Don't Let Your Baby Blues Go Code Red & Sometimes It's Better Just to Do Less Harm - Coursework Example

no. Response to “Don’t Let Your Baby Blues Go Red” and “Sometimes It’s Better Just To Do Less Harm” The article “Don’t Let Your Baby Blues Go Code Red” published in the New York Times on June 7, 2005 addresses the depression experience by most women immediately after giving birth. The first argument made by Brody is in relation to the opinion that whenever celebrities write about personal problems such as emotional disorders, such works generate a lot of public attention and are highly publicized (7).

I feel that this opinion is very true, considering how people are quick to share stories concerning celebrities, especially in this era of increased social media activity. For example, stories of Lindsay Lohan going to rehab due to drug abuse was highly publicized and people followed closely her treatment process. In the same way, when Brooke Shield wrote about her battle with postpartum depression, the topic generated a lot of public opinion. According to Brody, although postpartum depression is experienced by approximately 20 percent of women, many of these women do not get treatment for this condition (7).

I agree with the observation that very few women seek treatment for postpartum depression, mainly because such women are afraid of being branded as bad mothers. As Brody writes, no mother wishes to have experience postpartum depression (7). Rather, the risk factors for postpartum depression include such experiences as complicated labor, problems with a previous pregnancy, and lack of support from family and friends (7). In my opinion, all the cited risk factors are legit considering that such experiences can cause a person develop certain fears especially towards the baby and may even hurt the baby unwillingly, thus the need for psychotherapy services to enable new mothers deal with the postpartum phase.

Appearing in the New York Times, “Sometimes It’s Better Just To Do Less Harm” is an article by Richard Friedman which addresses the hard decisions that doctors have to make with regard to treatment, in terms of trying to risk lesser harm for the purpose of avoiding greater harm (5). Friedman seems to be of the opinion that the first rule of “do no damage” is not at all times applicable.I hold a similar opinion considering that in some instances, such as being forced to amputate a completely shuttered hand is considerably lesser harm than risking an infection of the entire arm.

Friedman proceeds to give an example of Larry, an overweight smoker who has tried quitting smoking but has failed (5). When Larry talks to his doctor about smoking, he speaks in such a dreamy tone, telling of how smoking relaxes him and increases his alertness, that the doctor understands why quitting is so hard for Larry. The doctor wonders how he is supposed to substitute such pleasurable effects with therapy which would not have such gratifying effects. In this case, I understand the doctor’s concern as it is difficult to persuade a person to quit engaging in an activity that gives them pleasure even though its long term effects are bad, and ask them to instead engage in a non-pleasurable activity with good long term effects.

As Friedman writes, in the case of Larry, the doctor opted for the lesser harm in order to avoid greater risk rule. In this case, since medication such as Zyban was not working on Larry, the only option was a nasal nicotine spray (5). After using the nasal spray for some time, Larry was able to stop smoking although his nicotine addiction persists. I completely understand the doctor’s rationalization that the smoke produced by cigarettes is more harmful than nicotine, so addiction to nicotine is less harmful than addiction to cigarettes.

Works citedBrody, Jane. “Don’t Let Your Baby Blues Go Code Red”. The New York Times 7 June 2005 Late ed: 7. Print. Friedman, Richard. “Sometimes It’s Better Just To Do Less Harm”. The New York Times 21 June 2005 Late ed: 5. Print.