The Perfect Hike

(Photo taken by me: the very top of Rattlesnake Ledge; around 9:00am)











I love living in such a beautiful state. After a few months of wanting to check out this place recommended to me, the weather FINALLY decided to be agreeable enough for me to venture out and explore today. Someone I know who has been to Rattlesnake Ledge before suggested I leave around 6:00am so that I'd arrive there and start the hike early enough to get the morning sun, few people on the trail,etc. Just me and my small backpack filled with water, Chex Mix, and my Nikon camera. Off I went to North Bend, WA....Rattlesnake Ledge hiking trail in the Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest. The drive there was quiet and quick, as I left soon after sunrise....starting from Seattle, I drove about 40 miles. I-5 South to I-90 East, exit 32 (for 436th Ave SE), and continue on to Cedar Falls Rd. SE for a few miles. Very easy route.

I started the hike between 7:15-7:30am, a 1.8 mile to reach the top of the ledge (4 miles round trip). I was glad I got there when I did. This was the quietest, most peaceful hike I think I've ever been on in my life (thus far). From now on, I'm going on hikes this early in the morning! I don't despise people or anything, but there's just something extremely enjoyable and meditative about being able to be walk along a trail virtually all by yourself in the forest. I liked the fact that my phone had no reception. Technology felt blissfully out of this realm. The only sounds I heard were of birds chirping, leaves rustling, my sneakers making a crunchy sound into the soil, and a "hello" or "good morning" from the occasional hiker on the trail. Air so fresh that all I could smell was the welcoming slightly pungent earthy soil smell distinct to forests or remote areas in the wilderness.

There's something about walking in this kind of environment that makes it easy for me to put all my worries and "baggage" behind, no matter what's going on with my life at the time. The grand beauty and simplicity nature offers is a refreshing reminder not to sweat the small stuff. In fact, being on this perfect hike today had me even boldly contemplating what it would be like to live off the grid. The idea of living in a place of overwhelming beauty and no technology or noise secretly appeals to me (in the idealistic sense). A part of me would be happier living that way, I think. The hours I spent on this hike were the happiest moments I've had probably all month! It's funny too...as I was hiking, I thought about how my idea of "fun" has changed in the last 5 years. 5 years ago "fun" was staying up late at night, drinking with my friends in the big city. Now I would much rather get up early in the morning and go to a peaceful, gorgeous place where few people can be found; that is my fun. I never get bored exploring Mother Nature and photographing her unique features; she never disappoints.

As I reached the top of the ledge, two hikers who appeared in their 20's arrived right behind me. The guy (Jason) was quite an engaging conversationalist, perhaps the nicest hiker I've met on any hike. I was amazed by his bravery and fearlessness as I watched him hop from one steep rock ledge to the next....and then sit on the VERY edge, what could potentially be a deadly dropoff! I saw the cutest tiny chipmunk scurrying around the rock ledge, but he couldn't keep still long enough for me to snap a photo of him. Tiniest chipmunk I've ever seen! Within 5-10 minutes of hanging out at this spot and taking photos, it started to fill up with a dozen people. I was surprised, as it was only about 9am!

Slightly perturbed that my once peaceful and very quiet hike was starting to get crowded and noisy, I decided to start heading back down. Just then, Jason started talking to me. At first I thought he was talking to the girl who was with him (her name was Sandy, as I later learned), but then I realized he was talking to me. I heard him say "Where did our companion go?" (that would be me, haha). He pointed to one of the signs that showed a few other longer trails that were an extension of Rattlesnake Ledge. He said most people only go to the 'popular' spot (where we had just been) and that he knew of another ledge/lookout about a quarter mile into the East Peak trail going in the other direction. This interesting friendly guy got me curious, so I followed behind them up to the spot. We walked a bit off the beaten path through some little shrubs/a mini trail to get to the ledge he was talking about. I almost liked it more than the popular spot. I got a different view and an enjoyable conversation with Jason.

We talked a bit about photography (he had an old school Minolta camera, said he's a firm believer in film over using digital) and even more so about going different places in the wilderness. He talked about a friend of his that is an EMT and the hikes he's done with the friend that he wouldn't venture on alone. He also told me about "conditioning" (purposely putting heavy water bottles in his backpack to train his body for carrying a heavy load on the way up, then dumping the water out before hiking back down). At one point he apologized for "talking too much," though I don't think I ever gave him the impression I wanted him to stop talking. On the contrary, I found the unexpected conversation with this complete stranger refreshing and enjoyable!

As we started heading back down, I let them go ahead of me since he was a super fast hiker. His parting words: "Maybe we'll see you around sometime." I liked that guy, someone who seemed to know how to truly live in the moment and briefly enjoy nature with a stranger. :)

I started seeing people more frequently, every few minutes (They heading up as I headed down). I found myself saying "Hello" or "Good morning" more often and while most everyone was friendly that I passed, I couldn't help being secretly excited and grateful that I got to savor my experience mostly in peaceful, quiet solitude with a dash of conversation/friendly "companions."

The Perfect Hike.

Go indie

Every now and then I think about a guy I dated when I had first moved to Chicago 10 years ago. For as many faults as the guy had, I will credit him with having an influence on me when it comes to one particular subject: independent film. Before he arrived in my life, I primarily watched mainstream "blockbuster" movies. I'm not sure if it had more to do with the culture of the cities/towns I lived in growing up (ie, little to no opportunities to explore the art and film genres) or that it wasn't something that was important to me in my younger years. Whatever the case may be, the guy opened me up to the world of independent film. Given that I'm more of a 'off the beaten path' kinda girl, he seemed astounded that indie movies weren't on my radar of interests. Little did I know, I had been missing out by watching so many predictable, cookie cutter movies all those years prior. Sure, I like my share of entertaining mindless movies....but just as with my passion for reading books, "fluff" gets boring and I can only take it in small doses. I need intellectual stimulation....and I need to feel something! "Stimulation" in any sense of the word is key.

Now that I've been watching mainly indie movies the last 10 years, I can't imagine NOT watching them! So much more refreshing and unique in perspective, provoking deeper thoughts and feelings in equal measure. I find myself seeking out these movies that I just know will have me thinking about something in a different way, or challenge me to feel something I didn't know was there within me. Such has been particularly the case this past week with two different movies I watched. Funny enough, they were movies I wasn't sure I would like but wanted to take a chance and watch them anyway out of mere curiosity.

Props to "127 Hours" and "Catfish." I don't even know where to begin. Honestly, I can't say much without giving away the plot to both. Looking back, I wish I could have watched them with a friend or family member (I watched them by myself) because both offer a rich opportunity to discuss those fascinating grey areas of life. Rather than reveal what I saw, instead I'll reveal what the two movies had me questioning. I urge you to check out these movies if the following questions intrigue you or dare you to explore as I did.

"127 Hours:" What lengths/extremes would you (seriously and honestly) go to in order to survive and save yourself in an incredibly life threatening situation? Is the will to live the major predicting factor and most important "survival skill?" Does one's life literally 'flash before your eyes' when it looks like one's approaching death's door and how does that compel one to act/not act? Are we capable of so much more than we think we are when it comes to utilizing psychological strength of mind? Do only certain environments (ie, being in the wilderness) draw this out of us?

"Catfish:" How is it that we may more easily put ourselves out there for complete strangers in the cyberworld (and at a faster progression with self-disclosure and seeming "intimacy") than communicating and interacting with others in person? Have we made ourselves more vulnerable online because the risk to be vulnerable in person feels too daunting or threatening to our sense of self? Is the "real you" the one you demonstrate on social networking sites or how you interact with people on a daily basis face to face? Have our relationships with people and the way we relate to them become a blurry or indistinguishable mix of truth/reality and cyber/fantasy? How do we respond or cope when truth shatters the fantasy? Which parts of our psyches do we choose to let "shine?" Which parts do we unconsciously or deliberately keep hidden from others (and/or ourselves!) out of fear, shame, disappointment, or some kind of deep emotional pain? Once you know truth, you can't "unknow" it....so what do you do with truth once you have it? How much does the way you respond (ie, with anger and hate vs. forgiveness and compassion) to someone who has hurt or deceived you reveal about your character? Again, as the question I posed with "127 Hours": Do only certain situations reveal this aspect of oneself?

Go indie.

Think and feel something.

Discuss.

Dr. Kevorkian, post-mortem

With the recent death of Dr. Jack Kevorkian (aka "Dr. Death"), I find myself reflecting on how he challenged societal norms regarding the controversial subject of assisted suicide. The psychology course "Studies in Death and Dying" I took my sophomore year in undergraduate college was by far the most thought provoking and my first foray into analyzing this particular issue. I haven't really thought about this issue much over the years until hearing of Kevorkian's death last week.

A friend of mine posted a link online recommending the movie "You Don't Know Jack" (2008), a film that chronicles how Dr. Jack Kevorkian started doing assisted suicides and the controversial, legal battles that ensued thereafter. Al Pacino (as Jack Kevorkian), Susan Sarandon, and John Goodman deliver a stunning performance. Highly recommend. I had forgotten I had wanted to see the movie until my friend (unbeknownst to him) reminded me with his posting. While watching it last week, I found myself having various thoughts about it and felt compelled to write about it. I was also curious to see if my thoughts on this subject are any different now than they were my sophomore year of college.

I wrote a few short essays responding to the Kevorkian/assisted suicide controversy as part of my class assignments/final exam in "Studies in Death and Dying." Given this was November 1997 (I was 1 month shy of 20 years old at the time), I wondered if perhaps my views and/or personal feelings about it have shifted dramatically over the last 13 years. I thought I would share what I wrote back then (for fun/curiosity's sake....I found my folder of papers for the class in my closet, which I purposely kept for posterity) and then follow that up with sharing the thoughts I jotted down as I watched "You Don't Know Jack."

November 17, 1997

I believe an individual should have the personal right to choose to end their life. Although Kevorkian has sparked a nationwide controversy with his methods of euthanasia, he still continues to help those that seek his help. I feel he does a thorough job in getting the person to decide if that is what they really want and even makes a videotape of it to make things clearer for legal and personal reasons. The method of euthanasia used is set up to where the individual must turn the machine on themselves and can always pull it out at the last minute. There are almost immediate results and no pain is felt by the dying patient. I don't agree with the ways Kevorkian disposes of the bodies, but I don't feel he is harming the greater community by the duties he's carrying out. One must remember Kevorkian has certain requirements of the patient: he or she must be terminally ill (6 months or less to live) and they must wait a few months to carefully consider the options of euthanasia. Finally, I believe desperate people seek desperate measures when there is little hope left and Kevorkian just provides the means to the solution.

Another short essay of mine for the class...not about Kevorkian, but on a similar note (ie, whether to "pull the plug" on people): The decision to "pull the plug" is surely not an easy one for anyone to face and it's definitely not a black or white issue. It's a gray area of ethics that needs careful consideration, depending on the patient and the patient's condition. I feel that in most cases, the family should have the power to decide what would be best for the person if there's not a will to pre-determine it all. I'm not sure when is the right time to decide. I suppose that if there was even a slim chance the person could come through it I would wait, but in the case such as with Nancy Cruzan, I would have made a judgment call from the start and pulled the plug. However, in the psychology book there was a case about an infant with Down's Syndrome that had a heart condition. He could be cured with the option of surgery, yet the parents refused treatment. To me, that is wrong and selfish. I believe the court system should only get involved if the family and doctors were both unsure of the patient's needs or if the family might have bad intentions for the patient. Most of all though, I feel there should be no fixed decision on who decides to pull the plug because every patient is different (although the family might possibly know what their loved one would want more than anyone else). The entire situation is about playing God and I don't think this issue will ever entirely be resolved by society.

And one more: Assisted suicide, defined as providing the means to help an individual end his or her life, has benefits and drawbacks. Active euthanasia, intentionally assisting the death of someone suffering from a disease, has become a topic of great controversy over the past decade with the workings of Dr. Jack Kevorkian (aka "Dr. Death"). The decision to follow through with this alternative is surely not spontaneous and requires careful planning on the patient's and the doctor's behalf. Pros of this decision include putting the patient "out of misery" from pain and suffering and giving the patient free will to decide what is best for themselves. On the other hand, this can get quite complicated when family and friends oppose the idea, bringing legal and moral ramifications into the picture. In addition, what if the patient feels hopeless that death is inevitable and follows through with assisted suicide before waiting a fair length of time to see if the possibility of living longer and regaining their health could actually occur?! I am still not sure how I feel about assisted suicide. I do not think I could ever go through with it, although I am sure under extenuating circumstances, I might consider it. As for supporting family or friends wanting to do it, I think it would depend on the individual and the type of illness they were suffering from as to whether I would be for or against it. For instance, if an individual was in constant pain and/or had lost touch with reality with nothing to look forward to every day, I would carefully consider how to help them through the process of death through euthanasia. I think I would be looking at a variety of factors, such as overall attitude (how dramatically it has changed since disease/illness set in) toward life and other people, health and amount of physical and mental energy, and how the person regards death (positive vs. negative). Why? The way I perceive life is, why remain living in a quantitative state when there is no quality to sustain it?

Surprisingly (or not too surprisingly?), my thoughts on the topic aren't too far off from where they were in 1997. While watching "You Don't Know Jack," I found myself actually feeling more strongly about respecting the wishes of those who are in great physical pain and wish to end their suffering with assisted suicide. I don't like the term 'suicide' in regard to this very specific request though.

As a clinician working in the mental health field, 'suicide' is connected to mental and emotional illness or anguish....the compulsion to seek and carry out ending one's life (ie, a permanent solution to a temporary mood/problem). How much more weight does it carry when someone is going through physical suffering as opposed to mental illness (ie, no terminal illness)? This is a rhetorical question, of course. There seem to be many more questions it raises for me than clear cut answers. If nothing else, it gets the critical thinking wheels turning in my head.

Why are we (society) quicker to judge and stop someone from making a decision about their quality of life (in this case re: lack thereof due to physical suffering) in favor of "a person must live at all costs" mentality? Would we do this to our pets? If one's dog (or any other animal you'd have as a pet) is suffering from an agonizing and painful terminal illness, do you stand idly by and prolong their suffering for years and years? Most likely, no. Most people, seeing the end is near, will take the animal to the veterinarian to be euthanized. You don't see religious zealots protesting outside veterinarians offices in those instances. Why? Because it's humane and compassionate. It's the right thing to do. The animal cannot verbalize their pain, yet we question and fight a human being's wish to do the same thing under the same circumstances?

One thing that creeped me out while watching the film: religious undertones of this controversial subject. Just as with "beginning of life" issues (ie, protests surrounding abortion), it's likely the same ignorant people holding up their vile, hate spewing religious messages about the "sanctity" of life at anti-abortion events are also using their religious dogma to oppose assisted euthanasia. In one particular scene of the movie, a woman makes known very loud and clear to Kevorkian her religious convictions on the matter....later sifting through his garbage to find paperwork that she hopes will incriminate him in a court of law. What I wondered....what about a person whom isn't religious whatsoever (that wants to end his/her life)?! If you choose to make your own life decision from a religious mindset, that's your prerogative. At the same time, respect others who choose to make their life decision NOT based on any religious context. I just have to add....you don't typically see non-religious individuals or atheists bombing abortion clinics or attempting to intervene with freedom of human rights, choices,etc. No, it's usually the people who believe in "life" that are causing more hate and violence/death in the name of it...Kevorkian's respectful, compassionate crusades being no exception with how he was received by a closed-minded media and conformist society.

There certainly needs to be a structured protocol for assisted euthanasia, such as requesting copies of medical test results and records to confirm the prevalence of physical pain, whether the person is terminal, and a psychological evaluation to rule out mental health disorders. I'm not sure the extent of what Kevorkian's overall assessment covered (other than him videotaping his patients sharing their thoughts, feelings, and verbalizing the decision to die) before he decided to assist in the deaths of his patients. If and when these specifics are ruled out, I believe people have a right to choose on this matter.

Interestingly, I find my views on family members being allowed to make decisions for a dying person has changed since my younger years. Perhaps I'm just more aware of how family members can be quite selfish in the decisions they make (ie, tend to have their own agenda when in the position of making an important decision for another family member vs. how they might make that same decision for oneself), this issue being no exception. There seem to be more family members than not who will clearly go against the wishes of the dying person and keep them alive no matter what, usually in a very controlling/manipulative way. At the same time, if you don't have any existing legal documents to back up your wishes....family members may be the only 'line of defense' with which to go on, sadly.

In the overall scheme of things, it really just boils down to having respect and compassion for an individual's free will....even if it entails the the taboo subject society fears, fights, or tries to avoid "at all costs:" death.