Freelance: 6 Pro-Life Priorities for Healthcare Reform

One of the fruits of my readings on health insurance.

http://truthandcharityforum.org/top-6-pro-life-aims-for-health-care-reform/

“The practice of medicine involves the whole human body, so policies about it inevitably express a specific anthropology or philosophical understanding of the human person. National legislation that includes every citizen will have the consequence of enacting one anthropology as opposed to others. Accordingly, health care law has become a test of America’s ability to balance an authentic pluralism, one that is capable of respecting both individual freedom and the moral commitments of other individuals who become funders of it.”

  1. A clear distinction between insurance and medical care – A glaring, but oft-unacknowledged error of the Affordable Care Act is the difference between having health insurance and receiving needed medical care. The former is no guarantee of the latter. The working poor with incomes that set them above the Medicaid threshold have been saddled with low-premium plans that have exorbitant deductibles of up to $13,000, that leave them de facto uninsured and priced-out of healthcare. This problem reveals a gap in concern for certain social groups; it’s part of an anthropology that gives lip service to covering all people, but actually disregards some. Pro-life means pro-life for everyone, so a pro-life policy should seek to increase access for all.
  2. Adequate funding for the severely ill and dying – Euthanasia is a development that pro-life people need to fight. As physician-assisted suicide gains legal traction, insurance companies have incentives to deny expensive care for cancer patients, such as Stephanie Packer, a mother of four diagnosed with late stage cancer.Legalized suicide inverts the practice of medicine, turning patients into dollar amounts instead of lives worth saving, regardless of long is left. The cultural message about the value and purposes of life that is sent by legal suicide is tragic and irreversible. If lives are only valuable when they are pain-free and productive, most of us will soon be in the crosshairs. As the government sets policy, we must demand that it take care of its citizens rather than killing them, and that it tells Americans that life is worth living. This should be an anthropological no-brainer.
  3. A continuation of Hyde restriction on abortion – Presently, the Hyde Amendment, a rider attached annually to the Congressional budget, prohibits federal funding for abortion. It affects Medicaid primarily, but is also present in the ACA. Insurers are not required to cover abortions. States, by contrast, may add abortion coverage or limit it.The principles of the Hyde Amendment permit a level of personal removal for taxpayers who would be funding the procedure that, for many, amounts to murder. Hyde is one of the key compromises that followed the 1973 legalization of abortion. However, it came under fire this campaign season from the Democratic party platform and nominee, Hillary Clinton. In the first week of his presidency, Mr. Trump passed the Hyde rider into a permanent law. For valuing life, it’s a small but important victory. Abortion is a clear-cut case of difference on what it means to be human and who counts as one. Hyde represents one stab at pluralism, a starting point. A committed pro-life healthcare policy will further demonstrate support for women, babies and families through—
  4. Support for prenatal and neonatal care – Pro-life groups are often criticized for caring more about the baby than the mother. If conservatives have a chance to help shape public health policy, we need to make abortion obsolete. Support for pregnant mothers, new moms, and infants, as well as adoption placement need to be readily available so that women in difficult situations aren’t left alone and without options. Raising a child is difficult and demanding work. If we claim to welcome unplanned children, we need to welcome unplanned children, viewing them and their mothers as essential to the social fabric of our country. That’s an anthropology of life that values people and responsibility rather than seeking to abolish the natural consequences of behavior.

Full article  (and the other 2 ideas here): http://truthandcharityforum.org/top-6-pro-life-aims-for-health-care-reform/

Question: Why do you think healthcare exploded onto the political scene during Obama’s presidency? What is at stake in the debate?

Might TV Contribute to Millennials’ Emotional Fragility?

Image resultDavid Brooks has noted that Millennials, while more accomplished, are more “emotionally fragile” than previous generations. He is backed up by this article which includes reports from Psychology Today, that “the average high school kid today has the same level of anxiety as the average psychiatric patient in the early 1950s.”

This fits with my experience. People my age have battled spiraling depression and anxiety since early adolescence or before. I do agree with Brooks that it’s in large part because many of us lack deep convictions and a narrative about what is really meaningful.

In his book, “The Road to Character,” he identifies inside everyone an “Adam I” and an “Adam II.” Adam I is the external person, the face we show to the world, the bearer of “resume virtues,” as he puts it. Adam II is the internal person, the inner compass of wisdom, maturity and kindness or of fragility, shallowness and self-righteousness. Adam II is bearer of the “eulogy virtues.” Brooks says and I agree that the great struggle of being a good person is to bring these two aspects of ourselves together.

I would like to introduce a contributing factor that Brooks does not explore: the saturation of TV, movies and visual media in our lives. In my (limited) experience, development of the Adam II, the inner person, relies on refining our emotional processing of external realities. Yet, in our culture, we almost lack entirely a vocabulary to express this inner thought process and dialogue. Our language is much better suited to the roles of Adam I – naming nouns, like rocks and buildings, and discussing clear, observable markers of achievement such as job titles and salaries. If our words have trouble explaining Adam II, our visual mediums struggle even more and this contributes to the difficulty we have in developing Adam II.

In mediums such as TV shows and films where characters hash out their differences or conquer adventures in visual theatrics, there is almost no method for depicting the inner-transformations that go on in order to develop that wisdom and maturity that characterizes Adam II. Even writers, artists of the silent medium, today criticize older models of novel-writing that spent paragraphs and paragraphs detailing a character’s motivation. In today’s sitcoms or romantic comedies, a character experiencing emotional distress almost always runs away and pouts–be it a child nervous before a performance or a woman scorned. Then, the father, teacher or boyfriend character seeks out the distressed child or girlfriend, listens patiently, gets passed the walls and offers reassurance. This is the model of any TeenDisney or Jude Apatow movie.

From an artistic standpoint, it makes sense. When two characters interact, there is something to display on the screen. When they speak to one another, their thoughts and emotions can be revealed. Dialogue is the Holy Grail of good story-telling.

But when this example permeates our lives, we encounter a problem: it is not realistic. These portrayals set-up the expectation that there will always be a kind mentor to rescue us from our emotional distress or at least help us to process it. But in real life, the mature person must often process her own emotions rather than expect others to do it for her. (It’s not that we can never ask for help, but that sometimes we can do it ourselves and we grow when we try).

When our real-life father, teacher and boyfriend (or opposite sex) figures do not always deliver the expected emotional rescue, we are often left distraught, without options–hence the spiral of depression and anxiety. The Washington Post describes the story of Amy, a 30-year-old in therapy who suffered break-downs in college “unable to do laundry and often stayed up until 2 a.m. trying to complete homework because she didn’t know how to manage her time without her parents’ keeping track of her schedule.” We have few models for healthy self-reliance and care in our cultural models of TV and film.  It’s not as simple as pointing the finger at mom and dad, though. The issue is more pervasive. If TV and movies are our cultural models, and I think they are, there are no cultural models even to guide parents for effective development of Adam II, of healthy maturation or emotional processing.  Continue reading

Freelance Repost: Mrs. Clinton’s Religion Problem

I wrote this article before the election but never posted it here:

This is why I am truly glad that Mrs. Clinton did not win. However, it is hard to be happy about a Trump win, and there are so many other causes for concern with his behavior. People keep reassuring me that he won’t actually do any of the things he proposes, but that’s a different topic.

http://truthandcharityforum.org/mrs-clintons-religion-problem/

Leaders of black churches have questioned Mrs. Clinton specifically about concerns for their own religious liberty. In an open letter signed by twenty-six pastors and leaders of African-American churches, including Jacqueline Rivers of the Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies in Boston, they called attention to the CAGC comments by John Podesta;

“Key players on your staff have sought to subvert Catholic teaching on sexuality by planting externally funded groups in the church to advance a politically correct agenda,” they noted. “What would you do as president to guarantee that religious freedoms are balanced against civil rights rather than being trumped by them?”

They show respect for their fellow faith communities and go on to explain the central role their religious beliefs play in their ministry, particularly in poor communities, where the church is only institution well-placed to access the population, both spiritually and materially. In Christianity, beliefs are not meant as cudgels with which to bludgeon opponents; beliefs are guides to goodness, to recognizing the inherent dignity of our fellows, of striving to live well both today and forever, individually and as a society.

While Christians can and do fall short of our ideals, we seek freedom of conscience for the sake of authenticity, not hatred. Religion, despite its present unpopularity in elite circles, was once an uncontroversially protected category of conscience and identity. The drafters of the Bill of Rights thought as much.

Full article here:

 

Article Round Up II: Medicine and Healthcare Policy

Here is another round up of articles I’ve found interesting and telling about modern medicine and Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare. As I ponder the ACA, potential changes I hope the new president will make and especially the new politicization of healthcare and the all-encompassing ethics associated with that (such as conscience protection and service for the poor), these are some of things I’m thinking about.

The Atlantic – Medical Problems: Patient Responsive Happiness. problems with ACA

“Joshua Fenton, a University of California, Davis, professor who conducted the study, said these results could reflect that doctors who are reimbursed according to patient satisfaction scores may be less inclined to talk patients out of treatments they request or to raise concerns about smoking, substance abuse, or mental-health issues. By attempting to satisfy patients, healthcare providers unintentionally might not be looking out for their best interests.”

This takes some background. Pieces of the ACA reward hospitals for higher patient satisfaction, but patient satisfaction surveys don’t correlate with better outcomes. This is why we see hospitals now with brand new furniture and state of the art entertainment. Granted, we patients matters. There are a lot of cogs going into healthcare now as the government works to incentivize the practice of medicine, as they do with the tax code, and we are starting to see some glaring distortions.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/the-problem-with-satisfied-patients/390684/

The Atlantic – The Erosion of the Dr/Patient Relationship

“Today’s physicians, he tells us, see themselves not as the “pillars of any community” but as “technicians on an assembly line,” or “pawn[s] in a money-making game for hospital administrators.” According to a 2012 survey, nearly eight out of 10 physicians are “somewhat pessimistic or very pessimistic about the future of the medical profession.” In 1973, 85 percent of physicians said they had no doubts about their career choice. In 2008, only 6 percent “described their morale as positive,” Jauhar reports.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/doctors-tell-all-and-its-bad/380785/

Carrie Kovarik, M.D. in the Washington Post, Defending her Trump Vote in Academia

“Putting insurance in the hands of people in this country is a small part of the equation that leads to increasing access to care. Once they have access, the bottleneck to care is moved down the line we don’t have more doctors, specialists or hospitals so we need to plan for innovative solutions that will help to provide them care….

Right now, this is not happening to a significant degree so when my counterparts look at me with disdain, I say, “Why not give change a chance?””

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/11/17/its-a-lonely-place-a-conservative-ivy-league-professor-counters-faculty-calls-for-trump-to-denounce-attack/?wpisrc=nl_highered&wpmm=1

Mother Jones – Trump Care Likely to be more Confusing and Costlier

“According to the state [Kentucky], most of those savings would come from people dropping out of the program because they couldn’t manage the premiums and complexity—18,000 people in just the first year.”

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/trumpcare-likely-be-more-costly-less-efficient-and-more-annoying-obamacare

This analysis strikes me as largely true–some reforms will probably be aimed at making requirements too complicated so that lower-income people drop out. That is a problem.

There are also however other problems such as a legitimate scarcity of resources that the ACA deals with currently by having enormous (such as $13,000.00) deductibles on the low-premium plans which effectively leave people uninsured. Another glaring problem are the bureaucratic and reporting requirements such as online patient portals and the electronization of medical records. These have some good sides, but doctors’ non-clinical duties have increased substantially, as have the number of administrative work required in offices, which has bloated costs immeasurably. Colleges have entire majors now dedicated to Health Care Administration–not medicine, not nursing, but medical office work.

 

Your thoughts and direction towards other resources are always appreciated!

 

Article Round Up I

Well, Happy Thanksgiving! And welcome to a round of articles that I have found thoughtful and worthwhile over the past few months. It’s really things that I want to save for potential future use or citation.  (Note–unlike re-posts of my freelance work, these are not by me).

On Voting’s Significance (I know the time frame is sort of done on this one)

“I don’t plan to tell you how to vote, but I do want to establish a few basic principles:

  1. No well-formed Catholic should feel comfortable with Trump or Clinton;
  2. Thus, voters face a difficult decision this fall;
  3. The Church gives some guidance on this, but this guidance is limited;
  4. You, as a potential voter, have the final decision to make as to who to vote and who to support;  and
  5. Your salvation could well hang in the balance.”

http://shamelesspopery.com/worth-more-than-your-vote/

Why We Can’t Just Get Along— a disagreement, often unseen, on first principles, renders modern/faithful disagreement unsolvable

In Paradise Lost,

“Satan and Adam begin alike from a point of ignorance—they know nothing prior to (the precise word is “before”) the perspective they currently occupy; and the direction each then takes from this acknowledged limitation follows with equal logic or illogic. Adam reasons, since I don’t remember how I got here, I must have been made by someone. Satan reasons, since I don’t know how I got here, I must have made myself, or as we might say today, I must have just emerged from the primeval slime.

In neither case does the conclusion follow necessarily from the observed fact of imperfect knowledge. In both cases something is missing, a first premise, and in both cases reasoning can’t get started until a first premise is put in place. What’s more, since the first premise is what is missing, it cannot be derived from anything in the visible scene; it is what must be imported—on no evidentiary basis whatsoever—so that the visible scene, the things of this world, can acquire the meaning and significance they will now have. There is no opposition here between knowledge by reason and knowledge by faith because Satan and Adam are committed to both simultaneously. Each performs an act of faith—the one in God and the other in materialism—and then each begins to reason in ways dictated by the content of his faith.”

https://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/02/001-why-we-cant-all-just-get-along?utm_source=First+Things+Subscribers&utm_campaign=639cc6d14a-Sunday_Spotlight_Two_Essays_on_Gifts&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_28bf775c26-639cc6d14a-180480817

David Brooks on Modern Toughness

“In short, emotional fragility is not only caused by overprotective parenting. It’s also caused by anything that makes it harder for people to find their telos.” (a Greek word meaning “end ” or  “purpose” in moral philosophy).

 

The End of Identity Liberalism

A good diagnosis I think of what went wrong for progressives in the election:

“In recent years, American liberalism has slipped into a type of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.”

So, that’s it, readers. Enjoy and as always, feel free to send any thoughts!

 

Mr. Trump’s Language Problem, and Mrs. Clinton’s Worse One – Lying

Two unacceptable candidates for presidential office will be on the main-party ballots in a just a day or so. A quick look at how the two of them speak clarifies the troubling nature of Mr. Trump’s  views, but also why Mrs. Clinton’s history of lying is an even more severe abuse that undermines authentic communication itself.

The Purposes and Functions of Language

Two basic functions of language are discussing ideas and speaking to one another.

This first purpose, the formal use of language is the language of law, of documents like the Constitution, of logic, of philosophy and academics. It uses specific vocabulary and concepts in an effort to name truths such that we can all understand them and converse about them. The second purpose is basic interpersonal communication and often uses the casual register. It is more colloquial, relying on shared understandings and implications. The vocabulary is much smaller and is non-specific. These two overlap of course, especially in high level conversation such as debates. (I draw these two basic categories: formal and casual, from the five registers discussed in Ruby K. Payne’s A Framework for Understanding Poverty.)

Trump’s Triumphs and Tribulations from Casual Speech

A point of distinction for Mr. Trump is his use the casual register, even in debates. He calls things “tremendous” and “great” or “messes” and “disasters” without further specification and expects to be understood. Meanwhile, the moderator, his opponent, and much of his audience are left with their jaws hanging wondering why he failed to answer the question. He exemplifies the non-specific language of the casual register which functions on shared understandings and implications.

Trump’s casual speech opens him to easy lampooning in the media, but is has also allowed him to connect with a deep well of untapped support from the working class. When asked if he would accept the results of the election in the third debate, Mr. Trump replied that “I’ll keep you in suspense,” which is a vague answer intended to tap into a shared understanding that the election process is somewhat suspect. All he likely meant is that he might sue, as Al Gore did in 2000, and that he might otherwise sulk in his penthouse.

But his comment met with media consternation and uproar about undermining the foundations of our democracy which rest on the peaceful transfer of power. Many commentators construed Trump’s comment as seditious because they do not share the implication that his speech relied upon. To them, “accepting election results,” means accepting the foundations of the rule of law and legal proceedings that govern America. The two assumptions undergirding the question missed each other and led to miscommunication, a danger often present in casual speech. This line bothered the media, but was likely less problematic than many assumed.

Mr. Trump’s Unrespectable Views

Unfortunately, many of Trump’s casual, off-hand remarks are actually as problematic as left-leaning writers say they are because of the the shared understandings that he relies upon do tend to be discriminatory and disrespectful. Mr. Trump’s comments on women are a uncontroversial example

Leaving aside his outrageous 2005 recording, in August 2015 Trump dismissed journalist Megyn Kelly, wondering aloud whether she had “blood coming out of her wherever.” The reference to her menstruating accessed the stereotype that due to the hormones accompanying this bodily process, women are not rational during it. In so speaking, Mr. Trump claims power to dismiss Ms. Kelly’s comments as potentially non-rational. Because menstruation is private, this logically extends to all women being dismissable all the times. Trump’s comments about a judge of Hispanic descent being unable to try an immigration case fairly functioned similarly, as did his comments about imposing a religious test for people coming into America.

Mr. Trump’s temper and reliance on harmful stereotypes pervade his campaign and leaves us with a candidate who holds severely problematic views against a majority of Americans (since non-whites and females together constitute a majority of citizens), attributes which are hardly fitting for someone who is campaigning to lead all these different groups.

Clinton Promulgates Lies

In contrast to Mr. Trump’s blatant sexism and racism, Hillary Clinton appears to occupy a moral high ground. She has command of the formal register, that specific speech we use to explain reality, and she trounced Mr. Trump in debate. But Mrs. Clinton abuses language by unaccountable lying and in doing so, she turns formal speech into propaganda, undermining the end of truthful communication. Continue reading

I’m Voting 3rd Party: Conscience Is Not A Luxury, But An Imperative

evan-mcmullen.sized-770x415xc.jpg

“It’s wasting your vote”

“We can’t afford your protest this time–it’s too important.”

How many times have we heard the admonitions that voting for a third party is either futile or downright dangerous. Well, I’m voting third party this time around, and I encourage anyone who isn’t totally for Clinton or Trump to do so as well.

Joe Heschmeyer at Shameless Popery has described it succinctly: The two candidates are “awful”:

“As for Clinton, while she has been evasive about certain late-term abortions, her overall support for the legalized killing of unborn children is  unambiguous. Indeed, she’s only gotten worse with age: she went from arguing that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare” (adding, “and I mean rare“) to arguing that they should simply be “safe and legal” (the “rare” language is also conspicuously absent from prepared campaign materials, so this wasn’t an innocent oversight). Indeed, it’s not enough for there to be a constitutional right to abortion: she’s pointed to the need to change religious beliefs to favor abortion, and the Democratic Party is in the process of including new language in its platform to encourage federal funding for abortion (breaking the Hyde Amendment truce).”

“Trump has called for torture as a tool for winning the war on terror, as well as “taking out” the families of terrorists (he later denied that this necessarily meant murdering the families). As for waterboarding, he’s said:

‘They asked me, what do you think about waterboarding, Mr. Trump. I said I love it. I love it. And I said the only thing is, we should make it much tougher than waterboarding, and if you don’t think it works, folks, you’re wrong.’ “

Now add to his support for torture and general disregard for religious and ethnic minorities, his disgusting comments from 2005 about how he (as a married man) chases married women, “when you’re a star, they let you do it.

These are simple facts about the candidates;  those who are motivated by concern about one or the other candidate cajole me to vote for the opponent.

Still, I hear reassurances that the wrongs of the candidates aren’t that bad, and I simply must support the “lesser of two evils.”

We’ve all been voting the lesser of two evils for too long. It has led to this–the two most disliked candidates since voter opinions have been measured.

So it’s time to do something different–vote your conscience. Continue reading

Freelance: First Child Euthanized in Belgium-The Slippery Slope Morphs into Cliff

My full article at: http://truthandcharityforum.org/first-belgian-child-euthanized-slippery-slope-morphs-into-cliff/

“With these examples of non-terminal patients choosing death, and–startlingly–of children having death chosen for them, the protections around human life appear near to non-existent. Admittedly, the suffering involved is severe enough to give us pause, but as the slope of preferring death to life becomes steeper, I worry that the philosophical grounds undergirding these cases create more of cliff than a slope, a cliff that actually has no basis for affirming the value of life at all.”

In many countries today, terminal conditions are a requirement of the past in order to warrant euthanasia. In the Netherlands, “The suffering need not be related to a terminal illness and is not limited to physical suffering such as pain. It can include, for example, the prospect of loss of personal dignity or increasing personal deterioration, or the fear of suffocation.”

With these subjective guidelines, there are no longer functional, legal protections on any state of life in many states and nations. A person with severe Depression, for example, suffers great emotional anguish that he or she feels can only be resolved by death. There is nothing in principle to formally disqualify such a person from euthanasia. This actually happened to a woman only identified as Eva in Alexander Decommere’s documentaryEnd Credits.

If we cannot in principle rule out death for the physically sound, on what grounds do we have to argue for that any life is worth living?

I think we need to think very hard about what it is that makes life worth living even in the face of pain. Is a good human life really a life devoid of suffering? If not, what role does suffering play in human development?

Freelance: Mother Teresa, New Saint, Championed NFP

motherteresa_clinton

From my Truth and Charity Forum piece

She testified to the effectiveness of NFP, though it involves a break from Western reliance on artificial intervention: “So clear – those people in the street, those beggars – and I think that if our people can do like that how much more you and all the others who can know the ways and means without destroying the life that God has created in us.” There is no excuse for westerners, she proposes.

Further, NFP is consistent with the Church’s teachings on chastity and the importance of self-mastery: “The other day one of them came to thank and said: You people who have vowed chastity you are the best people to teach us family planning. Because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other.”

Mother Teresa’s remarks place natural family planning abstinence in continuity with the celibacy vows of priests and religious sisters and brothers. The Church calls all people to chastity, to integrate their desires with appropriate love of self and others.

Seen in the light of a consistent call to self-giving, her excoriation of abortion is not a “dogmatic” scourge upon women that her ideological detractors claim it to be, but a call to see the value of the person in a places, at all times, even within the womb. It is perhaps surprising that the nun renowned for caring for the aged and dying used her fame to speak for the other side of life, those still being made inside their mothers.

She saw the West as suffering from its own type of poverty, a poverty that could not see the value of human life. Her work and her words in their own ways testified to great worth she saw in each person, and she instructed those who would listen to do the same: “I want you to find the poor here, right in your own home first. And begin love there” (1979).

More at: http://truthandcharityforum.org/though-criticized-mother-teresa-chastised-politicians-championed-nfp/

What do you think of Mother Teresa’s critics?

Book Review: SPOILER ALERT Harry Potter and The Cursed Child – (Overdone and Boring at the same time)

Enter a caption

I’m sorry to review Harry Potter and The Cursed Child as one of the biggest reading disappointments I’ve had since I started reading for pleasure again after my kids were born–so in the last four years.

I loved the original Harry Potter books and the movies: the magic, the adventure, the fun, the characters. I grew up with it, and I wanted to love Harry Potter and the Cursed Child.

Yet, from page one, I was disappointed:

  1. little new plot material
  2. simplistic characters
  3. sloppy emotional outpourings

SPOILER ALERT – consider yourself warned, though I have avoided things that could ruin the one real surprise.

Plot:

There is only a little I could spoil because the new plot mostly revolves around the plots of the original seven books. What’s new is that that Harry’s son, Albus, and Draco’s son, Scorpius go, back in time with a time-turner in attempt to right certain wrongs from the past. They revisit Triwizard Tournament a few times, remind us of the Chamber of Secrets and go back to that fateful day when Voldemort gave Harry his scar.

The only present day conflict is that Albus and Harry don’t get along well. The Cursed Child is about the next generation wrestling with the scars of the past, which is of course a real struggle, but I was hoping for new present-day problems and adventures.

Yet the back-in-time plot, while a bit trite and logically-suspect, also tries to do too much.

At one point, Scorpius encounters an alternate universe where Voldemort is king, where all is dark, and Dumbledore’s Army is completely underground and he must find them, and convince them to help him and get time aright again. During this one-scene gargantuan plot piece, three (THREE!) characters throw themselves at Dementors to help save Scorpius. The full undermining of the alternate world is accomplished merely as a step in rest of the story–which is about the importance of letting things stand as they were. That one scene has to do a bit too much emotional and story-telling work for the amount of time it gets. And it seems a little too easy for Scorpius to sweep in and right this all-goes-wrong world in a few sentences.
Continue reading