Housebound and Single = Home Alone?, Part II

In "Housebound and Single = Home Alone?, Part I," we introduced "Marie," who has spent years trying to sustain a social life despite an existence that is largely confined to the boundaries of her home. She's looking for ideas to help her stay connected to those she cares about as well as to help her find new friends.

The housebound lifestyle is still something I'm figuring out for myself since I was diagnosed last October with a chronic illness that limits my mobility, and, unfortunately, information on the social aspect of housebound living isn't prevalent. However, I'll gladly share what has worked for me and others I've known in hopes that someone will benefit. If anyone out there is also housebound and single, please feel free to contribute your own suggestions to the discussion!



Maintaining Existing Friendships


1. Open up to your friends and family.

Just because someone cares about you doesn't mean they understand what it's like to be you or that they know what you want and need all the time. A lot of younger people have never known a peer who was housebound and may not be sure how to respond. They may assume that you're not well enough for visits or lengthy conversations. They may worry about saying the wrong thing or unintentionally making you feel bad by talking about their busy lives, which you can't participate in.

If they haven't been in touch as much since you've become housebound, make sure your friends and family know that you miss them and want to hear from them. For instance, you could say, "I know it might seem like I wouldn't be interested in ________ [whatever things you can't do anymore], but I'm relying on you to keep me informed. I love hearing about it, and I want to know everything! Hearing your stories is as good as being there."

Be upfront about your limitations, too; no one understands them like you do. Don't leave your friends guessing about what you can and can't do. If you can't handle visitors but can talk on the phone, let them know. If you get too tired to talk for two hours but can talk for one, let them know that, too.


2. Make technology work for you.

If you can't see friends and family in person, be creative. For all the flak that texters and tweeters get, we're incredibly blessed to have such convenient methods of communication at our fingertips. So when you don't have the energy for in-person visits, pick up your PDA and put technology to work for you. From Facebook updates to blog posts, you have a wealth of options for keeping current with the people you care about from the comfort of your own home.

Do you miss the immediacy of face-to-face conversation? Download Skype or similar free VOIP software, order a headset with microphone and a webcam, and your callers will be able to see every smile, nod, shrug, and wink on their monitors. (Yes, that means you have to change out of your favorite Buzz Lightyear pajamas before they call!) If your friends and fam don't have webcams, they make great birthday or holiday gifts.


3. Check your own attitude.

When you talk to your friends, does the conversation revolve around how much it sucks to be sick or hurt? Do you hit them over the head with a litany of complaints? Underneath it all, are you envious that your friends are healthy, and might that attitude be sneaking into your conversation? Chronic pain is a heavy burden to bear physically and emotionally, and you should be able to complain about it sometimes. But many people have a hard time dealing with a constant barrage of negativity, which makes them feel sad, helpless, and even guilty. So try not to contact your healthy friends when you're at your worst and save the gory details for your doctor, therapist, and support group (see 3. under "Building New Friendships" below).



Building New Friendships


1. Seek out other survivors.

Even though Marie has had a hard time finding new friends, her strongest friendship right now seems to be with another survivor of serious illness. As Marie notes, the beauty of the Internet is that it brings together virtually people who can't be together physically. Lots of communities have real-life support groups for people suffering from specific illnesses or injuries (ask your doctor for a referral), but if you aren't able to leave the house for even a limited time, an online support group is the next best thing. If you're suffering from a relatively rare disorder, the Internet might even be the best thing.

Some people who haven't ever been part of an online message board or mailing list may be dismissive of friendships formed this way, but those who've participated in groups like this know that they can provide tremendous reserves of inspiration, empathy, caring, and even humor. Friendships established through this medium, especially those that continue via email, IM, phone, and, eventually, in-person meetings, can be just as deep as friendships that form in the "real world," if not more so. Why? Because other people in a support group understand what you're going through since they have the same concerns. They're likely to be more interested in your progress, more tolerant of your limitations, and more open to developing friendships because they're in the same boat with you, experiencing the same hardships.

To find the right online support group for you, search Yahoo! Groups, Google Groups, Facebook Groups, Yuku, or any other site that has message boards, email lists, or chat. You might also run a search for web sites dedicated to the illness or injury you're suffering from. Online foundations may include forums. If you don't find what you're looking for, you can start your own group or maybe even your own blog or web site!

Prefer one-on-one interaction? Make friends with Craig--Craigslist, that is--and post an ad for a friend in similar circumstances in the Strictly Platonic section. In addition, lots of free dating sites such as PlentyofFish and OkCupid allow users to search for "pen pals," "friends," or "activity partners" and set their profiles accordingly. You can briefly explain your lifestyle in your profile and specify that you want to find others in the same situation. (If you choose to sign up at a dating site, though, don't be surprised if many of the members you encounter expect "friendship" to be an intermediate step to something more.)


2. Don't forget the 'Net for other interests, too.

Just because you're housebound doesn't mean you have to give up your interests and passions. The Web is a wonderful gathering place to discuss art, entertainment, sports, politics, or whatever else is on your mind. Although you may not find close friends among online communities built around special interests, not all conversation needs to be of the deep, soul-baring variety. In the "real world," most of our interaction is based on light small talk, and we need these kinds of loose relationships as much as we need strongly rooted friendships. The Internet allows housebound singles to continue participating in those broad social circles without setting foot out of the house. Furthermore, because communication isn't in real-time, those who struggle with pain, discomfort, or fatigue are free to respond at their leisure. And perhaps the best thing about the Internet is that it doesn't discriminate. Housebound singles can freely express themselves without worrying that others will perceive them through the filter of their physical problems.

You can find online forums for your hobbies and passions in some of the same places you found forums for the housebound. Also investigate large hub sites devoted to your interest, such as IMDb for movies or Care2 for environmental and social causes. Additionally, many companies, TV and radio stations, and print publications have web sites that encourage commentary and discussion.


3. Find good counsel.

As much as your friends and family want to help, it may be hard for them to understand or cope with the physical and emotional pain that are part of your daily life as a housebound single. A mental health counselor can offer you a sympathetic ear and a safe place to vent your frustration. She or he may also be able to suggest new ways to find social support, keep your current relationships strong, or meet routine challenges more effectively on your own. If you're depressed or anxious as a result of the changes in your lifestyle, a therapist can help you overcome that, too.

In Marie's case, a counselor helped her to accept that she was not at fault for the distance that had grown between her and her friends and introduced her to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which, according to the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science, is "a behavioral intervention to help people learn strategies to live life more in the present, more focused on important values and goals, and less focused on painful thoughts, feelings and experiences."

Ask your doctor for a referral to a psychotherapist who has experience with those who are housebound, or search online at sites like MentalHealth.net, MentalHelp.net, or LocateADoc.com.


4. Enjoy your own company.

As Marie's story illustrates, we can't necessarily change the behavior or reactions of others, but we can always change our own way of thinking. Whether or not you're chronically ill, disabled, or housebound, you probably already know that because it's the key to being happy as a single. Singles with singletude can be content in a coupled world because we've changed our thinking--we no longer believe (if we ever did) that a romantic relationship is the only route to a fulfilling life. When illness or injury strikes, we can use this same attitude to inform how we confront our limitations.

While everyone needs some contact with other people, sometimes we confuse our social needs with the desire to be popular, the obligation to fit in, or the fear of being alone with our own thoughts. The next time you feel lonely, ask yourself if it's because you truly miss and want to interact with certain people or because you're afraid of feeling bored, excluded, abnormal, or "uncool" if you don't take up your place in the social pecking order on Saturday nights. Chances are that, at least some of the time, your "loneliness" will be revealed as insecurity about being alone.

With a newfound awareness of the difference between being a lone individual and a lonely individual, you can use your time by yourself to explore interests and ideas you never knew you had. Before long, you may discover that you like being alone and embracing the opportunities it affords to set your own schedule, choose your own projects, and work, think, plan, relax, or dream undisturbed. There's a lot you can accomplish at home on your own. For examples, see "Top Ten Hobbies for Singles." Many of the activities described can be pursued in your own living room. You might also try writing a list of all the things you can do in your time alone that your friends can't and hang it somewhere you can see it every day.



Socializing remains challenging for singles who are housebound. You can't complete a 12-step program to guarantee that your old friends will stay in touch or order new friends from Amazon. But there are measures you can take to encourage the survival of existing friendships and the growth of new ones. Beyond that, you can embrace the circumstance in which you find yourself as an opportunity instead of a limitation. Most people spend each day racing from place to place, often hassled by thoughtless, uncaring people wherever they go. However, the housebound single has a rare chance to experience a degree of autonomy and peace that others may never know. Remember, your home is your castle. Isn't it nice to live like royalty every day?


Are you housebound and single, or do you know someone who is? If so, what have you done (or what has your acquaintance done) to stay in touch with friends and family or make new friends? Have you (or has your acquaintance) found any new activities that can be enjoyed at home alone? What do you do (or what does your acquaintance do) when loneliness strikes? Has the housebound lifestyle required a mental shift of sorts and, if so, can you describe that process?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have an unpublished rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"! Singletude makes every effort to republish submissions in their original form but reserves the right to edit your submission for length and clarity.

Housebound and Single = Home Alone?, Part I

Awhile ago, "Marie" (name changed for privacy) of Footloose Femails, a Yahoo! group for single women, requested a post about the social consequences of a housebound lifestyle for singles. There are a number of reasons why one might be housebound, most of them involving physical or mental disabilities. Occasionally, people also find themselves spending a lot of time at home when living in a remote location or telecommuting, which can be similar to, though not quite the same as, being truly unable to set foot out the door. When you're single and live alone, the challenges of a housebound lifestyle are compounded. Previously, in "Single in Sickness and in Health: Prepare for Medical Emergencies," Singletude covered some of the steps single individuals can take to prepare physically for long-term health issues that limit mobility. But the emotional consequences of living single and housebound are harder to address, especially when many singles rely on activities outside the home to meet their social needs.

I don't think Marie realized it when she asked, but I've been largely housebound since I developed a long-term illness in September. I'm able to go out, but, for various reasons, going out is not that comfortable or convenient for me, so I don't do it a lot. New Year's Eve was my first night out in quite awhile, and by the time the evening wrapped up, I was starting to feel pretty uncomfortable. I'm already learning ways to cope with my isolated lifestyle, but since I've only lived this way a short time, I don't consider myself that knowledgeable on the subject. So, I knew some research was in order.

My first instinct was to search the Web, where I found a lot of information about navigating the health care system, applying for social security, workman's compensation, or other benefits, and securing one's legal rights via a living will, power of attorney, etc. Unfortunately, this wealth of information didn't extend to solutions for maintaining a healthy social life while housebound, particularly when single. So I put out a call for housebound individuals who live alone to take part in an interview.

I received several responses from housebound singles, who generously sent me emails, blog links, and excerpts from their writing. What emerged was a picture of single people living relatively disconnected lives. It was amazing how soon after the onset of serious illness or injury these individuals saw their friends and loved ones start to drift away! Unfortunately, none of them wished to be interviewed for the blog. That's when I realized that I had overlooked my best source of information, one that had been in front of me all along--Marie! I asked to interview her, and she kindly consented.

For 12 years, Marie, age 43, has suffered from the effects of lymphoma, encephalitis, and a benign brain tumor that have left her housebound with debilitating, chronic pain, fatigue, and memory loss. When she was diagnosed, she was a popular young woman, "very social" with "lots of friends" and a boyfriend she was planning to marry. But the onset of her illness forced her to quit her job, and within two years, the strain of it took a toll on her relationship, which disintegrated. She has since decided to remain single.

Unable to manage the illness entirely on her own, Marie moved back in with her mother, who lives in a separate wing of the house, an arrangement that suits them both. "Life is excruciatingly lonely if you're housebound and living alone--so I'm lucky to have the option of living with mum," she says. However, Marie rarely sees friends--once every two or three months, at best. For two years after she became ill, she could still manage afternoons out, but this diminished to a two-hour maximum after another three years, and now she only leaves the house for short daily walks, medical appointments, occasional visits to her brother, and once-in-a-blue-moon shopping trips. If her friends want to see her, they have to make the effort to come to her, and most have proven unable or unwilling to extend themselves over time.

Another difficulty has been that friends find it hard to relate to her life. Explaining how her social circle has dwindled, Marie says, "At the same time as I got sick my good friends got married, moved, and soon had children--so our lives began to take on a completely different route--that ultimately, drastically, affected the friendship...I have lost all but a handful of friends, and those friendships have lost their 'spark.'" This drifting apart due to dissimilar life circumstances is something that many never-married singles experience, but it is magnified for the housebound, who have little opportunity to interact with more like-minded people and seek out new friends.

Throughout her prolonged illness, Marie's social refuge has been the Internet and, to a lesser extent, sewing circles and writing workshops when she was still reasonably mobile. Yet she has only made one new friend in 12 years, another patient whom she met through an online medical support group. This is now the friend that Marie sees most often. Marie's frustration is palpable when she says, "This is despite making a LOT of effort to make new friends--to find local hobby groups to join and hopefully, in time, to make a friend or two....Being housebound for so long has ruined many of my friendships and I have a regular, if not daily, feeling of 'loneliness' that can be fleeting or last for a few hours." Like the other housebound singles I heard from, Marie has clearly defined the problem but is still searching for a workable solution.

As stated before, I'm still new to the "housebound" lifestyle, which I put in quotes because I'm not nearly as housebound as some, so I'm not sure I have any valuable insight into how to form and maintain friendships in these very special circumstances. But next time, I'll offer some suggestions based on what I've heard from Marie and the other housebound singles who responded to my request, as well as on my own ideas, some of which I've already started to implement. Whether you're a single who's technically housebound or just isolated from your friends and family for some other reason, perhaps these ideas will be useful.


Are you housebound and single, or do you know someone who is? If so, has loneliness been a problem? Have friends and family withdrawn since you or your acquaintance became housebound? Has it been hard to establish new friendships or relationships?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have an unpublished rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"! Singletude makes every effort to republish submissions in their original form but reserves the right to edit your submission for length and clarity.

Singles Sleep Better

It's National Singles Week! Happy holidays to all you Singletude readers and to the 96 million Americans who live without the help (or hindrance) of a spouse every day and are just as happy, healthy, and wise as their coupled counterparts! A special shout out to those who are not just unmarried but unattached, standing totally on their own, since we know that discrimination against singles is social as often as legal.

In honor of National Singles Week, Singletude is holding its first ever giveaway contest! The drawing is quickly approaching on 9/28, so make sure your entries are in by 9/27. The prize is a gift basket overflowing with more than $150 in prizes sponsored by SingleEdition.com, so hurry and submit your entry before time runs out. Now, on to today's topic...

If you've been single for awhile, the days of sharing your bed may be like a distant dream or, more accurately, a distant nightmare. Ah, yes, now it all comes back to you! Tossing and turning while your bedmate's snore drowns all but the sound of your teeth grinding in the dark. Quivering in the frigid night air as you cling to the four square inches of blanket that your beloved spared you. Rousing from your happy place again so you can make way for your honey to reach the lamp, the tissues, the water, or the slippers. Jerking awake as your sweetheart's alarm blasts the robins right out of the trees outside. Stumbling out of bed on jello limbs that lost their circulation beneath someone else's butt, your shoulder cradling your neck, which can't stand up straight after eight hours wedged over someone else's arm. You call it "The Quasimodo in the Morning Show."

A couple of weeks ago, a commenter called Autonomous on the blog Onely directed readers to a BBC News article entitled "Bed Sharing 'Bad for Your Health.'" The article reports on research by Dr. Neil Stanley of the U.K., who found that sleeping with someone (in the literal sense) increases sleep disturbances by 50%. This makes sense, he says, because our ancestors only recently traded their single straw mats for cushy queen-size mattresses. We weren't really meant to sleep together at all! So, presumably, the single state confers a great advantage in the bedroom that most couples miss out on. This advantage has far-reaching effects, too. As the article notes, sleep problems are associated with heart disease, stroke, depression, and, yes, even divorce, among other potentially fatal consequences. So...does this mean we can say that singles are healthier than marrieds?

If so, the media doesn't want us to know about it. While the major news outlets are all too happy to showcase studies claiming that married women sleep better than singles or that married couples have lower blood pressure during sleep, they're less eager to report findings that indicate singles might be better off. Besides the Huffington Post, no prominent American news site featured Stanley's research even though it's not unheard of for American news shows, papers, and web sites to run stories on medical breakthroughs in the international community. If Autonomous hadn't spotted it, I would've missed it altogether. My Google newsreader didn't pick it up, and, to my knowledge, it didn't make the rounds of hub sites where it might've caught the eyes of readers checking their email or the daily forecast. So why no love for this story from the American media? Is it possible that the powers that be in the U.S. want to suppress research that doesn't cast marriage or intensive coupling traditions in a flattering light? Research that indicates remaining single can be not only as healthy as but healthier than pairing off?

British sociologist Dr. Robert Meadows was also quoted in the article as saying, "People actually feel that they sleep better with a partner, but the evidence suggests otherwise." Years of drumming biased headlines into people's sleepy heads have obviously hypnotized them to believe that significant others glued to their sides are always better for their health, even when their own bodies scream otherwise in the morning. The article states that a mere 8% of forty- and fiftysomething couples sleep alone. (Statistics for other ages weren't recorded.) The other 92% apparently suffer through night after night of disrupted sleep. And for what? The perception that couples should sleep side by side because they must never be apart? Are we so entrapped by The Cult of the Couple that we would sacrifice our rest and ultimately our health because society dictates that those who have sex together must sleep together?

Undoubtedly, some people enjoy whispering in the dark, drifting off to sleep in another's arms, rolling over into a warm, inviting body on a cold night. But just as undoubtedly there are people who would always or at least sometimes prefer "to have a cuddle and then...toddle off down the landing," as Stanley puts it. If this study is accurate, most of them, like it or not, will share their beds anyway.

Luckily, we singles don't have to lose sleep over matrimaniacally approved sleeping habits! During National Singles Week, as on every night, we get to...

...decide when bedtime is.
...indulge in whatever bedtime rituals we prefer such as reading, watching TV, or having a hot drink.
...choose what goes into and what stays out of the bed including food, books, laptops, phones, pillows, blankets, real animals, and animals of the stuffed variety.
...adjust sleeping conditions like temperature, amount of light, and background noise as needed.
...sleep anywhere in the bed in any position, occupying as much space as desired.
...sleep through the whole night completely undisturbed by another human being.
...decide when to wake up and what to wake up to, whether an alarm, music, cell phone, TV, dog or cat, morning songbirds, or pure silence.

On that note, I think I'll turn in early!


Do you prefer to sleep by yourself or with someone else? Why? Have you ever had trouble sleeping with someone else? If so, why? What things do you like about sleeping alone? Did you know about the British sleep study before you read about it here? If so, where did you hear about it? Why do you think the media didn't publicize this study as much as some others that promote marriage and/or diminish singles?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have an unpublished rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"! Singletude makes every effort to republish submissions in their original form but reserves the right to edit your submission for length and clarity.

Single-payer Health Care Works Best for Singles...and Everyone Else

Today, Singletude was going to feature a review of Internet Dating Is Not Like Ordering a Pizza by Cherie Burbach, part of the gift basket giveaway contest ongoing till Sept. 28, 2009. However, with Congress in recess and the fate of the American health care system still up in the air, I feel compelled to address how our current options will affect the single population.

Unless you've been living in a cave and eating grubs with Geico actors, you know that President Obama has introduced health care legislation that would allow the private insurance industry to coexist alongside a so-called public option, which may amount to nothing more than a private co-op that could claim non-profit status but still behave like a for-profit company. (Don't believe me? Kaiser Permanente and a number of Blue Cross Blue Shield franchises are registered not-for-profits.) The proposal might accomplish a number of admirable things. It might make preexisting condition exclusions a thing of the past, forbid companies from dropping policyholders, cap rate hikes and out-of-pocket payments, eliminate gender-based discrimination, and insure single young adults for longer. It might provide a more affordable plan that would be subsidized for those earning up to 400% above the poverty line. But for all the good it promises, this "reform" is just as likely to make a bad situation worse. Especially for singles and, in particular, single women.

Singles are more likely to be uninsured than married couples are, and 49% of single women have no insurance. It's not a coincidence that single adults are also, on average, worse off financially than their married counterparts. Many if not most of these singles simply can't afford health coverage. Yet a main component of the health care reform under discussion would be an individual mandate to obtain insurance.

Although the aforementioned subsidies would help, they would phase out for singles making a little over $40,000 a year. In some areas of the country, a salary of $40k is just scraping by. Certainly in New York, an individual wouldn't even qualify for a studio on that income. What makes the government think that people in that position can afford to pay several thousand dollars a year toward health care? Some may argue that no one needs to live in a metropolitan region, but that's where the jobs are.

Switching gears to the lower end of the income spectrum, unless the government subsidy represents the full cost of the premium, how will people who already can't pay their bills bear the burden of yet another monthly charge? Some low-income adults, especially young, healthy singles, forgo insurance because it's a financial burden that doesn't pay off for them. They can save more money by paying out-of-pocket the few times a year that they need care. An individual mandate would force them to pay full price for a product they underuse. But, as we'll see, the suggested mandate is the least of our possible woes under this new system.

The reason universal health care works in other industrialized nations is because they have single-payer systems. That means there aren't any competing, profit-driven insurance companies, just one organization that covers health care expenses in each country. The people of these nations pay a tax for this, but they don't have to pay premiums, deductibles, or co-pays. Ever. There is no annual maximum on their benefits, after which they'd have to go into debt to pay out-of-pocket. They never have to get pre-approvals, authorizations, or referrals before they can receive the care they need. They don't have to worry that the best physician in town might be out of network. They're not kicked out of their hospital beds the day after surgery or told they can only have 10 treatment sessions, so they'd better hurry up and get well. Perhaps best of all, their health care decisions are made by their doctors, not some overpaid bureaucrats in an office far away. Good single-payer systems put the decision-making power in the doctors' hands because they're public services and, as such, are beholden to taxpayers, not Wall Street investors. To keep costs down, they reward doctors for improving preventive care rather than rewarding faceless managers for denying it. Sounds like utopia, doesn't it?

Single-payer health care works because it creates one enormous risk pool. The bigger the risk pool, the less any individual has to pay. It also works because it eliminates the tremendous expenses incurred by for-profit insurance providers and the medical personnel who have to deal with them, both of whom pass on these expenses to consumers. In other Western countries, the pharmaceutical industry is regulated, too, which prevents price gouging. That's why Americans can get such good deals on drugs from international pharmacies.

Unfortunately, Obama's health plan will do none of these things. It will just add another insurance option to the mix. He's betting that this lower-cost option will force private companies to reduce their premiums. A more likely and frightening outcome is that anyone who can't afford private insurance because they're high-risk (the poor, the unemployed, the unhealthy, and the elderly) will flock to the public option, which will go bankrupt before you can say "bailout." Meanwhile, the insurance industry and big pharma will keep on keepin' on, finding ways to circumvent the law and deny consumers coverage because these are businesses. They run on a business model. That means they can't make a profit unless they take in more consumer dollars than they pay out. That's why 77.9% of bankruptcies due to medical expenses are filed by insured Americans. For-profit insurance is an illusion of protection at best.

In 2000, the last year that the World Health Organization ranked the world's health care, the U.S. health system placed 37th, scoring behind countries like Andorra, Oman, Iceland, Colombia, and Morocco. Isn't that embarrassing? Meanwhile, the rest of Western Europe outlives us and loses fewer infants at birth. It's not because they drink wine with dinner, either. It's because they have access to free health care for everyone. Contrary to what fear mongers would have you believe, single-payer health care wouldn't mean extending the clunky Medicare program to everyone. It would mean totally revamping what we now call Medicare and remodeling it based on proven programs in other progressive countries. Yes, the government would have a hand in it. Just like it does education, law enforcement, the postal service, public transportation, and other services which--fancy that--work pretty well.

At this sensitive moment in time, we singles, both insured and uninsured, have a precious chance to speak up for health care for ourselves and everyone else. That's a big part of what we elected Obama for. Let's not sit by and watch a few greedy, self-centered politicians ruin it for the rest of us! When the House reconvenes, our representatives will finally be voting on H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, which would create a single-payer health care system for all Americans. A health care system that doesn't discriminate based on marital status! No longer would any of us have to feel pressured to get married or stay married for access to medical care. No longer would our salaries subsidize the health benefits of married employees. What a monumental breakthrough a single-payer system would be, not even just for health care but as a precedent for dismantling legalized discrimination against singles!

Here's what you can do to spread the word about H.R. 676:
--Call and/or write to your representative.
--Write to President Obama.
--Write a letter to the editor of your local paper.
--Distribute flyers at a busy place in your town.
--Canvas door to door or on the phone.
--Write about it on your blog or web site.
--Leave comments about it on political web sites and blogs.
--Talk to your friends and family about it.
--Sign petitions.

To find out more about H.R. 676, including what you can do to help raise awareness about single-payer health care, check out these links:

Change.org: Free Single Payer Health Care
Dennis Kucinich: Universal Health Care
HR676.org
HR676.org Blog
Healthcare-NOW!
John Conyers, Jr.: Healthcare
SiCKO: What can I do?
PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program)
Unions for Single Payer Health Care


What kind of health care system would you like to see the U.S. adopt? Why? How do you think the system you prefer would benefit singles?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

"Marry Well for Better Health" by Dr. Christopher Lillis: A Singletude Response

Those of you who perused last Sunday's edition of "Singles in the News" may remember the article "Marry Well for Better Health" by Dr. Christopher Lillis, which sent me into spasms of singlist-inspired horror. To quote from the Singletude summary:

Written by a doctor who is a self-described "very biased" newlywed (and takes pride in his prejudice, too), it trots out unidentified research studies to "confidently make this claim. Married men survive longer and live healthier lives than their single or divorced counterparts." Although the author admits those results were contingent on how happy the marriage was and cautions single men not to grab the nearest woman and drag her to the altar, he'd still rather advance his pet theory about the miracle drug of marriage than present hard evidence.

So, Dr. Lillis tosses out a few health measures on which married people score well while failing to mention the measures on which singles score better. (Oh, sorry. He mentions one such measure--obesity--but dismisses it since he's sure his new bride will nag him to lose weight. Let's catch up with him in 10 years and see how that's working out, shall we?)

He also neglects to inform his impressionable readers that, in many cases, the differences that do exist between marrieds and singles who have never married are marginal. If anything, he exaggerates the differences by lumping in people who have always been single with those who are divorced or widowed, two groups that sometimes do show a marked difference on health measures as compared to marrieds. (Singletude's information, by the way, comes from the CDC study "Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2000" by Charlotte A. Schoenborn and "Is There Something Unique About Marriage? The Relative Impact of Marital Status, Relationship Quality, and Network Social Support on Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Mental Health" by Julianne Holt-Lunstad, et al., discredited here by Dr. Bella DePaulo. Lillis doesn't say where his comes from.)

Even worse, Lillis takes some of these correlations and makes causal statements about them, asserting that married couples are "healthier" because they have a sense of responsibility to each other or because "getting married reduces depressive symptoms." The fact is we have no way to measure whether marriage causes any of these minor health differences or, if it does, how or why. If studies of singles and marrieds do show significant differences in, say, risk taking, perhaps that's because single people tend to be younger, and youth is associated with risky behavior. If singles do have slightly higher resting blood pressure than marrieds, maybe that's not because they're alone in their beds but because they worry more about things like health care or social security, which are more accessible to married couples.

No matter what, we can't talk about what marriage causes or doesn't cause because marriage is not a variable you can manipulate like an electric shock to get an experimental result (though some would say divorce gave them quite a jolt). See, marital status is similar to traits like age, ethnicity, religious affiliation, and sexual orientation in that the researcher can't change them. In order for a researcher to claim that something causes an effect, he or she has to be able to add or remove it at will to demonstrate that it was solely responsible for the outcome of the experiment.

To use a nonsense example, if a researcher wants to prove that everlasting gobstoppers turn kids blue, then she has to take two groups of kids that have never eaten everlasting gobstoppers and make sure that one group eats them and the other doesn't. In addition, she has to make sure that there are no other dietary, environmental, genetic, or medical differences between the two groups that might explain why some kids look like they fell in a blueberry bush. If, after determining that there are no differences between the groups except that one is getting gobstoppers, the researcher finds that the kids who eat gobstoppers turn blue, then she can tentatively state that gobstoppers may cause kids to turn blue. Why tentatively? Because, as careful as she was, maybe there was some other difference between the groups that she missed. That's why studies are repeated over and over again for confirmation and why most scientists are very, very careful when they talk about causation.

However, let's say the researcher is faced with two groups of kids, one that's already blue and one that's not. She wonders why some kids are blue, and she asks all the kids a bunch of questions and notices that the blue kids all used to eat gobstoppers. Well, that's interesting, and the researcher can say that she found a relationship or correlation between gobstoppers and blue kids, but she can't know with any certainty that the gobstoppers caused the kids to turn blue. Maybe the kids who turned blue were also eating snozberries, and maybe it was actually the snozberries that did the damage. Or maybe the kids who turned blue were suffering from a rare, unknown sugar deficiency that affects skin tone, so they craved lots of sweet gobstoppers.

Saying that marriage causes anything is like saying that kids who are already blue definitely got that way because they ate gobstoppers. We just don't know. And even if we could randomly assign some people to be married and some to be single and observe the results, it would still be hard to make causal attributions because, just like the researcher in the first example, we might've overlooked something.

For some reason, though, when marriage is the subject, researchers and clinicians fall all over themselves with eagerness to make causal statements. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it's because marriage is popular and relatively easy to enter into, so it encourages people to hear that something they perceive as desirable and ubiquitous is good for their health. It's also possible that the reasons are more sinister and revolve around a research agenda that favors the status quo for economic or political reasons. Whatever it is, medical professionals like Lillis are highly irresponsible when they jump on the bandwagon and repeat these fallacies to patients and readers who don't know any better.

Towards the end of the article, Lillis plays devil's advocate for a minute, but even his counterargument, which posits that healthier, "more genetically appealing" people are more likely to get married, is insultingly singlist. No, Dr. Lillis, the problem is not that we singles are all Quasimodos compared to you strapping, married bombshells. It's that we singles are less likely to have health care. It's that we can't take time off work to heal from illness or injury because we have no second income. It's that we have more financial woes in general because we earn less and pay more than you marrieds do, and that's stressful. It's that we face a lot of social discrimination (the kind of discrimination you're guilty of right now), and that's stressful, too.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure Lillis can understand this logic because in the most presumptuous statement of his presumptuous article, he demonstrates an appalling lack of it. Check out this statement in all its singlist glory:

There is no real way to prove this [that marriage does not cause better health]; it is just a bitter, jealous theory of a loveless set of scientists who spend too much time in the lab to find true love.

Oh, dear, dear, dear. Doesn't Dr. Lillis realize that the burden of proof is on him? The scientific method always assumes no cause-effect relationship until one is proven. To return to our blueberry bunch, the researcher must assume that gobstoppers don't turn kids blue unless she can prove conclusively that they do. In direct contradiction to universally accepted research practice (and logic), Lillis says the exact opposite--that gobstoppers must turn kids blue unless we can prove that they don't. Good news for quack researchers everywhere! Now you can assume Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, and spontaneous human combustion exist until someone proves that they don't!

Lillis's lapse in logic might be forgiveable if it wasn't laced with all that singlist rhetoric. I'll tell ya what, Dr. Lillis, let's invert your statement so that it's both logically valid (instead of fallacious) and anti-marriage (instead of singlist) and see what we get:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just an ignorant, narrow-minded theory of a codependent set of scientists who spend too much time at home to get out and see what the real world is like.

Here's another good one:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just a desperate, envious theory of a bored-stiff set of scientists who spend too much time tied to the old ball and chain to have any fun.

Just gotta do one more! Here we go:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just a sad, pathetic theory of a lonely set of scientists who've wasted too much time in loveless marriages to admit they'd be happier alone.

Now, do any of those statements sound appropriate to make to a married patient? Would you, Dr. Lillis, want someone to make such a statement to you? Then why, I wonder, do you believe it's appropriate to talk that way to your single patients and readers?

Even if Lillis's interpretation is right on the money and marriage is the fountain of youth (which I don't think it is), I'm not sure what would be the point of saying so. A marriage certificate is not a drug that you can dispense when a single person straggles in with the flu, and if it were, it would have a pretty poor track record. If you think of marriage like a drug (thanks, Bella DePaulo, for this analogy), it doesn't work for at least half the people who try it (those who divorce), not to mention the unknown percentage who stay married unhappily. What doctor recommends a drug that's effective for less than half the people who take it?

In conclusion, I want to state for the record that I am single and in good health. I don't smoke, drink heavily, or have other substance abuse problems. I'm not a risk taker. I am not depressed. My blood pressure is so low that it actually causes problems occasionally. Despite what Lillis says about singles who don't take care of themselves, I go to the doctor when I'm concerned that something's wrong.

Interestingly, my dad, who is married, does not. In fact, when I noticed a worrisome skin lesion on his back awhile ago, my mom, his wife, said that she'd been after him to get it looked at for months. You know who convinced him to go to the doctor?

Me. His daughter.


What do you think about Dr. Lillis's article? Do you think married people are really healthier than singles?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Bad Marriages Break Men's Hearts, Too

As a postscript to "Bad Marriages Break (Women's) Hearts," I'd like to share an article that I found just a day or two after I last blogged. "Bad Marriages Harder on Women's Health" by Kathleen Doheny appeared in the online edition of U.S. News & World Report as a response to the aforementioned research linking stressful marriage to an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in women. However, this version of the report included some info that the others conveniently omitted.

Specifically, the U.S. News article includes commentary from Dr. Debra Umberson of the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Umberson, who is also an expert on the health effects of marital stress, reveals that her research paints a different picture--one with a much darker palette for men: "'Basically, we find that marital strain undermines the health of men and women,' she says, adding that perhaps the men in [Nancy] Henry's study had their health influenced in a different way." (ital added)

According to her CV, Umberson has been publishing her work on the interaction between gender and marital conflict for several years now, yet I can't recall major media players jumping all over it in the way they did the recent University of Utah study. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Some of you may remember news stories that I'm forgetting.) Could it be that the American media is not as interested in publicizing how unhappy relationships affect men's health? If not, why not?

My initial thought was that with so many men defecting from traditional marriage bonds, conservative-slanted publications might be squelching any research that would further dissuade them from tying the knot. But then it occurred to me that we also live in a society that clings to certain preconceptions about gender roles which make it less acceptable for men to be emotionally invested in their relationships or to exhibit depression and other outward signs of distress over relationship conflict. Women's magazines remind us that relationships aren't central to a man's identity, that instead of moping by the phone and overanalyzing with friends, a guy lets his troubles roll off his back along with big drops of sweat at the gym. In effect, American women are taught that relationship failure will leave them on the verge of collapse, while men are taught that their hearts should take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. So the suppression of research proving that men aren't as invulnerable as we'd like to think fits the dominant cultural message about gender roles.

Whatever the reason that Umberson's findings were overlooked, Singletude is setting the record straight for readers here: Marital problems depress both women and men and may increase the likelihood that both sexes will develop health issues. Henry's research is not and surely will not be the final word.

Whew! Just had to get that off my chest. Now back to your regularly scheduled blogging!


Do you think more public attention is paid to research that reinforces gender stereotypes as opposed to research that disproves them? Can you think of any other reasons that Henry's study was so well publicized while Umberson's contradictory results were not? What do you think might explain the discrepancy between their conclusions? Have you noticed news sources applying selective reporting to singles issues as well?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Bad Marriages Break (Women's) Hearts

No, that title is not a juicy little morsel of schadenfreude. I'm not the kind of single who's always itching to sink my teeth into the misery of some poor unhappily married couple. Singletude wants single and married people alike to be happy. However, acquiring a marriage license doesn't guarantee happiness any more than singleness guarantees multiple cat ownership, which is why research warning of the pitfalls of the marriage made in hell is so desperately needed.

The research in question hails from the University of Utah. Ordinarily, I would pick one news report from a major media outlet and respond to it, but rather than reprinting a standard press release, most web sites chose to conduct their own interviews, so no single article captured the full picture, a fact I found interesting in itself. In summary, the study revealed a link between stressful marriages and metabolic syndrome in women.1-5 Metabolic syndrome is characterized by high blood pressure, blood sugar, and triglycerides; low HDL, the form of cholesterol considered "good"; and obesity in the abdominal region. All these symptoms put one at increased risk of heart attack1-5, stroke1,3,4, and diabetes1-5. The study also showed a correlation between marital strife and depression in both sexes1-5, and we know that depression can lead to health problems. However, oddly enough, unhappily married men were not more likely than their contented counterparts to develop metabolic syndrome.1-5

The study followed 276 couples.1-5 Sources couldn't seem to agree on whether couples had been married for 201,3 or 272,4,5 years on average or on the participants' age range, cited alternately as 40-701 or 32-762,5. The couples filled out questionnaires about marital conflict and depression levels and were then examined at the university's health clinic. Encouragingly for the married set, only 27% of women and 22% of men reported unhappy marriages.2,5 (I say "only" because I found this figure to be low, though I'm sure any bad marriage is one bad marriage too many for the people involved.)

The gender difference in incidence of metabolic syndrome was hypothesized to be due to the more central role that relationships play in women's heads--err, lives.2 One of the study's authors, Ph.D. candidate Nancy Henry, said, "Women seem to nurture relationships more than men do and attach significance to the emotions within relationships more than men do. ...Men...don't take as much stock in relationships with respect to their self-image, their self-concept, and those kinds of things."2 The symptoms of metabolic syndrome were probably caused by the flood of stress hormones that accompany relationship conflict.1,2,5 One commentator, Christine Northam, a couples therapist, also attributed the results to "the fact that women's hormonal profile[s are] more complex than men's." She then claimed that "women...tend to worry more about their health than men [do]," presumably increasing stress.4

Only one report, based on the university's press release, mentioned that previous divorce was also a risk factor and skimmed over this bit of trivia as quickly as possible.1,3 I emphasize it here because it was in line with previous research pointing to relationship loss as the major predictor of unhappiness, not singleness.

All the articles suggested modifications to diet and exercise routines to improve cardiovascular health1-5, and two promoted counseling2,5, but all of them were careful to clarify that they weren't recommending that women ditch their husbands en masse.1-5 Instead, Dr. Tim Smith of the U. of UT hoped that partners would focus on "the quality of [their] emotional and family lives." His goals for troubled couples included "getting along better and enjoying each other more, improving [their] mood."1

While Singletude is thankful for any study that shatters the myth of the marriage panacea, it would be even better if the researchers had included single men and women as a basis for comparison. At what rate do singles develop metabolic syndrome? What are the levels of depression among singles? How do never-married singles differ on these measures from divorced or widowed singles?

Furthermore, I'm a little troubled at the attitudes toward divorce that cropped up in these articles. On one hand, much of the media preferred to ignore the finding that divorce was a significant contributor to coronary disease. As noted earlier, the loss of a relationship can have deleterious effects on both physical and psychological health. On this matter, singles advocates and the pro-marriage crowd are aligned--we both want to publicize the profound impact of divorce. Curiously, the media didn't take advantage of that opportunity here.

They did, however, make it plain that the researchers discouraged divorce. Their prescription was "improving intimate relationships,"1 as well as committing to healthier eating and exercise habits. There was no discussion of how participants could magically "improve their relationships" after 20 years or more of presumably trying to do just that. Perhaps the researchers have been concocting an oxytocin nasal spray currently awaiting FDA approval. This study would make great promotional literature!

Far be it from me to portray divorce as a desirable solution to marital discord, but I also recognize that sometimes it's necessary. The divorced may be, on average, less happy and healthy than singles or the happily married, but how do they stack up against the unhappily married? Do these researchers expect us to believe that the unhappily married really have it better off? If you're married to a chronic cheater, an abuser (physical or emotional), a criminal, an addict, or even someone who just makes you miserable every day, day after day...sometimes the initial pain of separation may be worth the years of peace and stability that follow. And some singles-again do--gasp--get a second chance at love!

Again, I don't mean to push divorce as an acceptable escape hatch from problems that are better addressed by working on your own faults and foibles, but it bothers me that the researchers refuse to acknowledge that sometimes it is a sad but unavoidable outcome. I wish I'd seen a quote that sounded more like this: "The results of this study shouldn't be seen as justification to walk out on your spouse, and we hope that your first line of defense against these symptoms will be to get counseling and tackle interpersonal problems that might be defeating your relationship. But sometimes, unfortunately, a relationship may be so emotionally unhealthy and unsalvageable that it is in your best interest, physically and psychologically, to end it." What's wrong with that (other than that it doesn't fit into the agenda of a matrimaniacal society)?

Most of all, I'm concerned about what this study says about gender relations and the casual attitude with which Henry dismissed the health dangers to women as part and parcel of the natural female preoccupation with relationships. There are two disturbing assumptions here. The first is that women should derive so much of their psychological wellbeing from marriage, and the second is that men should not. Though the researchers gave lip service to reducing relational conflict, I get the sense that they are tolerant of normative expectations that a woman should invest more in a relationship than a man. I ask you, dear readers, to consider whether that very attitude may even be causing some of the marital problems that these couples face. I also find it interesting that there were no differences between husbands and wives on measures of depression. In opposition to Henry's conclusion, this implies to me that both sexes are equally stressed by interpersonal conflict and that women's bodies simply have a harder time recuperating from it. This would be a physiobiological difference, not a difference in relationship investment.

In general, though, I'm encouraged by this study. It honestly describes the health consequences of strained marital relations and doesn't try to obfuscate the data to further a conservative ideology that marriage cures all ills. That's a step in the right direction. Now if only these researchers can turn their baby step into a giant leap...


What do you think about this study? Why do you think women in troubled marriages had a higher incidence of metabolic syndrome than their male partners did? What do you think about the researchers' conclusions regarding why unhappily married women are at greater health risk than their husbands? Do you agree with the researchers about what should be done to minimize that risk? Do you believe that a bad marriage is better or worse than a divorce?


Sources

1. University of Utah
2. CNN.com
3. MSNBC
4. BBC News
5. Health.com


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Poll Results: Who Takes Care of You When You're Sick?

Voting on the first Singletude poll is now closed. The results were as follows:



Poll: "Who takes care of you when you're sick?"


No one. I go it alone.
60% (14)

My date of the moment gets guilted into it.
4% (1)

A friend stops in with soup and trash lit.
4% (1)

My roommate fetches my tissues and Tylenol.
4% (1)

Mom and Dad. There's no place like home for the queasy days.
26% (6)



Looks like most of us fend for ourselves, but our most likely rescuers are still the ones responsible for giving us life. Awwww. :)

Single in Sickness and in Health: Prepare for Medical Emergencies

No, Singletude isn't running out of things to say. It takes a fever, a migraine-level headache, a cough that sounds like something thick and foul-tasting bubbling in a pot, and a throat that feels like it's been stuffed with fiberglass to shut this single up. Yes, I was stopped in my tracks for several days straight by a nasty cold.

That sparked a question. As singles, we're used to relying on ourselves for the daily necessities--shopping and food prep, cleaning and household maintenance, transportation and car care, budgeting and bill paying. But sooner or later, along come those wicked little bacteria that you see on anti-fungal commercials, leering as they munch their way into your mucous membranes. Or perhaps you fall, and a limb gives way under the pressure. Or your immune system feels left out and starts acting up with a chronic condition like asthma or lupus. When you're the only one on duty, who holds down the fort when you're incapacitated?

It's a difficult enough question to answer when you're living off toast and ginger ale for three or four days. When you're facing a life-threatening battle with cancer, heart disease, or another serious condition, that question can be as stressful as the diagnosis.

Case in point: Over the past several years, my widowed uncle has been plagued with health problems and has needed a hip replacement and a rotator cuff repair. Now his knee is failing. Each time he's had surgery, my mother, who lives three hours away, has spent several weeks at his house cooking for him, driving him to appointments, running errands, and generally taking the place of a visiting nurse. At this point, my uncle is disabled and has to use a walker. In addition, because his shoulder didn't heal properly, he has only limited use of his arm. My cousin, who lives an hour away from him, visits him every week or so to clean house, make meals, and do the laundry.

Without his extended family, I'm not sure what my uncle would do. Some singles aren't fortunate enough to have family members who are willing or able to act as home health aides. Those who have good insurance may be able to afford nursing care, but not everyone is so lucky. To be sure that you're prepared for a medical emergency, consider taking these steps:


1. Make a plan with family or friends.
Discuss your health concerns with your family or friends. Plan in advance who will help you out in case of a medical problem. Preferably, this should be someone who lives nearby and doesn't work 70 hours a week in order to minimize the strain on everyone. Decide now so that there won't be any confusion or squabbling in case the worst occurs. If possible, choose a backup who can relieve the appointed family member or friend in case he or she is unable to care for you or needs a break. Offer to assume the same responsibility should your health care volunteer need you, especially if he or she is also single.

2. Get disability insurance.
Disability insurance kicks in when your health gives out to ensure that you still have an income if you can't work. Many employers offer short-term and/or long-term disability insurance. Find out if yours does as well as how long you'll be covered and for what percentage of your income. Typical short-term coverage continues for up to six months, while long-term coverage extends for five years to life. Most plans will pay approximately 60% of your income. If you live in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, or Hawaii, your employer must provide short-term disability insurance for 26 weeks, but no states have mandated long-term coverage yet. If your employer doesn't offer long-term disability insurance, you can buy a policy privately. Check with your state's department of insurance or with the agency that sells your life, home, or auto policy.

3. Buy long-term care insurance.
Long-term care insurance covers individuals in need of a nursing home, assisted living facility, or home health care. Your current insurance policy may or may not include some of these things. If not, you should be aware that Medicare covers only nursing care and not home health aides to assist you with the so-called Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), such as washing, dressing, and eating. Medicaid does pay for home health aides, but you have to qualify. If you don't qualify for Medicaid, it's recommended that you either purchase a private long-term care policy or, if your assets total more than $1.5 million, plan to pay for any long-term care expenses out of pocket. If you live in New York, Connecticut, California, or Indiana and buy a state-approved policy, you'll be eligible for Medicaid anytime you exhaust its benefits, even if you wouldn't qualify for Medicaid otherwise. Don't wait too long to take action on this. By age 50, 11% of long-term care insurance applicants are rejected, and by age 70, that figure is 43%.

4. Prepare a living will and health care power of attorney.
As uncomfortable as it is to think of your own mortality, it may be more discomfiting to think of becoming the next Terri Schiavo. A living will allows you to spell out how you do or don't want to be cared for should you be unable to express your wishes, while a health care power of attorney appoints someone to advocate for the directives in your living will. You can download a living will and power of attorney and have them notarized, or you can visit an attorney who specializes in estate law. Be careful with anything you download off the Internet, though, as it may or may not meet the legal regulations of your state.


Decisions regarding your future health care can seem daunting, but it's better to tackle them now, while you have your health, than later, when they can be overwhelming to someone stressed by illness or injury.

On a lighter note, please take a minute to respond to the Singletude poll above and let us know where you turn when you're on your sickbed.


What do you do when you're sick? Who do you call on to nurse you back to health, or what are your strategies for nursing yourself? Do you have an arrangement with a friend or family member to help you if you're physically incapacitated? Have you made provisions for disability, long-term care, a living will, and/or a health care power of attorney? What other options would you recommend to singles who might need help when ill or injured?


Fun Link of the Day

Singles and Alcohol Abuse, Part II

There’s no doubt that alcohol is the centerpiece of many a single’s social life. Last time, Singletude listed some signs that a drinking habit has crossed into the danger zone.

But what about the rest of us who drink responsibly? What are we to think of the effects of alcohol? Every time we turn around, the FDA or some university is spouting statistics about why alcohol is or is not good for us: “Drink up that red wine! It’ll keep your heart healthy! But be careful of the tannins.” It’s enough to make anyone’s head spin, whether or not you just tipped back a shot of tequila.

Here, then, are some pros and cons stacked up against each other so you can weigh them in the balance and decide for yourself:

(Note: In most studies, moderate drinking is defined as no more than one or two drinks a day for men and no more than one drink a day for women.2 One drink equals 12 oz. of beer, 5 oz. of wine, or 1.5 oz. of hard liquor.3)

CANCER

Pros: Moderate drinking can protect against cancers of the pancreas and kidneys (a 30-66% decrease), as well as against Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (a 27% decrease).6

Cons: Compared to those who don't drink, people who have more than three drinks a day increase their risk of colorectal cancers by 26%, and women increase their risk of breast cancer by 30-41%.1,5 Alcohol can also contribute to cancers of the liver, pancreas, mouth, throat and uterus.1

CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM

Pros: Moderate alcohol consumption can reduce the risk of heart attack, cardiovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, and sudden cardiac death by 25-40%2, with the decrease in cardiovascular disease perhaps as great as 70%.5,6 It can also cut in half the chance of stroke due to blood clots1 and decrease the risk of high blood pressure by about 15%.6

Cons: Alcohol can increase the risk of stroke due to hemorrhage.1 More than two drinks a day can also double the risk of high blood pressure1,5,6 and lead to cardiomyopathy2 and sudden cardiac death.3 Even those who drink only once or twice a day are prone to abnormal atrial rhythms.1

NERVOUS SYSTEM

Pros: Imbibing in moderation has been shown to lower one's risk of dementia and Alzheimer's by up to 75 or 80%.4,6 It's also associated with a decreased incidence of Parkinson's disease.6 Moderate drinkers are less likely to develop cataracts7, macular degeneration, and hearing loss.6

Cons: Alcohol has been shown to disrupt sleep.2


MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM

Pros: Seniors who have two drinks a day are 22% less likely to have hip fractures.1 Moderate drinkers are also less likely to develop osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis.6

Cons: Seniors who have more than two drinks a day are 18% more likely to suffer fractures.1 In addition, those who consume five or six drinks within two days are twice as likely to suffer from gout.1

DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

Pros: Those who drink moderately are less likely to develop digestive problems including duodenal ulcers6 and gallstones.3 Furthermore, there is a decrease of 30-60%6 in the incidence of diabetes.3,4

Cons: Consuming at least five drinks a day can lead to hepatitis and cirrhosis of the liver.2,5 Heavy drinking can lead to pancreatitis.3

EXCRETORY SYSTEM

Pros: Moderate drinking can reduce the risk of kidney stones and cancer (by 30-66% for cancer).6

Cons: None with moderate drinking.


REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM

Pros: None with moderate drinking.

Cons: Alcohol has been associated with miscarriage and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.3

OVERALL MORTALITY

Pros: Studies suggest that moderate alcohol consumption decreases overall mortality rates by 20-30% as compared to heavy consumption and abstinence.6

Cons: None with moderate drinking.


In all cases, the risk-benefit ratio changes with age. At age 30, risks outweigh benefits because one's chance of developing conditions like cancer and heart disease are naturally lower. By age 60, benefits outweigh risks.2



What other health benefits or risks can you think of for moderate drinking? Do you know anyone whose health was positively or negatively impacted by alcohol? What are your drinking habits? How do you recommend that other singles approach alcohol?


Sources
1. USA Weekend
2. Harvard School of Public Health
3. MayoClinic
4. Medical News Today
5. UptoDate Patient Information
6. State University of New York - Potsdam
7. HealthMad


Fun Link of the Day

Singles and Alcohol Abuse, Part I

Did you know that singles tend to drink more heavily than married folks? (See "Sources" below.)

It's not hard to imagine why. What do you do when you go over to a friend's house to watch the game? Have a beer. Where do you go to meet other singles? The bar. If you get together with a colleague, how do you talk shop? Over a drink. Alcohol consumption is part and parcel of our social gatherings, especially when we're young and aren't expected to put a baby to bed at nine o'clock or wake up in time to ferry the kids to school. In very young singles (teens to mid-twenties), alcohol is often more than a backdrop to social ritual; it is the ritual. If you don't participate, you're voted off the island.

According to the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the percentage of young people who had consumed alcohol in the past 30 days was 46% at age 18 and 71% at age 22. Although these percentages fell somewhat with age, they remained high throughout the twenties, thirties, and even forties, dipping no lower than 56.7% among the 40-44 age group. The greater problems for adults beyond the college frat party days were binge drinking, defined as "five or more drinks on the same occasion...on at least 1 day in the past 30 days," and heavy use, defined as binge drinking on five or more days in the past 30. Of adults in the 21-25 age group, 29.3% were binge drinkers and 16.7% heavy users, and of those aged 26 to 29, 26.4% were bingers and 11.9% heavy users.

Since Chardonnay with dinner and Guinness at the sports bar are cultural institutions, it can be difficult to pinpoint when alcohol use becomes abuse. Is it when you get drunk once a week? Twice a week? Once a day? Is it okay if you get drunk but don't black out or have a hangover? Is it acceptable if it makes you late to class but you're still an A student? How about if it wreaks havoc with your relationships but you're the top performer at work? Alcohol abusers are notoriously defensive of their nightly bottles, but many times they don't realize they have a problem. Here are some signs and symptoms of a drinking problem:


1. Disobeying Doctors' Orders
By the time a heavy drinker develops alcohol-related health problems, a diagnosis of alcoholism is a no-brainer. But even before the liver rebels, alcohol abusers may reveal themselves by drinking when a physician prohibits it because of its impact on another health condition or on medication.

2. Slacking Off at Work or School
If someone is spending more time pouring over a bottle than over tomorrow's presentation, there's a problem. Anytime one's performance at work or school starts to suffer, that's not a good sign. And just because you can still ace that exam or lead your management team doesn't mean you're okay to have another round with your friends. If a boss, teacher, or other authority figure is displeased because you've been tired, irritable, tardy, or a no-show, your position in the workplace or classroom is in jeopardy even if you can still pull off your assignments.

3. Financial Insolvency
When the problem gets really bad, those who suffer from alcoholism may forget or be unable to pay the bills. Or they may spend so much of their pocket change at the bar that they run out of cash for necessities. If a heavy drinker is in financial trouble, it's time to get help.

4. Driving Under the Influence
Whether or not they get caught, people who drive while intoxicated show poor judgment and an inability to drink responsibly. While nonalcoholics may make this mistake on occasion due to immaturity or impaired reasoning, repeat offenders may have a deeper problem.

5. Risky Business
Driving under the influence is only one risk that an alcohol abuser may take. Problem drinkers might engage in other dangerous activities. These can land on the wrong side of the law, such as theft, vandalism, fistfights, trespassing, and drug use, or they may be personal risks such as gambling, unprotected sex, or life-threatening dares.

6. Personality Change
People who have a problem with alcohol are often noted to undergo a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality transformation when intoxicated. They may lash out physically or verbally, hit on anything that moves, or generally behave in ways that would make their sober alter egos blush (naked table dancing to the tune of ABBA comes to mind). They may also forsake their friends and family for a crowd more supportive of their habits and react angrily to anyone who suggests that naked table dancing is best left to Lindsay Lohan.

7. Secrets and Lies
Alcoholics may go to great lengths to keep their drinking under wraps. They may drink alone, hide secret stashes, or travel out of town to a bar no one knows. If someone asks if they've been drinking, they might deny it or downplay it.

8. The Highlight of Their Day
Alcohol abusers may schedule their days around their favorite activity. Anytime they invite you out, liquor must be on hand. They may plan drinking and recovery time into their daily routines.

9. Thinking Through a Fog
Heavy alcohol users may black out and forget entire drinking episodes. Hence, they may be mortified when you remind them of the naked table dancing. Or they may just deny it or offer excuses. "I wasn't myself" is a favorite.

10. Dependent Behavior
As alcohol abuse crosses the line to dependence, alcoholics may not have the willpower to resist drinking (or stop drinking once they've started) and may need greater and greater quantities of alcohol to obtain the desired effect.


Not all alcoholics will exhibit all of the above symptoms, and some non-abusers will occasionally use alcohol irresponsibly, especially when young. Be alert for a consistent pattern of multiple signs and symptoms. Also be aware of what an alcoholic or alcohol abuser doesn't have to be:

--Drunk
--A secretive drinker
--A social drinker
--Wild, loud, or violent
--Forgetful
--A "loser"

For more information on alcoholism and a complete screening test, check out the following guides:

Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Early Signs of Alcohol Problems
Symptoms of Alcoholism
About Alcohol Abuse

Do you or does a single you know struggle with alcohol abuse? What other signs and symptoms of alcoholism can you think of? At what point do you think frequent drinking becomes alcohol abuse?


Sources
Alcohol Use and Abuse Among Single Adults
Effects of Early and Later Marriage on Women's Alcohol Use in Young Adulthood
Families As a Cause of Alcohol Problems
How to Tell If He's the "Marrying Kind"
Why Marriage Matters
Women and Substance Abuse
Maturing Out of Problematic Alcohol Use


Fun Link of the Day

Singles Are Healthier Than Unhappily Marrieds

Breaking news, singles! This study on the correlation between marital status and blood pressure has been making the rounds of the online news hubs, so if you haven't read it, point your browser there.

We've been force-fed a lot of propaganda about how marriage guarantees a longer, healthier life even as many of us singles have stood on the sidelines of marital feuds and wondered how the heck those couples could sleep at night, let alone outlive us. Well, the scoop is that a marriage certificate doesn't mean squat if the relationship isn't fulfilling. In fact--surprise, surprise--it's better to be single!

The researchers measured blood pressure in 204 married partners and 99 singles and collected measures of marital satisfaction and adjustment from the couples. As expected, higher levels of marital satisfaction and adjustment were associated with lower blood pressure. But the big news is that couples who scored poorly on marital satisfaction and adjustment had blood pressure levels that rose through the roof, surpassing those of happier couples and singles. In fact, the dissatisfied couples had blood pressure readings that hit the danger zone!

The bottom line: It's much better for your health to be single than to be unhappily married.

For singles, this isn't news. It's something we've known all along. Not that we're running around pumping our BP monitors like some people check their BlackBerries, but we've likely seen our coupled friends stressed over everything from infidelity to who's going to cook tonight, and in the meantime, we've been retiring each evening to a comfy couch, a free remote, and a bed that no one has to make in the morning. Since most of us have been in relationships, we can also contrast our currently unruffled emotions with the bumpy ride we took through the final stages with the ex. What a fun house.

You can't argue with the facts about a good marriage. There is a lot of evidence that happy partnerships boost disease-free longevity. Yet, for some reason, whether self-righteousness, denial, envy, bitterness, or fear of those who are different, society has insisted for some time that all marriages have this protective effect, while we singles, floating along without the pressures of spouse and kids, are doomed to ill health. That's counterintuitive, and now we also know it's blatantly false.

For me personally, one of the unsung advantages of singlehood is the even keel of a predictable, stable emotional rhythm. Even in the best relationships, it seems the heart is always somersaulting over the ups and downs of coupled life--the spats, the misunderstandings, the doubt and rejection. When I'm single, I may miss out on the highs of romance, but I certainly don't miss the lows of heartbreak, and while an absence of the former won't kill you, the latter can by depressing your immune system, elevating your blood pressure, and increasing your risk of heart attack.

Instinctively, I think we've always known that it's better to be single and happy than married and miserable. But it's nice to have it validated anyway.


Do you think it's healthier to be alone than to be trapped in a bad marriage? Have you been healthier as a single than you've been in unhappy relationships?


Fun Link of the Day