday, I finally went to an eye surgeon to discuss the possibility of laser surgery. As it turns out, I am not a good candidate for the surgery. I wasn't surprised, because I already understood that not all types of farsightedness can be corrected surgically. The farsightedness I have is simply due to my age, and may continue to worsen for another 20 years or so. While the surgeon didn't refuse to do the surgery, he told me that it would only help for about 5 years, and after 10 years, I'd very likely be back in the position I am now.

What he did suggest, though, was that I try contacts to correct certain aspects of my vision, then wear glasses with them as needed. He gave me two scenarios to consider, either of which would enable me to have just one pair of glasses instead of two.

The first scenario would be to try "monovision" contacts, wherein one lens would correct my distance vision and the other would correct my mid-range vision. This would leave me needing over-the-counter reading glasses for close work. He gave me sample lenses to try, which I wore for several hours yesterday. I think I can get used to wearing contacts, but wearing a very different prescription in each eye is difficult to say the least. I'm don't think I can do it, and in fact, am not willing to even try them again today.

My other option would be to wear contacts to correct only my distance vision. I would wear these lenses all the time and would be able to drive and do general activities with them. I would wear a pair of prescription bi-focals along with the contacts whenever I am on the computer, reading, sewing, etc. This sounds like a much more comfortable option for me.

Of course, my other option would be to continue switching back and forth between my two pairs of glasses. It's inconvenient, but it works.

In any event, I have to go to my regular optometrist to be examined for contacts. (The doctor I saw yesterday only does the surgical evaluations and surgeries, not routine glasses or contacts exams.) Only then will I find out what kind of contacts I'll need, if I choose that route.

Having never worn contacts before, I don't know the first thing about getting the best price on them. I read recently that Costco may be the least expensive, at least for some brands. Anyone else have other suggestions?

As for the glasses, I'm sure I'll be ordering mine online from Zenni Optical. I ordered my current two pairs of glasses there last year and when the doctor "read" them yesterday and compared them to my written prescription, he said they had been made perfectly. I was glad to hear that, because Zenni is much less expensive than anywhere else I checked, even Wal-Mart.

Have any of you been in a similar situation? Would you opt for contacts AND glasses, or just keep switching between the two pairs of glasses? Would you try tri-focals again, knowing that if you couldn't get used to them, it would be money wasted? I know only I can make the decision, but I'm curious what you think about all of this.

Contact Lens Questions

Are there any readers who wear monovision contacts, where one contact corrects distance vision and the other corrects near vision? It's the equivalent of having bifocals, only with contacts. If you do, and you're willing to let me pick your brain a little, please email me at imannies (at) gmail.com.

Thanks!

If Only I Had More....

I took a quiz on Facebook yesterday called "Things You Wish You Had More Of". It consisted of a list of ten "things", most of them conceptual rather than material. The goal was to rank them in your own personal order of importance.

Because there was no right or wrong answer, there was no "score", only a "compatibility matching" of your answers to those of Facebook friends who had also taken the quiz.

If my memory is correct, the ten items on the list were:

Money
Time to myself
Creativity
Respect
Beauty
Fame
Athleticism
Education
Friends
Confidence

I can't remember exactly how I ordered all of them, but I do know "Time to myself" was at the top of my list, and "Athleticism" was last. Concepts that deal with how I view myself (creativity, education, respect) all ranked high, while those that deal with how others see me (fame, beauty, having lots of friends) were in the bottom half.

Although "Money" would probably rank high on many a list, it fell somewhere near the middle for me. Sure, it's important, but it's not the most important thing on the list for me.

Also conspicuously absent from the list are health and faith. Wouldn't those shake the order up a bit? I think both hold significant importance to most of us.

How would you order your list? Are there things you'd drop from the list and others you would add?

Of Dog Bites and Law Suits

For those of you who don't know, around this time last year Shane was bitten by a neighbor's dog. The bite was quite serious. Because of its location (about 6 inches above the wrist, where there are many nerves, tendons and ligaments that operate the hand), and because of Shane's type of work (he's an ironworker), our doctor would not release him to return to work for nine days.

The neighbor in question is a ne'er-do-well sort, and true to her nature, she took no responsibility for her dog. She didn't even offer an apology, let alone offer to help with bills or provide us with the name and phone number of her insurance agent.

Our city does not require a vicious dog to be euthanized, and in fact, it took many conversations with our local police, animal control and city councilman to force her to get rid of the dog, which was a pit bull mix. But she finally did send the dog elsewhere.

However, there was still the issue of recovering our financial losses. In addition to the ambulance bill (which the EMTs insisted on), the emergency room bill and our primary care physician's bill, there were nine days of lost wages to consider. Shane also lost 72 hours worth of benefits that would have been paid into his retirement and pension accounts, had he been able to work. All together, it amounted to a few thousand dollars.

When we retained our attorney, that's exactly what we asked for, with just enough extra tacked on to cover the attorney's fees. We weren't asking for a "pain and suffering" amount. We simply wanted to regain what we'd lost.

Our attorney, however, was more aggressive, as I suppose a good attorney should be. He called today saying that a settlement had been offered. It was a good offer, yet he advised us to counter offer for a little more.

Shane and I took some time to consider the offer separately, then compared notes and had come to nearly the same decision. Call it superstition, or karma, "what goes around comes around" or maybe just doing the right thing, but we each had decided we didn't want to counter for more. The offer they were making was considerably more than we'd asked for or anticipated. Neither of us could see the point in being greedy. Things have been going very well for us lately, and I, especially, felt that to ask for more was tempting fate -- opening a door to negativity.

We also agreed on what we should do with the small windfall after the outstanding medical bills have been paid. After toying with the idea of using the money to building (or at least start) a detached garage, which we need badly, we decided instead to apply most of it to our auto loan. It won't pay it off, but it will put a very big dent in the balance. First we are going to take a portion of the money to put privacy gates up on either side of our house, effectively extending the privacy fence the neighbor installed after it was to late to keep her dog contained. Whatever is left will go toward the auto loan.

What do you think? Would you have countered for more? Would you have spent the money on things you needed or would you have done something fun with it, like take a vacation? Would you and your spouse have disagreed on these things? Shane and I were completely in tune with our decisions; I'm curious how others would have handled it.

A Question of Value

Yesterday, JD over at Get Rich Slowly wrote about how the choices we make when buying goods affects our environment. While I might get into that discussion some other time, I want to touch upon one of the points he made, that of "pursuing quality" in our selections.

Value, in my opinion, is a balance between getting a quality item that promises to be long-lived, and getting it at a good price.

Having lived through some pretty lean times, especially when I was a single mom, many times I felt I had to go with bottom-dollar pricing, even if the item's quality was bottom-dollar, too. The majority of the time, I made out just fine. But there were more than a handful of times when I'd buy something of cheap price and quality, only to have to replace it again (and again). Had I just decided to (or been able to) fork out a little more money at the outset, I probably would have had a longer-lasting item for less money.

When I met Shane, he was a little more "spendy" than I am. He wasn't over the top by any means, but if he really wanted something, he didn't hesitate to buy it then and there.

Over time, our spending styles have merged. Now we research before we buy, figuring out what features we need in a product, what we don't need, and what average prices run. Many times I'm able to talk him out of buying items with more options than we need, and he's been able to convince me to go ahead and spend the money on the options we do need. Whether we're buying a car or a coffee maker, we try to find the best value, not just the best price.

That being said, here are a few things that we've been willing to pay full price for when we couldn't find or weren't able to wait for a sale:

Good shoes: Shane's job requires specifically-styled work boots and like many people, tennis shoes are a mainstay in my wardrobe. As much as we wear our shoes and boots -- usually 12 or more hours a day, 7 days a week, for each of us -- we won't cut corners. Shane wears Thorogood boots and my shoe of choice is New Balance. Whatever brand you prefer, if you're on your feet a lot, it's probably a good idea to spend a few bucks for comfort, support and quality.

Bedding: Quality sleep is at the top of our list of health requirements. A few years ago we paid full price for a Select Comfort Sleep Number bed and wouldn't hesitate to do it over again.

Tools: Shane uses a lot of tools, both common and specialty, at work and at home. He doesn't insist on the most expensive tools out there, but he does insist on quality. Even poor-quality tools can be expensive, but when tools are used and abused like his are, durability and a replacement guarantee are worth paying for.

My Bosch Universal mixer/blender combo: If you bake a lot of bread, this mixer is worth every penny. I used the well-known brand of stand-up mixer until the gears were stripped from too many batches of heavy dough. The Bosch is made differently, with a belt drive under the mixing bowl. Even with heavy use it has an average life expectancy of 20 years. Well worth the few extra dollars it cost over the other brand.

Reliable transportation: During the aforementioned lean years, I struggled to just keep a vehicle running and could only dream of getting something new enough to be reliable. Finally, enough was enough and I bit the bullet and bought a small truck that was just a year old. I had to take out a loan and the interest rates were horrible, but the peace of mind was worth every penny. Shortly thereafter, I was able to refinance at a better rate, which took a little of the sting out of the purchase.

We have a different vehicle now. My truck was still running fine and looked great, and best of all, it was paid off. But with Kat around, it didn't fit our family anymore, so we bought something more suited to our needs. I hate having a vehicle loan and the resulting payment, but I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE not having to worry about expensive and potential dangerous breakdowns. Our goal is to get out from under our van payment and to save enough money so that we don't have to take out vehicle loans in the future. But until we're in that position, I'll happily (OK, not happily, but willingly) fork out the money each month for a safe and dependable ride.

These are a few of the things that we'll scrimp in other areas in order to be able to afford at full-price, if necessary. Assuming you're here because you consider yourself a fellow "fruggy", what items are you willing to spend full-retail on?

From Huck Finn To Harry Potter

Now that it's almost over, I finally have time to post about Banned Book Week, Sept. 29 through October 6, 2007.

Growing up I was allowed to read anything I wanted, and I raised Jean the same way. I feel the simple act of reading is paramount, followed closely by variety in reading. Much can be learned from the classics, but the same can be said for modern pop fiction. Nothing was/is off limits in our home. I feel that we have the right to read whatever we like, and in fact, should desire to read controversial literature.

During the course of history, some of the least likely of titles have been considered controversial and many books have been banned or challenged. Some later gained acceptance, only to be banned or challenged again at a later time.

According to ALA, at least 42 of the Radcliffe Publishing Course Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century have been the target of ban attempts. Of the novels on their list, I have read a total of 37, the large majority of which were the challenged books (I wish I could say I've read more of the books on this list, but undoubtedly, I was busy reading other controversial books).

Or take a look at this list of 100 books banned from 1990 to 2000. Most of these are novels for young adults. I remember reading many of them when I was in school (many years ago). Most amazing to me is that the picture-search book "Where's Waldo" was banned because of a set of tiny cartoon breasts, and that factual book about human reproduction and puberty were banned for any reason.

So, what do you think? Do you read banned books yourself? Do you let your children read them? How do you decide what is age appropriate for kids and when they are ready to move on to something more "advanced"?

The rule of thumb in our house was that if you needed to ask more than three questions about content (controversial concepts or not), then the book might be too advanced. But it was always alright to read with a dictionary along side.

Flu-zy

This doesn't fall into any category other than me being curious. About flu shots.

I know some people claim they don't get the flu (Shane), others fear they will get the flu from the shot (documentation says no). Some don't believe in preventative vaccines of any kind, and still others swear by them.

I got my flu shot this morning. Now, I can't say I'm scientific proof or anything, but I've never had the flu in winters when I took the vaccine. Of course, I don't always get it in winters when I don't take the vaccine.

What I do know is that I don't have the time or desire to try to run a household, take care of a preschooler and possibly go to a job when I'm sick as a dog with the flu.

Do you get one? Do you get your kids vaccinated, too?