Never did I think carrying a baby would be this difficult until I myself went through all the ordeals in the past two months.
Since I was 5 weeks, I've been suffering from hyperemesis (severe morning sickness that prevents me from keeping down food). I was under a lot of pressure that the baby won't have enough nutrient because I was not eating at all. I had my ups and downs, during my downs, I wasn't able to take anything, including water, and would start throwing up bloods and acids cuz my stomach was empty. During my ups, lunch was the only meal that I could keep so I usually had in-n-out cheese burger for some weird craving reason (to be honest, I am never a fan of in-n-out, but A is).
Everyone told me once I move on to my second trimester, I will be much better. Hoping that one day I can start eating normally (including my favorite pop corn chicken), I counted down every day for my second trimester to come.
Three weeks ago, during one of my frequent prenatal check-up (because of hyperemesis, I see my doc every 2 weeks), I told doc that I had a mild abdominal pain. Doc said it might be because of my frequent throwing up, so she suggested me to take prevacids, tums, maalox etc for stomach acid. The following 3 days was probably the worst weekend ever, the pain became severe that I could not stand or walk. What's amazing is that I had my engagement shoot scheduled on Sat, so I endured the pain to finish the shoot. The moment the photographer left, I started throwing up like crazy in A's car. Now that I think of that day, I don't even know how I managed to sustain myself while having tremendous pain.
Since none of the drugs the doc suggested worked, A decided to send me to urgent care at my doc's office. I was transferred to the ER at the hospital right away cuz I was dehydrated and they need other specialists to diagnose my abdominal pain. That was a very long day. Because of the pregnancy, the techniques they could use are limited, first they tried ultrasound, but couldn't figure out the reason, then they decided to try MRI since CT scan had a lot of radiation that may harm the baby. I went to the doc at 9am in the morning, by the time I finished my MRI, it's almost 4pm.
Then a surgeon came talk to me 30 min later, he said they suspected it's appendicitis, but they were not sure because MRI is less accurate than CT scan which they can't use on me. He still decided to operate because if it's acute appendicitis, both the baby and I would be very dangerous if not treated right away. The surgery was scheduled at 6pm, I really felt like I was chasing after time.
Although I haven't had any water/food since 9am (they didn't allow me to take any cuz I might need a surgery, while waiting in the operation room, I still started throwing up. Whenever I threw up, the pain worsened.
I am not sure how long the surgery lasted, the moment I woke up, I was sent back to the regular room already. I heard A's voice, the doc's voice and also the baby's heartbeat (they were checking if the baby was doing ok after the surgery). I heard A said to the doc happily "the heartbeat is still very fast." I was so relieved. A told me the surgery was successful and it was really the appendicitis that caused all my pain. Doc was glad that we went to the hospital in time, because if I came a day late, the appendix would burst and they wouldn't be able to save the baby cuz I would be in a very critical condition. I read their medical report later, there's already some rupture, I guess I was very lucky.
I stayed in the hospital for 4 days. The first 3 days were unbearable. Since I am pregnant, they couldn't give me pain medicine as often as they give to other patients. I constantly felt the pain and couldn't do anything about it. Also, I couldn't pee, so they inserted a catheter into my body (very very awkward feeling). To help my recovery, the nurse came get me up 3 times a day to walk in the hall. I could barely walk, so it took me forever to reach their goal. What's worse is that because I have hyperemesis, if I throw up, the wound would hurt even more, so they still didn't allow me to drink/eat anything. I was IV injected for 4 days.
I was released on the fourth day, was that the end? No, fri I was back to the ER because of the complication after the surgery and finally went back home on sat. It's been 2 weeks, and I am slowly recovering. Now I still throw up many times a day, but at least, I can stay home, not in the hospital. And thank God that the baby and I are both ok.
Btw, the other days I was googling pregnancy and appendicitis, I found two women with similar experiences. One was in her 20 weeks when she had the surgery, she lost the baby, and the other one was in her 31 weeks, they had to do a c-section to take the baby out and the baby stayed in the hospital for 2 months. I guess God really blessed my family and I deeply appreciate.
Sometimes I get frustrated at my tough pregnancy, but after all the ordeals (or maybe more later), I came to realize that God chose this less taken pregnancy road for me to teach me to how to be strong for the ones I love.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Transcending The Road Not Taken
This title refers to Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken", which is a popular poem from the 80s. In high school I grew up reading the likes of Robert Frost and Edgar Allen Poe and from the perspective of a full fledgling adult, it often feels like their poems carry a message of innocence lost in our distant past.
I guess what I am trying to say is that our lives at least S. and I take the most unusual twists and turns. Take a look at our time together (which we'll save for another time) or S.'s recent encounter with the "silent killer".
I, for one, feel that Frost's poetry deploys fairly simple rhymes and his message, which must be deeper are lost between the words. For instance, the "somewhere ages to ages hence" is one way Frost tries to transcend time. All poets try to do this. Some less effectively than others. Like my favorite poet of all time, Percy Shelley. However, I digress.
Frost is trying to transcend time with "ages to ages". Otherwise, this poem would be a simple choosing of door 1 or door 2. And...I choose door 2. Its more than this and that is why the message remains.
I once dreamed an unusual dream on my headstone, "Engineer, blah, blah, blah". The truth is that I have always wanted, "Philosopher, blah, blah, blah". Was this the road taken? Or was there a road I should've taken that is "less traveled by and that has made all the difference"? I know one thing that I married someone who did.
I guess what I am trying to say is that our lives at least S. and I take the most unusual twists and turns. Take a look at our time together (which we'll save for another time) or S.'s recent encounter with the "silent killer".
I, for one, feel that Frost's poetry deploys fairly simple rhymes and his message, which must be deeper are lost between the words. For instance, the "somewhere ages to ages hence" is one way Frost tries to transcend time. All poets try to do this. Some less effectively than others. Like my favorite poet of all time, Percy Shelley. However, I digress.
Frost is trying to transcend time with "ages to ages". Otherwise, this poem would be a simple choosing of door 1 or door 2. And...I choose door 2. Its more than this and that is why the message remains.
I once dreamed an unusual dream on my headstone, "Engineer, blah, blah, blah". The truth is that I have always wanted, "Philosopher, blah, blah, blah". Was this the road taken? Or was there a road I should've taken that is "less traveled by and that has made all the difference"? I know one thing that I married someone who did.
The Backside of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand
What does it mean to be a revolutionary today?
For the past month, I have watched Zizek's various discussions on this topic and even ventured to read his book, "In Defense of Lost Causes". And yet after this inundation of media and information in the brain, I am still struggling with this question and what the hell Zizek is saying half the time.
I do have to admit there have been brief lapses of epiphany, where I find my self grasping the "dialectic" and his method of materialism. Then I read other blogs and blown away by some pedantic professor take on Zizek (often what they say is cumbersome and after spending a great deal of the last few years studying Marx, Hegel, and Kant, it is boorish, I mean, really, can you see one of these professors inciting a revolution in the first place? Were Che, Stalin, Marx, not that they are model revolutionists more like totalitarians, professors? No revolution was ever taken down by logical ramifications. Gulag, guillotine, yes. Logical, empirical, pragamatic musings, no.
On one of these clear days or lapses, I find myself thinking about Zizek's discussion of Wendy Brown's premise of the democratic paradox, which says that , "a democracy needs a permanent influx of anti-democractic self-questioning in order to remain a living democracy." I think there is a kernal of truth here that Brown and Zizek have unmasked. I am all for the democractic institution and yet, I have thought these thoughts before, that America can only exist as the beacon and the only beacon of democracy. What is this so?
As many philosophers have known, democracy quoted by Zizek (Spinoza and Tocqueville) is inchoate, simply empty without any philosphical underpinning and without any infrastructure. It exists only to dissipate power, I think. Our founding fathers, I believe, understood one thing, that a whole lot of power corrupts and they were witnesses of this. If they can divide power into three different branches they maybe they thought this could be accomplished. But who would've thought that somewhere in the future, banks and greedy executives could concentrate all this power and instead of Adam Smith's invisible hand, you get the invisible slap and mind you, that is the backside of the hand.
Regulatory powers are important in a society. The SEC does have a function to protect it citizens from sinister forces that wear a tie and suit. However, with some empowerment and real change organizations have no effect or influence on society. What we get is not anarchy, but the breakdown of institutions. Zizek knows this and understands this paradox. Minor revolutions or changes are really nothing. They sum to zero in the macro environment. Major ones change all of society. Imagine cultural revolution, Stalin, Marx. What is one to do?
This is one reason there is a need for the understanding of what it is means to be a revolutionary. Gandhi and Martin Luther King promoted it. In today's society, we need to make the message simple and not pedantic. Change is needed, real change -AX
For the past month, I have watched Zizek's various discussions on this topic and even ventured to read his book, "In Defense of Lost Causes". And yet after this inundation of media and information in the brain, I am still struggling with this question and what the hell Zizek is saying half the time.
I do have to admit there have been brief lapses of epiphany, where I find my self grasping the "dialectic" and his method of materialism. Then I read other blogs and blown away by some pedantic professor take on Zizek (often what they say is cumbersome and after spending a great deal of the last few years studying Marx, Hegel, and Kant, it is boorish, I mean, really, can you see one of these professors inciting a revolution in the first place? Were Che, Stalin, Marx, not that they are model revolutionists more like totalitarians, professors? No revolution was ever taken down by logical ramifications. Gulag, guillotine, yes. Logical, empirical, pragamatic musings, no.
On one of these clear days or lapses, I find myself thinking about Zizek's discussion of Wendy Brown's premise of the democratic paradox, which says that , "a democracy needs a permanent influx of anti-democractic self-questioning in order to remain a living democracy." I think there is a kernal of truth here that Brown and Zizek have unmasked. I am all for the democractic institution and yet, I have thought these thoughts before, that America can only exist as the beacon and the only beacon of democracy. What is this so?
As many philosophers have known, democracy quoted by Zizek (Spinoza and Tocqueville) is inchoate, simply empty without any philosphical underpinning and without any infrastructure. It exists only to dissipate power, I think. Our founding fathers, I believe, understood one thing, that a whole lot of power corrupts and they were witnesses of this. If they can divide power into three different branches they maybe they thought this could be accomplished. But who would've thought that somewhere in the future, banks and greedy executives could concentrate all this power and instead of Adam Smith's invisible hand, you get the invisible slap and mind you, that is the backside of the hand.
Regulatory powers are important in a society. The SEC does have a function to protect it citizens from sinister forces that wear a tie and suit. However, with some empowerment and real change organizations have no effect or influence on society. What we get is not anarchy, but the breakdown of institutions. Zizek knows this and understands this paradox. Minor revolutions or changes are really nothing. They sum to zero in the macro environment. Major ones change all of society. Imagine cultural revolution, Stalin, Marx. What is one to do?
This is one reason there is a need for the understanding of what it is means to be a revolutionary. Gandhi and Martin Luther King promoted it. In today's society, we need to make the message simple and not pedantic. Change is needed, real change -AX
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)