I know things depend on where you live, but that list of behaviours really wouldn't be the kind of thing I could cope with through my current techniques for respecting an individual's journey. (I guess maybe it would matter if a person were doing only one of those things, vs if they were doing the whole list.) If they were potential friends, they would definitely not be potential friends. I live somewhere where I have a lot more choices for friendship than that, and I might even perceive the situation as one where I became complicit in some of those actions just by knowing and remaining friends. If they were family members, they would be 'holiday gathering only' folks. (I have relegated some of my extended family to that status for much less in my life.) At holidays I'd take refuge in manners, but I don't think I'd ever feel 'close' to them, and I wouldn't feel the slightest bit guilty about that. Not even if they were sick/hospitalized. Nobody needs to inform every last extended family member when someone they barely speak to is unwell. It's natural to have generations and geography help people drift apart... and fringe belief systems work the same way. My ideas above were more on a level with folks who... don't believe in climate change, are politically different from me (but limit themselves to legal forms of activism), don't feel the same way about LGBTQ folks, don't feel the same way about Christianity, are an active participant in a different religion from me, are atheist, don't share the same sexual ethics as I do (but do hold some reasonable version of sexual ethics), are very rich and proud of it, are very poor and have pity parties about it, have way too many pets and don't take excellent care of them (but aren't breaking any animal cruelty laws), have different parenting beliefs: letting kids run wild, or being far more strict (and even legally physical) than I deem appropriate, seeing special needs and neurodiversity differently than I do, being wild for youth sports, have different beliefs about euthanasia and act on them (legally), have a strict diet and might be doing themselves harm by it, are 'preppers', are into the military in kind of a strange way, are into star trek in kind of a strange way, believe in astrology... the list goes on. All of those things I can handle in friends, family, and grown children. But your list strikes me differently.

It's hard to move away from being someone who is a little judgy and prefers the company of like-minded folks. I say that because that's the way I am. The thing is that it doesn't work to just keep all of the frustrated and judgmental thoughts inside and try to be nice anyways. That kind of thing might fool the other person (maybe!) but it won't fool yourself, and you're the one that's frustrated. Instead, it's a patient process of giving other people permission to think their own thoughts; acknowledging that they have had a journey that has landed them somewhere, and that was a legitimate path to a reasonable outcome; regarding them as the one and only expert on their own lives and their personal perspectives. Everyone gets to sail their own ship: even if they steer it 'wrong', they are still 'right' because it is 'right' that they are the one steering. The journey belongs to them: respect their territory, and regard activities of their minds as waaaaay outside of your boundaries. Sometimes I say to myself, "I always knew there were people in the world who believe xyz (or do whatever), and now I know that one of them is in my inner circle. That's not new. It's not hurting me." Even with these mindset shifts, there's still a big role for avoiding topics, using tact, redirecting conversations, having 'pat answers', having good boundaries, and an exit strategy. It's okay not to pick them for your closest friends (but you might find that you can eventually!) but you can't choose your family, and you certainly don't want to be so different from your adult kids that you feel distant from them in the future. The path there is through patient growth in your own capacity to respect individuals as pinnacles of individuality.

I'm definitely counting time on my screen porch as outdoor time.

I'm averaging about 2h per week. But I totally count every walk to-and-back-from a store through a parking lot as 5 minutes. (Even if it's not 5 min, that's the minimum increment I'm willing to work with.)

I'm curious about what was in the follow-up message, after you had planned on agreeing to have a conversation, that changed your mind about wanting to have the conversation at all? In general, wanting to talk like this, coming from her, could mean a lot of things. Of course, it could definitely be about your son's 'monstrous' difficulty in controlling angry impulses (which is not monstrous, it's just a stage of development) and playdates not being a good fit with their kiddo right now. It could also be about setting expectations for a cautious restart. It could even be about her or a person she knows having a similar struggle, and wanting your wise advice. But it sounds like you are pretty sure you know where this actual conversation is going, based on the recent message, and you are choosing to opt out based on that data. Opting out is fairly easy, if that's what you want to do. Text something like, "I know we planned on meeting for a chat on [x] day at [y] time, but I'm not going to be able to make it. I'm not sure how much more there is to say on the topic of [DS7], and honestly, it's quite a painful subject. I'd rather put this behind us and just stop having the kids spend time together until we both feel completely comfortable again. Thanks for your openness and understanding. Parenting is really tough sometimes!"

I've mentioned before, I think, but in my province 'pediatrics' itself is a specialty, and only children with childhood illnesses are referred to see them. Ordinary children see their family doctor all their lives. (Transitioning to a different family doctor as needed: if they move, if their doctor moves, retires, etc.)

Here a pediatric specialist (specialist in an area, not someone whose area of specialization is pediatrics) will continue to see a patient, if they continue to be needed, until the *end* of a teen's 18th year. (And sometimes I think the rule is for any appointment made within their 18th year, even if they hit 19 before the appointment happens.) This method is usually for a teen whose care in that area of specialty is concluding and they aren't expected to need ongoing care (in that area) as an adult patient. With teens who are expected to need ongoing care, the 18th year is used to dovetail their referral to a non-pediatric specialist, so that the pediatric one can continue care while the teen may need to wait for their first appointments with the new specialist. I don't think teens are usually accepted as new adult patients by specialists until 18. I think a referral would be pediatric up to that point, unless the expected wait time was longer than the number of months before they would turn 18. However teens 15+ in my province can currently go to the emergency department at a non-pediatric hospital (children's hospital is overloaded) so if care was established in connection with an emergency visit, I imagine they could stay with that specialist for their ongoing care (if everyone was happy with that arrangement).

I think it's fine that you made the suggestion. But he has answered you. And as his parent, you don't get to be a neutral party or an objective outsider. You don't get to have hopes for the marriage (apart from his hopes, if he expresses any) or opinions about the wisdom, speed, or reasons for the various phases of this relationship change/end. You need to be 100% resolutely on his side, as you said. That means offering unconditional support, and regarding him as the only expert on his own life, with yourself as merely a loving bystander. He needs the solid sense of your belief in him about a million times more than he needs your perspective, your ideas, or your advice. He's going to struggle to do anything if he doesn't believe in himself, and he will be so much stronger, more decisive and healthier in himself if he knows you really, actually, support him fully. I mean, you can have *thoughts* about various things. Nobody can stop themselves from thinking. But you don't get to express them or even hint at them unless you are asked directly what you think. And even if you are asked directly, your reply should be 90% "I think you're the one who knows this situation best, and that you are doing a great job of thinking it through." And only 10%, "Have you maybe considered xyz at all?" (And while you are having your thoughts, remember to hold them lightly. There's soooooo much it's impossible for you to know. Only your ds really understands the situation in all of its complex nuances. His perspective is the one with the weight behind it.)

I'm thinking that, based on the way my kids feel about their aunts, it's possible that your niece hasn't had two thoughts about you coming or not coming, and that she meant to send you an invitation with all the others, but now it's not likely that she will get around to sending off a special late invite just for you. Therefore, since what you *want* is to go to the ceremony but not the reception, I feel like that's a perfectly reasonable plan. I think you should contact the bride's mother (who is the etiquette-appropriate point-person for issues like this) with a phone call. Explain the address mixup and that you may have been overlooked. Tell her that you are happy to come if you are wanted, there is no need for an official paper invitation. Tell her that of course you are equally happy if the wedding needs to be small and you aren't included in the inner circle. That's perfectly normal, and you aren't offended in the slightest. Also let her know that you aren't up to attending the reception, so you would be ceremony-only if that impacts the numbers at all. Ask her to check in with the bride as-to whether you should consider yourself invited or not, and get back to you. Tell your mother nothing.

I think that, "connecting church attendance with intrusion, control, and conflict is not going to increase the likelihood that the kid continues to attend." -- too! I think that all sensible people think that. Unfortunately not all the people in your kids' life right now are sensible, And I really think this is a binary choice: either you can *control* whether or not (or to what degree or how often) your husband is unwise like that.... Or you can release the idea that it's your job to control for that. If his is abusing the children, by all means, take every step you can to limit any and all abuse in any situation for any reason. You need to protect your children from every form of abuse. You don't need to care whether any particular non-abusive actions done not-by-you have the potential to build or hurt their faith. If he's just being stupid in the pursuit of his own parenting goals... you really don't need to take on a role in that situation.

Lots of "Christian-raised" tweens, teens, and young adults go through times of having a Christian faith, and being distant or rejecting that faith. That's a really normal part of faith development and human development. It's also really normal for adults to take up faith or put it down at any point in their lives. As parents we need to recognize that we are not in the driver's seat of their faith choices, and instead ask ourselves questions about things that are within our sphere of control. Questions that are within our control: What opportunities are we offering them? What are we choosing to model or not model? What things do we simply make part of the 'normal way we do things'? When and how do we decide which things are worth applying a little pressure? Which, if any, circumstances call for more than a little pressure? The outcomes in terms of choosing faith or not choosing faith, and the various phases of those outcomes, are not in our control. We can totally release that. How other people in our kids' lives try to influence their faith life (wisely or unwisely!) is also outside of our control. We can release that too. The things that do depend on us aren't very simple to answer, but limiting the scope of our focus to just those things can be helpful. We don't need to play "what if" games and try to predict the future. We just need to determine what we think we are responsible for in the present.

On thinking about it, there is something in (I think I remember) "The Whole Brian Child" about turning upside down (?) being good for helping someone regain emotional regulation. I halfway-remember advising one of my kids to hang their head off the edge of the couch for a moment and see if it helped when they were upset. If your person is 'up to date' on parenting techniques: I guess that might have been a seed of an idea that could have conceivably led an unreasonable person (probably someone who has no idea how it is to work with actual children in the real world) to imagine forcing a child's head into a certain position?

Probably a muster point. (The place outside of a building where people are supposed to gather during an emergency like a fire, so that they can all be counted and unaccounted-for people can be looked for.)

That's a really bizarre idea, and I'm pretty sure it's not only not "non-violent" but actually it's super aggressive and terrifying in addition to there being a *serious* risk of injury if a child resisted the pressure in the *slightest*. A conversation like that would most likely lead me to suspect that the adult I was speaking to had been abused as a child. And I would also wonder where-the-heavens anybody lives, in which it might be considered a positive things to report to anyone in authority that one had treated one's children like that -- allegedly to seem like a 'good' disciplinarian!!! Around here even a hint that you were 'disciplining' your children like that would get a hard second-look from someone in authority, and probably some gentle follow up with information about 'more effective' disciplinary techniques... at the very least! If the adult you were speaking with thinks that's a good thing to tell authorities, I'd love to know whether that's maybe-kinda-true in your area, or if the person is out to lunch.

The client should not pay for services they did not receive. In this case, having already paid and received significantly less than the contracted amount of work, the company that they are making payments to should be offering to 'make it good' either with a refund, a partial refund, or with future services at no cost, or at a reduced cost. (The client or his/her caregiver should write to the company to indicate their expectation of either a refund or to have their prior payment applied to future services.) Whether the company pays the contractor should be laid out in their contract, and has nothing to do with the client or the donor. (Although the donor, in the future, may want to stipulate how contractors can be used and what terms should be in contracts of that type -- as a condition of making the donation.)

Honestly, don't borrow trouble. This is an ethical dilemma, but it's not a decision that needs to be made now. In fact, it would be irresponsible for you to make a decision now about the ethics of a situation that doesn't exist yet. (Because when it does exist, you will need to account accurately for all the information, factors, and nuances in play at that time. And having a pre-made decision might stop you from doing that.) When the time comes, you can take into account the wishes of the living and the dead, and the factors of his behaviour pattern at that point, and call it. Neither decision is wrong. On the one hand, memorials are for grieving needs of the living and not the dead, and it's quite unusual to tell a direct relative that they are unwelcome. On the other hand, they are designed for honouring the one who has passed on, and you might choose to do so by remembering that she expressed this wish. Both options are 'right' in their own way, and unfortunate in another way. That means you can't make a mistake because both options are fine. It will really just be a matter of preference. And *your* preference will be the one that decides your choices. Don't tell your sibling anything in advance. That's just stirring up drama and pain in the present over something that might or might not happen at some point in the future. Pointless. If your mom brings it up, be agreeable. It's okay to tell her that you 'plan on' respecting her wishes, without letting her push you into making any deathbed promises.

I've got a question about these microplastics reactions. I understand, and believe, the reports that micro and nano plastic particles are in our food and drinks, and most likely our community water supply, and probably all kinds of water all over the earth. I get that it's happening. But there seems to be an assumption that because it is happening, it's automatically a problem. There's missing logic there. What nobody seems to talk about is why the presence of plastics in those places might or might not actually matter. It's my understanding that plastic particles become this widespread because they pass through everything, never truly break down, and certainly aren't biodegradable. Essentially, a cell with plastic in it behaves exactly like a cell without a plastic in it. A fish with plastic in it behaves just like a fish with no plastic in it. etc. First: Am I wrong about that? Do microplastics inside living things impact the living thing? Or are they just hanging out, being present but inert? Breaking into smaller and smaller inert pieces of itself? If I am wrong, why is nobody (that I've encountered) reporting on what plastic *does* to the things it is found within? If I'm not wrong, and plastic is inert no matter what size it is... what exactly and actually makes it undesirable? Other than: "Eeep, yuck, it's plastic!" / "It was never there before." / "Nature didn't make plastic, we did." (Newness, human-made-ness, and squick factor aren't legitimate forms of logic.) Toxins are toxins because they do things -- harmful things. Pathogens are pathogens because they do things we don't like to our bodies and systems. What are plastics? (I know large plastics and garbage patches do harm to the biomes of natural areas. I'm thinking microplastics and human bodies mostly.)

Be aware of the value and various surprising functions of your vehicle in a pinch. - It has a radio, and can receive both emergency info and music etc. - It has a huge battery that is already charged. - By running a gas engine, you can generate electricity for other devices. - It is a source of light (both inside the vehicle and by using the headlights) - It is a source of heat: keeping the interior warm by intermittently running the engine is much easier than trying to heat a house, or keep warm with blankets alone - You can cook a little (in foil with the hood up) if you are running the engine for another reason. - It makes a loud, carrying noise -- if you need help from neighbours or passers-by - It may or may not connect to emergency services via satellite (such as an on-star system) -- if you don't have cell or land line services - It goes places... you say that you think it is sturdy enough to drive (if necessary). I assume that means after the storm conditions pass, but with the snow still on the roads. If that's so, you can probably get your respite workers sooner than you think. It might work to offer to pick them up and drive them home in your nice warm, safe vehicle. Other stuff: Remember: snow is water. If your water is compromised, collect new-fallen snow as soon as you can, before it gets dirty from the ground. Buckets are good, but so are storage totes, and even (in a pinch) large ziplock bags. Don't forget about using an outdoor grill or camping stove (Outdoors only! Carbon monoxide kills.) as a possible means of cooking. Are you camping people? Do you have other potentially useful camping equipment on hand?

I think I mean to say that, while medical professionals have *some* aspects of expertise in which they are 'more expert' than the people who suffer from a disease -- like expertise in the science, the diagnosis, the treatment protocols, etc -- and while that expertise has a huge amount of value for helping and treating people who suffer from any given disease -- that's only one kind of expertise. A useful kind! One that I'm definitely not interested in doing without, if I ever develop anything! I also agree that self-research or introspection does not (usually) generate enough expertise in science, diagnosis, or treatment among average patients to say that a patient rivals a (relevant, competent) doctor in that kind of expertise. Among intelligent and highly motivated patients that kind of expertise might rise and rise over time, as other posters have described, so that the occasional patient is on equal expertise footing with their doctor, in terms of the science, and might even have the occasional thing to contribute. It's also the case that not every doctor one encounters in the world is relevant or competent in the exact disease someone is experiencing. That's all true, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm thinking about more fundamental ideas of 'expertise'. The expertise of lived experience is not available to any professional regarding any disease (that they have not personally experienced). The fine granularity of their knowledge, wisdom, and practices *far* outstrips the type of 'studies show proof of xyz' knowledge available to scientists and researchers. It takes a big phenomenon for something to get to the stage of clinical testing, and to show up in the results of that type of testing. (Big, species-wide, average phenomena are what those kinds of studies are supposed to be discovering.) A patient's ability to know how effective something is or isn't in their life is better data than the data from the development of a treatment protocol. Bodies are not identical. People don't all respond the same ways. Even a patient's ability to predict how something (that they haven't even done yet) *might* impact them, by instinct alone, I think really does exceed their doctor's ability to predict the same thing. Example: An anesthesiologist is an expert, but (apart from wild coincidence) none of them have ever sedated my mom-in-law before. My mom-in-law *knows* that she requires less anesthetic than an average person her weight. She *has* been anesthetized before. She *knows* that she's hard to wake up, and that it tends to scare the nurses! She tells her care team this data *every time* she has a procedure -- since the 1960s. Historically, they don't listen to her at all, then they become alarmed when she's hard to rouse. Recently, she's had some better listeners. Why should they listen? Because she's THE expert *on herself*. She doesn't get to pick the anesthetic chemical or the micrograms (that's not what I mean), but she's still *an* expert in the room, in any discussion that involves her body and her experiences. And the professionals are "not more" of an expert than her. They have complementary high level expertise of their own (I hope!) but it's "not more" than hers. I mean that the patient knows their body like no one else knows it. Of anyone, when fully informed, she's most likely to make the right call, most of the time. And there's a level of dignity and trust involved in treating people like that's true. There's a feel of 'you bring your expertise and I'll bring mine' that a professional can bring to a discussion that really promotes best medical practices. But in terms of a friend, who is not a doctor (who is *also* largely I-read-it-myself-on-the-internet educated on a particular topic) should be much more like, "You're the expert and I'm not." -- when discussing someone else's health choices with them. No matter how unusual their choices may be. Even if you've done an equivalent amount of reading, or more. It's not just that they probably are making reasonably good decisions on the basis of more data than you could possibly have -- but it's also the 'dignity' piece. It's not a vote. A person is an individual dictatorship of one. If you are going to talk as a friend about someone's health with them, it's most supportive and most empowering to treat them like that's a bedrock truth. They are the expert, and you respect them.

You might be right about your mother's ability to tell convincing stories that emphasize her own point of view (and drag others down), and, if so, there's not much you can do about that. You may have to just recognize that folks who are under your mom's sway (for now) might not be great candidates for having good relationship with you (for now). However, it's also good to realize that everyone who your mom is in a relationship with... is a person who is in a relationship with your mom. I could be wrong, but she doesn't sound that reasonable or respectful. She sounds prickly and hard to get along with. I'm really not sure that most of the people she relates to are going to be believing her stories or taking her seriously. Sure, maybe this one cousin is occupying this willing-listener / believer role for now. But that's just *one* cousin. Lots of other people probably know her well enough to see right through her (and/or begin avoiding her). I doubt she has sway over a large quantity of people, and I bet people move in and out of her listener-role on a fairly regular basis as they get wise to her ways. My guess is that there are many more people 'with you' (who know she lies, exaggerates and gossips degradingly on a regular basis) than there are people who are 'against you' (fully willing to believe bad stories that she may choose to tell about you).

If you want to try a third line of thought, see if you can complete this sentence: "My mom has an intense ability to wound and destabilize me. She has proven in the past that from time to time she will do it, and it is very likely to continue happening from time to time in the future. The reason I continue in relationship with her is because..." (And I'm *NOT* suggesting/implying that ending or limiting your relationship with her is 'the answer'. I'm saying that you *have a reason* for choosing to be in this relationship. There are lots of reasons for staying in troubled relationships! Some of them are quite good reasons. But I'm suggesting that you might not be consciously aware of what your reason(s) actually is/are. Finding inner honesty by figuring out your genuine reason(s) is a powerful step that's possibly within your reach based on this incident.)

Your question: "So, am I awful for not calling my husband? Is my mom being crazy and unreasonable when Dh and I are both grown adults who know when it’s time to check in with one another?" You already know this answer. You are in charge of your relationship and contact with your DH (in partnership with him, of course) and you are the best judge(s) of what works well for you. You know how much concern or worry you were or weren't feeling. You were there! That's not something you can just wonder if you were wrong about. What works well for other folks (and your mom is just one of many other folks) works for them. Lots of people have intense worries and robust contact schedules. Lots of people are just like you and your DH. Who cares. Diversity is awesome. Judgement is both unkind and pointless. You reporting your own best thinking, but I'm not sure you noticed. You said, "I just wanted to get off the phone" That was your wise mind. That thought *knew* in the moment, what you actually wanted, and what would have actually served your best interests. But you wrote it into your story as if you just experienced this 'want' as a passing thought, did nothing about it, and then passively experienced all the escalation of bad experiences that came afterwards, as if they were all inevitable parts of life, until *your mom* hung up. So, by reading that paragraph, you can probably tell that I'm implying you could have ended the phone call at any time. But that would be naive of me. If you (the real you) could have (actually could) have ended that call in that moment: you would have. So, first I want to say it's totally important progress that you *had* a thought about what you wanted to do; that you *noticed* yourself thinking that thought; and that you *remember* when it happened and how it felt. (Lots of people aren't there yet! And you are! Great job! For real.) Now the exploration needs to be -- what were the thoughts and feelings that made actually getting off the phone feel either impossible or inconceivable? What do those thoughts sound like and feel like in your inner world? Do you remember them happening? Do they have words? Do you have clear memories of which thoughts and feelings happened at what points in time? That's the work. "I want to let this go (mentally) and let my mom think badly of me and not care" That would be lovely, but we are hard wired to care what our mothers think of us, and that goal is a *long* ways from where you are right now. And when you get closer to it, you may find that it isn't even what you wanted after all. Maybe let go of that one or back burner it for now. Instead, a more manageable goal is to work to figure out "How do I work?" -- what goes on inside of you. Which feelings are brought up by what events. Then simply accept all aspects of your current emotional life. Say aloud something that is true for you, maybe resembling, "I'm so different from my mom that she sometimes thinks I'm a total idiot, and that hurts my heart and wounds my sense of self so deeply that I don't even know what to do with myself for a while. I also experience intense anger at her for treating me in a way that makes me feel those feelings." That's telling the truth about yourself. Which is the starting point for all further growth.

I get it. I have a few pieces of advice for you. - Remember that you are angry at the quacks, not at their targets. Don't let your anger accidentally splash-over onto your friend. - Give advice when you are asked, in the proportion that you are asked for (1-2 sentences unless you are asked to elaborate). And pay close attention to whether or not there was an actual "ask" or just a topic and a pause in the conversation for "your turn". - Accept your role as 'one of many' sources of advice. Don't take it personally if she opts to follow another source at any point. She's allowed to ask you for an opinion as part of her 'gathering data' phase. It doesn't obligate her to take your advice in order to continue to have harmony in your relationship. Give her the gift of both harmony and data -- with no strings attached. - Treat her like the expert in her own life, and about her own body. Even medical professionals are not more 'expert' about these things than the people with the actual condition(s) are. Don't get the sense that because you are a generally level-headed, fairly wise, and well educated person -- that your evaluation of 'things' is smarter than her evaluation of 'things'. Consider the possibility that she may be right. Consider the possibility that on this topic she may be 'smarter' than you. Even if you struggle to truly believe that; even if she doesn't seem to believe that herself -- in conversation, act as if it is true. This will build her sense of being in her own driver's seat, and feeling competent to be in that seat. Even if you think she is making wrong turns, build that perception and refuse to undermine it. (That's how people -- eventually -- get enough experience to do a better job in directing their own lives.)

I picked "Sent a meal or ran errands" -- but in reality that was multiple meals and lots of errands. It was also combined with just lots of company and social support. She (both my mom and my mil) didn't come over to do housework, but she did hang out with me and baby just to 'be there'. If I was doing housework, or if some task looked like it could be helpful, she would ask if she could help like any close-family visitor. If baby needed something, she would offer to do it, or not, my choice. If I had errands, she would go with us and lend the hands that needed lending... but she wasn't there 'as' a workhorse. I guess she didn't do things *for* me, so much as we did things as a trio (me, her, and baby) which made them easier. I was the 'team lead' and she was 'there to help'. Regarding Dad: Mom and mil generally visited when dad was away, so Dad's helping was roughly similar to my Mom's helping and mil's helping -- just "the additional adult that's present at the moment". If Dad and one of the women were both there, then there were three adults and one baby, which was even nicer.

My bp started to read borderline-high about 2.5y ago (?) (during the lockdowns phase of the pandemic). I had multiple stressful situations going on, I was eating for convenience, using pain killers and caffeine freely, etc. So the doctor initially advised lifestyle changes. My doc advised me to lower my sodium to about 1200mg per day. I was mostly successful with that, but my readings remained in the concerning range. I found it really hard to be calm for a reading, because, internally I just knew it was an important reading, and I was stressing about trying to keep calm! It was hard to know what the readings were and were not telling us. Lately, she put me on a small dose of meds and told me I could eat normally again. I can't tell you what a relief that was!!! Watching sodium takes so much of the pleasure and ease out of eating. After I got over the irrational feeling that I had 'failed' I've been really happy to be medicated instead. My advice is don't give too much of yourself to fix-it strategies that make you feel bad about yourself, or make your life hard. It's fine to try a DIY path for a little while, but my doc and I overdid that phase of things. The meds are safe and widely used. I wish they had been offered sooner.