Selfish much?

Every so often, I pick up a women's mag and indulge one of my little guilty pleasures.

Equally often, I remember why I don't do this more often. Today was one such day.

I made the mistake of reading the agony aunt column (which I can never resist). Most of the questions were *amused eyeroll* questions.

And then...there was the *WTF-my-blood-pressure-just-hit-the-roof* question:

I have two best friends and we've been very close for years - I've asked them to be my bridesmaids. Last year, one of them lost a baby and then her partner, and we were there for her. But now she's never there for us. She didn't turn up for my birthday party and if we arrange a night out, she either turns up for five minutes or not at all. I want her as a bridesmaid, but I'm not sure she'd even turn up...

And if THAT QUESTION wasn't WTFable enough, Irma Kurtz's response is even MORE of an epic fail:

She can't be depended on as she can't depend on herself. Misery overrides her best intentions. You could uninvite her as your bridesmaid, using the excuse that it's too much for her. That puts the ball in her court and you may or may not lose her as your friend. Or you could go ahead as planned, giving her time to cheer up or drop out - perhaps even at the last minute. But what difference does that make. All that matters is your loving marriage ahead.

Yes, of course, that's all that matters. Because Irma is feeding the idea, you selfish waste of carbon molecules, that all that matters is you.

Why don't I take the time to do you a favour and tell you like it really is?

Your 'best friend' - in inverted commas because you are clearly no friend of any kind - has just suffered two of the *most devastating losses anyone can suffer* (even if the partner left rather than died - the latter being what is implied). You and your friends were, of course, 'there' for the requisite - what? fortnight? - till the funerals and then expected her to buck up and be the person she was two years ago, before she lost her child (read that again, her CHILD) and the partner she loved.

And of course, equating her not being able to attend your little 'birthday party' and the odd social gathering with 'not being there for you' makes so much sense. Because you need her to be there for you and support you whilst you're eating, laughing and necking shots. She, of course, doesn't need YOU whilst she's grieving (oh, I'm sorry - you think she should be over it), trying to fathom a life without her baby and her beloved, whilst she's struggling to keep her head above water. She has to show up, happy, chirpy, thrilled for YOU. I mean, how DARE she continue grieving eight, ten, twelve months on? It's impinging on YOUR perfect little life. So what if your marriage reminds her, like a knife twisted in the heart, of what she's lost? Who cares about her? You've done your 'pat her on the back and hand her tissues' quota, now she should forget about it all and be there for you as you eat, drink and get merry.

Bite me and every woman who knows what being a real friend is about, c***.

Let me tell you what a real friend would know, so maybe you can be one someday.

Irma is wrong. Your friend is not going through 'misery', she is going through deep, intense grief that is complicated because of the depth of the ties, the fact that she is suffering more than one loss, and that the losses are unexpected, at least in terms of order. She can't 'cheer up or drop out' (WTF, Irma??? 'Empathetic' in your vocabulary at all?). Children don't die before their parents. Partners don't die young. She has lost her FAMILY.

Grief doesn't have a time scale. It's not 'a few months and it's over', or 'after the funeral, she'll be back to her normal, tequila shot drinking self'. It is a cycle that can take YEARS - her life is completely, utterly shattered. She has to accept the loss, go all the way into it and feel the pain, then begin to re-organise her life. That is going to take time.

And even when she re-organises, she will never again be the carefree friend you had two years ago: she'll be deeper, stronger, darker - she'll know a pain that most people will likely never know.

One of the things she'll need to get there is more than a little help from her friends: friends who will let her grieve; who will gently guide her to CRUSE or therapy if she gets really stuck; friends who will understand when she can barely stay for a night out; who will listen. No, it won't be all girly giggles and drinking; but then real friendship isn't, is it?

Sorry, what was I thinking? You don't know what real friendship is. Selfish much?

My agony aunt advice to you, which Irma - whom Cosmo needs to fire before she can do any more damage - apparently couldn't think of?

Listen to her. Love her. Be there. Yes, your wedding is coming up, but guess what? Even at a time like this, the world isn't all about you. Because what's your wedding really about?

Relationship - for better for worse, dark and light, laughter and tears. It would behoove you to learn how to do that.

Right now, you need to start with your best friend.

MMR - a paediatrician's daughter rants

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. *MAJOR headdesk* God, if I could consign Andrew Wakefield to the 8th circle of hell, I would do it in less time than that which separated Phelps and Cavic in the 100m butterfly. For God's sake, people, the study 'linking MMR to autism' was done on TWELVE, read that, TWELVE, children. Autism would show up around the time of the MMR vaccine because *that's when it becomes evident ANYWAY* - the study needed to look back at the child's history to see if there had been slight developmental differences that would have indicated the presence of autism. Later studies have found that to be the case. For those of you about to argue 'rapidly rising rates of autism', you need to think about how diagnostic techniques have been improved and how the autistic spectrum has been expanded to include syndromes like Aspergers.

For those of you worried about Wakefield's repuation, don't:

Nine months before Andrew Wakefield and London's Royal Free hospital medical school unleashed a global scare over the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, they filed, on June 5 1997, the first of a string of patent applications for theoretically vastly profitable products which could only succeed if MMR's reputation was damaged. These included a purported safer measles vaccine - a potential competitor to MMR - and treatments for bowel disease and autism. All were based on claims that measles virus in MMR was at fault.

I'm not an expert in these things, but I'm thinking that might tank his study. Shame on Lancet for poor peer review - 12 is not a number you use to start a general panic, and it was down to them to determine if Wakefield had competing interests. Someone should have been asking some questions. The press is also to blame here: the investigative reporting should have been done in 1998, not 2004.

But in the end, it's down to us to ask questions about what affects our lives. I really wish the general public would learn to question numbers and applications of the scientific method more often - you can't make decisions about the issues that have an impact on your life without knowing how to read surveys, percentages and so on. Michael Blastland's summer school is a great place to start.

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein

So get savvy and get asking.

I'm not sure why Americans, in particular, don't stop and think, "Wait, I got MMR - it has been licensed since 1963. Suddenly, in 1998, it's linked to autism? Absolute pants. Had there been a real link, it would have been noticed far sooner than 3.5 decades later." It's time we stopped unconditionally believing what we're handed by the media and started digging, asking questions about agendas or following our noses when things seem fishy. With the internet, research is as easy as it has ever been. DO IT.

You'll find that Edward Jenner invented the first vaccine by inoculating his children against smallpox (now eradicated, thanks to...vaccination) with cowpox. Those of you opting out on religious, philosophical and 'every other kid is vaccinated' grounds will discover the precious importance of 'herd immunity' - which means that at least 85% (and in the case of some diseases, over 90%) of the children (herd) need to be vaccinated for those diseases to be held at bay. In the States, the percentage of fully immunised children is 77%. Hmmm. It would appear that banking on herd immunity is a bit like playing Russian roulette with 4 bullets chambered.

When the means is readily available, it's NOT someone else's responsibility to make sure your child doesn't suffer a devastating childhood disease - it's YOURS. And not just for the sake of your child, but for the sake of those in your midst who are immuno-compromised: the elderly, the very young, the transplant patient, the cancer patient.

Vaccines are safe and getting safer - they're safer today than when we had them. They'll be safer tomorrow. God knows, they've always been safer than chancing a dance with a disease like rubella or diphtheria. Don't believe me? Look at the developing world.

Ironically, it's the efficacy of MMR and other vaccines that has allowed parents to think "my kids don't need it", because they have absolutely NO memory of just how devastating a disease measles can be. Worried about a non-existent risk of autism? Watching your child suffering with encephalitis after catching the measles or unable to move after catching poliomyelitis because you didn't get them vaccinated will cure you of that.

Permanently.

Is that a risk you're willing to take?