Alas, Jezebel got to this before I could, but two days after the New York Times ran a big story on inconclusive/meaningless science, the Wall Street Journal reported that some pregnant women are freaking out over whether their lower-back tattoos make getting an epidural dangerous. Why are they freaking out? Because Pregnancy magazine ran a story in July, following up on a report on Canadian TV. Why is this so stupid that I want to beat a bitch’s ass? I’m glad you asked:
- This year’s stories were based on a “study” that was reported in 2002. Yes, five years ago. You should have been freaking out all this time!
- The “study” consisted of observations of three (count ’em, THREE) patients. I can sign more people up in an hour for my “chocolate-covered-cherry diet”!
- All three patients were fine.
- Oh yeah, one other patient in the U.S. had a sore back in 2004.
Basically, two anesthesiologists came up with a theory and shared some thoughts that remain completely unproven. So, if you are a pregnant woman and are spending a lot of time worrying about this, I respectfully suggest that there are better things to worry about. If you can’t find anything better, I’m very good at delegating and have some worries that I’d like you to handle for me. Please submit your resume under this post.
And if you’re NOT pregnant and DON’T have a lower-back tattoo but are considering getting one, remember the immortal words of Vince Vaughn in The Wedding Crashers: “Tattoo on the lower back? Might as well be a bullseye.”
And if you DO have a lower-back tattoo, don’t complain to me about Vince Vaughn’s Wedding Crasher’s line above. I didn’t write it. Everyone should do what they want to their skin. God bless. Enjoy your tat and when you stick an epidural through it, think of me. But personally, I prefer tattoos that are works of art, like Gala’s here.