Log in

No account? Create an account

Maybe I should start a new blog, call it "Stoner Thoughts" or something. I dunno, I'm not feeling too creative right now.
But anyways, I'm gonna kinda repeat what I did with my last post. But another topic.
There's an article on studentlifenetwork about a school board in Canada temporarily banning social media platforms Instagram and Snapchat, along with Netflix, in a test to see if it would decrease internet consumption rates. Well, "temporary" - they say it's temporary, but taxation was supposed to be temporary. Someone made the argument in the comments section of this article's posting on Facebook that "high school is one thing, but post-secondary is a whole other deal you're paying them".
And that's when I realized something. I had a bit of a lightbulb moment, I guess.
I'm just wrapping up university, 6 frickin years of my life for a 4 year program (at least I have some job security upon graduation, they're always looking for nurses). I could never look at the tuition breakdown every year, seeing what costs I'm paying into, simply because it maddened me. I was mad that my program's nursing club is perpetually refused funding for our graduation ceremony (pinning, something engrained in nursing culture and tradition, the only time we're allowed to wear the traditional nursing caps because apparently they're somehow political and are banned from general convocation) and forced to raise the money ourselves while they force every student to pay for varsity sports. I never played, I never watched, I was NEVER involved. So why am I being FORCED to pay for this, can't I at least opt out? Nope. Sports gets all the money, even from unwilling folks. That's just the way the world works apparently.
Sorry, touchy subject. Point is, university tuition is paying for your education, and your ability to access educational resources that allow you to fulfill and enrich your studies. That is the service you are paying for. On a fundamental 21st century human level, I get it, I really do. "It's one thing to ban these two social media platforms and Netflix in public high schools, but WE'RE PAYING for post-secondary!" But the fact of the matter is your tuition is covering educational costs, at the core of it. And Snapchat, Instagram, and Netflix are not educational. Netflix is the only one that has the potential to challenge that statement, but as far as my limited knowledge of technology goes you can't just ban part of a website on a wifi network it's an all or nothing thing, especially on such a big scale as university-provided "public" wifi. So are you really being denied the services you're paying for? No. No you are not. You are more than welcome to pay for built-in wifi on your tablets, get USB wifi sticks, use phone data, or wait until you get home to use your own wifi to use those apps and websites.

But wait! "One reason wifi (and a set of computers for student use, actually) exists in schools is to provide equal access to tools all students need to succeed, regardless of social class. Mind you, the TDSB is home to students with vastly different levels of financial resources: according to a 2014 report, 26% of students’ families earn over $100,000 a year while 28% earn less than $30,000 (approaching the poverty line). This isn’t a situation I’m making up."

I'm 25. I'm a millennial. Facebook was becoming a thing in my middle/high school years, people were just starting to get their hands onto smartphones and related apps by around grade 11 (2008-2009). By the time I was in grade 13 (2010-2011, which just means I did additional grade 12 courses at my high school after graduation, due to needing credits for university) it was pretty commonplace to have people using Facebook and Instagram. I didn't see Snapchat used until university, but I have a good number of friends who seem to love it and use it regularly (Instagram does the job for me, but I have an account anyways). So I guess I am starting to get a little old where social media use among social circles is considered. And maybe my age in general shows when it comes to this, because as a nurse I know how the teen brain develops, and how that need for being around peers and being accepted and whatnot is part of growing up but at the same time I am a 25 year old female who functions just fine with the use of texting in my friends circle. Or using Facebook messenger. Point is, we don't rely on posting pictures to Snapchat and Instagram to socialize. We miss each others' posts on social media all the time, and it doesn't impact our social life. We see posts late, so what? At least you saw it. So maybe I'm just biased when I say what I'm about to say.

But to claim that cutting off Instagram and Snapchat is an attack on equality? To say that's such a joke is putting it lightly. It's such a first world problem it hurts. Maybe Facebook means nothing to the current generation of teens and young adults (does still using Facebook show my age? Good God, please no) but there's no mention of that being considered for the list of websites/apps to cut access to.

I'm not saying "just go out on your bike and go to your friend's house rahrahrah goodoldays", but to claim cutting off access to TWO apps (no mention of Facebook, which is at least one social platform that easily connects people, and heck even Twitter that I KNOW "young people" love to use) used purely for the sake of socializing through a medium other than in-person is an attack on equality? It's an attack on basic freedoms? As though the school board is locking students up in their homes and refusing to let them out? Excuse the irony/pun, but that's rich. You're still surrounded by peers, if that social media post is just SO LIFE OR DEATH IMPORTANT TO SEE NOW you probably have at least one peer with access who can show you. But I'm pretty sure even in a world where social media is increasingly involved in adolescent socialization no post is so important it can't wait until the end of the day. And in this day and age, even if kids for some weird reason don't have wifi at home, there's public wifi. And something tells me if you're SO DAMN POOR you can't afford wifi you're not going to be able to afford a phone that can access social media platforms. It's these sorts of fucked up priorities that are feeding into the social issues we have now. So maybe let's stop focusing on wifi access as some fundamental human right for children and use it appropriately? Because last I checked children aren't being kept away from their peers. They can still interact and grow without constant connection to the internet. Pretty sure there are studies somewhere showing the detriment of screen time and excessive social media use in adolescents anyways.

May. 9th, 2017

I'm doing things a bit differently for this post. I just watched the vaccination episode of Bill Nye Saves the World on Netflix, and it got me thinking.
I've been told how amazing this show is by friends, but only one said to me "it's very biased but it's still amazing/informative". And at first, I didn't really see the bias, like yes it's pro-science but... I don't know, I guess I saw enough of "the other side" represented in the panel discussion to justify that this is factual enough.
But I'm a nurse, I just graduated from nursing school a couple weeks ago. I still have to get hired and study for/write my licensing exam, but I'm allowed to work as a provisional nurse so I think I'm now qualified enough to call myself a real nurse, no longer a student. I was recently educated too, so my information is rather up to date. These are my qualifications, and to some of you they may be considered biased, but I'm a Canadian nurse our education is highly sought after on an international level. Far more than American registered nurses. That's a fact, can be found in statistics of hiring requirements in job ads in the western world.
In 4th year, last semester, I took community nursing. It was a joke of a class, my clinical literally had me utilizing my university access to academic journals reading for research findings, but that's beside the point. In 4th year community you have some certifications you're expected to complete, and one of them is the immunization certification. Beyond re-learning intramuscular injections, there's a lot of education we have to be briefed on. So, there's an online module we have to read through (actually there's 2 if I recall correctly, but this might vary province to province), and then get tested on. You need to get 100% on it, but you have as many tries as you need to get it and they tell you which answer is wrong so you don't go scouring for every question. It's basic stuff really, but we learn a LOT that for my class acted as a refresher from microbiology (but apparently even in British Columbia that's not a required course for every nursing school, which I find interesting) in regards to virus transmission, and then how the vaccines work, including ingredients. We then learn about passive and active immunity, and the difference between immunity acquired from vaccines versus naturally acquired through surviving the illness (yes, there is a difference! This is why you're supposed to get the chicken pox [varicella] vaccine in your 40s/50s even if you've had the illness). And then we're tested on our province's vaccine schedule, and in relation to that how to communicate/educate parents asking questions or who seem uncertain. That's when we touched on that discussion point the ex-anti-vaxxer said, "I could just SEE the pediatrician roll his eyes in his head". A point that is literally the reason we have a President Trump, but that's a whole other discussion.
Anyways, so when I say what I'm about to say next, I think I have every right to say as a university educated individual in the field. Not just someone who's "done a lot of research on Google". I'm not a Google expert.

This show very much has its own agenda. And I think it ironically went against one of the VERY important points brought up by that ex-antivaxxer.
In his end speech, he explains herd immunity in a really cool way, and goes on to explain how herd immunity only works if everyone who can do it is doing it. And if you're choosing to do it because "I can handle it", well the poor vulnerable immunocompromised/allergic person can't handle it you're selfish you're not thinking of the rest of society I don't want to get sick so you should do your part.
That's not wrong. It is a fact unto itself, "why should I suffer and get sick because you didn't do something everyone should be doing to keep people from being sick" makes sense.
BUT it's still closing off the conversation with the other side. We ended up with President Trump because of this very rhetoric, that I'm smart you're dumb because I understand science and you question it. You're "a deplorable". That's kind of what I got out of this speech, and it really made me lose a bit of respect for him. Because there's something even more important that "that poor vulnerable child that can't get vaccinated!" And I think it speaks to American biases on the whole.
The biggest issue with people electing to not get vaccinated because "I eat super healthy!" or "those bad ingredients!" (or, the worst, "autism!!"), heck I personally lump religion into that too but I know some might not and I don't want to start an argument on freedom of religion, is that when you weaken herd immunity, you risk these illnesses coming back and developing a strains not covered by vaccination. And you know what it is to be able to say "I can manage [getting sick] because I make a lot of money/can take time off/etc"? It's the ultimate sign of privilege. Not because you can finacially swing it, no this has nothing to do with THAT education, it's about the privilege you have BECAUSE of vaccination. Because you've never seen the full extent of the deteriment these illnesses cause IF YOU LIVE THROUGH THEM. Modern medicine only saves so much, polio still paralyzes you partially or fully. Which affects your ability to work, and contribute to society. And even if you lucked out and weren't partially paralyzed you'd still have something keeping you going to the hospital, or to clinics, or any other form of health care. And you know what that does? It drains the already struggling health care system. The point Bill either missed or deliberately avoided completely was the fact that especially in American health care where you can be denied insurance based on what they consider pre-existing conditions, a world where these illnesses come back means no access to adequate health care. And in places like Canada, we just might implode from all the stress being put on the system. Our taxes would be through the roof, and the availability of resources would be minimal because they'd be stretched so damn thin. BY ILLNESSES 100% PREVENTABLE IF EVERYONE GOT VACCINATED AND FOLLOWED THE OUTLINED SCHEDULE! They didn't just thoughtlessly slap together a schedule, it's done to be the most protective for your child and everyone else in the most minimally invasive way. The more you change the schedule the more pokes your kid will get, and they're going to start remembering it and hating you for it because it could've been done earlier before they can retain memories, and protecting them more overall. To say you're so special you can be exempt from vaccines or following the schedule is to be the living embodiment of privilege, so PLEASE check your privilege and do some serious research, asking questions of your nurses hotline or doctors as needed. That's what they're there for. And there's so many around, if you don't like one ask another. But please, don't stop asking. "Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't work".

So if you still don't care about that other sick kid, just think like that. No matter what, it will come back to affect you somehow. So let's avoid said effects altogether.
This is one of my more random rants.
It's about the Grey's Anatomy episode I just watched.
I just want to vent my frustration, really. Read at your own peril, and by default I'm making this public. Because fuck man. I can't even.

I started this show right before school recommenced. I don't know why, but it was like how I felt about Outlander but to a less significant degree; I felt this compelling urge to start watching it. So I did. Now I'm almost done season 7 (which is an incredible feat for me at this point in time because not only do I not understand how people can marathon multiple seasons per week or finish series within a couple of weeks, but I've had probably the heaviest courseload a person could have going on in the meantime - this is impressive for me). This one now-main character, who is pregnant, gets thrown through a windshield after a sudden head-on collision with a truck. Her name is Callie, short for Calliope, and I'm like 99% sure the creator chose her name specifically so that she could further push the network execs to allow for a musical episode.
Yep. You read that right. A MUSICAL EPISODE. In a MEDICAL DRAMA. That's right, MEDICAL. DRAMA. This character is basically having a near-death experience and like, what, she's imagining the doctors around her singing while she's singing? At one point there's a sex montage. YES YOU READ THAT RIGHT A SEX MONTAGE. HALFWAY THROUGH AN EPISODE CENTERED AROUND A MAIN CHARACTER'S NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE!
I mean what the actual fuck were the idiots who created and wrote this episode thinking?!?!?!?!!!!!

I won't lie, at least one actor surprised me with their singing voice. But otherwise it was just... random. I mean seriously they had The Fray and Snow Patrol songs in there. Two Snow Patrol songs, actually. The episode literally started out with the song Chasing Cars, and frankly the degree of black humour a person has to think that opening an episode where the last episode ends with a heavily hinted at car crash due to an unexpected SMASH and then white-screen and this episode continues directly from that point? Like that's a whole new level of black humour. So kudos. But at the same time, I don't think it was supposed to be funny. Like half of this episode felt like. It was just downright inappropriate.

But that's not the main reason why I'm ranting. No, I can deal with the singing (not really). I can cope with the fact they thought it'd be appropriate to have a montage of not just one or two but MULTIPLE main characters making out or having sex in an episode centered on another main character's fight for not just her own life, but her NOT-viable baby. That's right. NOT VIABLE. If the fucking writers actually their fucking research before writing this episode, they'd know that the earliest fetuses are truly considered viable is 25 weeks, not 23. YES, technically some fetuses can survive at 23 weeks, but that is the absolute earliest cut-off. And barely a quarter of all babies born at such a preterm age actually survive (20-35% to be specific, a result that anyone can find if they know how to open Google).
Heck, I CAN EVEN DEAL WITH THAT because TECHNICALLY fetuses can survive at 23 weeks with A FUCKTON of assistance, and even then are at the absolute highest risk of developmental delays among other types of issues preterms face. I can live with the fact that somehow Seattle Grace-Mercy West is a hub for neurosurgery, cardio-thoracic surgery, AND NICU/peds simultaneously. I can get on board with the fact that somehow this hospital that had to merge with another hospital (that they describe multiple times as being an hour away from original [Mercy West] before said merger) to be able to survive financially somehow has the ability to provide top-notch care for ALL OF THESE specialties. Because seriously? There are at least 4 levels of NICUs that exist. Level 1 being a basic nursery at a small hospital that rarely gets used (like Chilliwack), Level 4 being BC Womens/Childrens sort of deal. I can accept the fact that somehow this hospital is capable of providing all the necessary equipment to keep a 23 week old baby alive and growing.
If it weren't for the fucking OB.

I'm a nursing student. Almost graduated, literally less than a week to go (plus exams) and then one last semester. That's it. I'm a 4th year RN student. In 3rd year we took maternity, and you are taught pretty fast in that class about all the things that can go wrong with mother and baby. And maybe I'm a tad biased because literally my first patient on the maternity floor where I attend school was a 20-something mother who was in for pre-term labour, and then my theory class project was on preterm labour. Maybe I learned more than the average 3rd year maternity student does in the specific context of preterm labour, because of not just that but I'm a writer and one story I worked on during this time sort of took that real-life experience with one lady and put it into a fictiocious one. I had to learn the protocol for how OBs and maternity RNs deal with preterm labour, because not only did I work with one patient who went through this, but I wrote about it. So I dunno, MAYBE it's just me that knows the extent of it. But I really doubt it because I recall it at least came up in my theory on at least two occasions. One of which being when my group had to present on our topic of preterm labour. And then we took a MOSBY quiz in clinical. Ok on reflection I take it back, it's not just me.
3rd year RN students know that when a pregnant woman is contracting, one of the first things you do is inject mom with steroids. Not the steroids the lay person thinks of, that bulks up muscles. No. I'm talking corticosteroids. The ones that people receive when they're asthmatic children or adults. The ones that, for preterm fetuses, promote rapid lung development. They do this right away. Why? Because it takes 2-3 doses over 18 hours for said corticosteroids to reach full effect. These corticosteroids are given to promote lung development because before week... 34 or 35, if I recall correctly, fetuses have not actually developed the pleura (the fluid membrane around the lungs, that makes it possible for your lungs to expand and retract when you breath because without it your lungs would rub against your chest wall and you can hear that shit [it's a gross sound] and it can fuck up your lung function). Their lungs are nowhere near what is considered full capacity for a fetus before that point, pleura-aside. So the first thing any OB with a functioning brain would do when they see a pregnant woman is having a contraction is give IM corticosteroids. Or an equivalent. Because even if the mother doesn't get the full dose of steroids before delivery, research shows any dose is better than no dose. And at 23 weeks? Where mortality is upwards to like, 70%? NO SHIT THE FIRST THING YOU'RE GOING TO DO WHEN YOU SEE ANY CONTRACTION START IS SHOOT UP MOM WITH STEROIDS TO THE HIP OR THIGH.

So you see, when the Chief of Surgery in Greys basically asks the current OB if she's up for the task of what's coming (dealing with a pregnant trauma patient who is barely on the cusp of being pregnant enough to allow for fetal viability) and she's like "no" and by default they somehow are able to chopper in the OB that left Greys many seasons ago to work two states away [in a spin-off TV show that does not interest me in the least]... and said OB [Addison/Dr Montgomery] tells off the new OB [Lucy/fuck-if-I-can-keep-up-with-the-names-of-new-doctors-by-this-point-in-the-show] for not having given these steroids, as now she can't do an emergency c-section without basically killing the fetus...

You see my problem? I can deal with the fact that they decided to make a main character's near-death experience into some cheesy musical. Including songs that ranged from not-half-bad to hardly-appropriate. I can deal with that shit. But I find it impossible to believe that a ATTENDING (that means that you at bare fucking minimum have been an intern [1 year] and a resident [4-5 years], and while you might not specialize until partway through your residency that's still, in this case, at bare minimum 3 years of specialty training as an OB/GYN) would not remember to have given a pregnant critical trauma patient corticosteroids as soon as said patient arrived at the hospital.

I've put up with a lot of legal and ethical incongruencies in this show. I've put up with misinformation about the roles of doctors. I've put up with watching them do certain aspects of procedures wrong, or use the wrong terminology, or explain something in a way that doesn't make much sense. I can put all that aside, because it's never been so glaringly obvious as it has been in this one situation. There is no fucking way that a Chief of Surgery would hire an attending OB who does not know to give steroids to a pregnant woman in preterm labour. Heck, not even only in preterm labour situations - even after any sort of incident that affects the mother physically, as a pregnant woman fighting for her life is at such high risk of preterm labour (since it's easier for the body to get rid of what is arguably a major drain on resources than it is to keep it in to let it continue to grow). And even then in maternity shit can hit the fan fast, when you least expect it, and advance unpredictably fast, so better to give mom a dose of steroids when arguably she doesn't need it than wait until she does need it, because by then it might be too late.
As evidenced by this scene (in S7E18).

Like fuck, man, NO. Just no. I know "it's just a show" and not many people would pay attention to such details (but maybe not really because you would be surprised how many nursing students and instructors and nurses in general actually watch this show), but would it kill them to do some BASIC RESEARCH BEFORE WRITING AN EPISODE? There's drama, and then there's just plain and simple unrealistic. I can put aside some minor mistakes for the sake of drama, but this is just too fucking far.
Mom got me all concerned about clinical when I mentioned how much the instructor reminds me of dad, but now that I've had a few days in clinical... turns out she's nowhere near as bad. Like she's still someone you want to overprepare for (she actually sent someone home on the 2nd day of real clinical. SECOND. DAY), but she's not as scary/intimidating as I expected. It's like she's a different person in clinical, really, because in theory classes she could be quite scary. Almost like it's her comfort zone? That's what I'd have to guess. Apparently she's more used to 3rd year students so I guess that explains it (she's used to students with more of a foundation... which may explain why she's already ready to throw two patients at us instead of one - when I did clinical last year it took until mid-February for them to start doing it, and only on some students not all... then again the workload in medicine is more demanding than rehab).
But yeah, last year I just hated it. I hated medicine. I'm not an acute care type of person, that much is obvious.
But I never really considered more longterm care as a possibility.
And now that I've thought about it, it makes sense. I always sort of feel like I'm not doing anything with acute care people, like it's always the same damn thing. My instructor summed it up nicely last night, actually. "Here [in rehab] you get to see the fruit of your labours [more so than other units in the hospital]." I guess if I'm going to be working with adults, I'd rather have them in my care for longer than one shift, or a couple of shifts before they get sent somewhere else. I also feel like when it comes to nursing stuff I leave a better impression when I get to know them, versus just one or two encounters, and for it there's a comfort level. I'm alright meeting new people, but to have to do it just about every day at work? Fuck that. It's just too draining. I'd rather work somewhere where you get to actually know people, like rehab or psych. Babies and kids are a different story, I'm just talking adults and seniors right now.
God if they make me do an acute care focus in 4th year I will NOT be happy. I'd rather do rural than acute. And that's saying something, cause I already have a hard enough time living in Prince George (and yes, by default Chilliwack as well) cause I feel it's too small.

Like I always get anxiety related to showing up to clinical the night before and the day of, but this time it tends to wash away by the time I'm actually with the other students in the staff room, or the patients themselves. Last time that anxiety was long-lasting. Didn't go away til I finished clinical that day.

I'm not looking forward to the days we have to trade off with the students in the medicine units. Just hope that won't like, bring back memories, and as a result affect me performance. Cause ugh I really didn't like the medicine unit...
And even after this I'm going to have to do surgery. Like post-op stuff. So basically LOTS of wound care, which ugh is just not my thing. If you ever need a reason to not eat, just look up stage 3, 4, or unstageable pressure ulcers. And just about any diabetic foot ulcer. One of the lab instructors I have LOVES wounds and doesn't seem to understand how they make me cringe and want to gag. Maybe surgical wounds won't be so bad, but when it comes to if they take a turn for the worst (infection), no thanks. Between the sight and smell, sometimes I wonder how I manage to not actually gag. I've said it before and I'll say it again - it takes a special kind of person to not just be able to stomach wound care, but actually enjoy it. The thought of packing a wound just makes my skin crawl. And seeing bone proturde through skin (or worse, a wound so deep - like an unstageable pressure ulcer - that you can see bone)?! Don't even get me started...

So yeah this semester has been a pleasant surprise so far.


note: title is still undecided(/tentative)... and it seriously isn't about women in abusive relationships!

Upon a wall a shelf was built
Home to the most beautiful of dolls
From whom the same hand they were craft.
Perfectly stitched,
With long locks of silk
And eyes brighter than a midnight star.
They spend their days
Admiring the reflection in their boudoir,
Awaiting the day they are taken down.

As time goes on
The eyes they long to hold are not their own
They long for another’s love,
A love that they have never known.
To be special is all they ask
The apple of another’s eye
To be taken from their hollowed spot
No longer standing by.

One day a child arrives
To take a look, and begin to decide.
Since he can now play,
Which doll shall be his lucky bride?

He plucks one off the shelf,
Silent in his game,
All he cares for is his fun
For he believes in nothing more than what he can see.

Watching their kind be taken away
The dolls that remain
Begin to feel an unknown pain
“Am I not good enough?” they wonder. “Do I not deserve to play?
“Why do the others get to join in his game?”

One by one, the dolls come down,
Off the shelf from where they were found
By that same young boy who thought he had
The right to play with each and every one.
Each doll he returned had lost her lustre
Stitches torn,
Her hair a knotted chaos.
Eyes once lovelier than an Indian summer have turned to glass
Reflecting nothing but the emptiness
That being a child’s toy can possess

She is back upon the shelf she had longed to leave
Wondering if she can ever truly be free.
If no one wants a battered doll,
Is she destined to remain upon her shelf, forever lonely?