Hopefully I'll be out to see a movie tonight--I really want to see Ratatouille, and check out the CI in a theater!



Gee, think I want to see this one?
Life after a lung transplant (c) 2005-2010 Questions, comments? Email me at janeandessie@gmail.com



Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be that, in the sigght of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. Oh, God! To hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!

For Mother�s Day - A Mother�s Determination
by Tom Purcell (more by this author)
Posted 05/09/2007 ET
Updated 05/09/2007 ET
It was 1994. She thought she’d heard a faint wheezing in her baby’s lungs. She took her baby to the doctor right away, who sent her to a specialist.
The doctor said it was nothing -- probably a touch of acid reflux. He said it was common for new mothers to overreact. He said he’d run some tests to be safe.
Later that night, she was preparing for bed. The phone rang. It was the doctor. Her daughter tested positive for Cystic Fibrosis.
The doctor warned her not to panic. The tests could be wrong – he’d run them again the following day. He warned her to avoid reading about the illness until it was confirmed.
But she couldn’t wait. She threw a rain coat over her pajamas, grabbed her sleeping baby out of her crib, then rushed out to a late-night book store. As she cradled her baby in her arms, she read everything she could about CF.
It is an hereditary disease that causes a child’s lungs, intestines and pancreas to become clogged with thick mucus. It is fatal. She’d be lucky if her daughter survived into her 20’s.
She broke down in the book store. She slid to the floor, crying uncontrollably as she held her baby tightly. She cried as though her baby had already been taken away.
The doctor confirmed the lab results. The pain was unbearable. She and her husband did not know what to do.
She reached out to a friend. Luckily, her friend knew plenty about CF. She knew former NFL star Boomer Esiason and his wife Cheryl. They have a son with CF. They’ve done extensive fundraising for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and now head their own foundation.
The Esiasons contacted her right away. They understood her pain well and consoled her. They shared everything they knew about the illness.
She was instantly transformed. She began channeling her pain into mastering CF. She learned how to apply medications and treatments to give her daughter the best hope.
She learned of CF’s other challenges, too. Though there are 30,000 Americans who suffer from the illness, the number is too small to spur drug companies to do research. The CF market cannot generate enough revenue to recoup the millions needed to develop new drugs.
So she took the bull by the horns. She quit her job and jumped into the CF fundraising business full time. She joined boards and chairs events. She gives speeches wherever she can.
The money she raises goes to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. It hires its own scientists to advance its own medical breakthroughs (90 percent of the funds raised go directly to research). Thanks to so many just like her, the average lifespan of a child born with CF has jumped to 36.5 years.
But that isn’t good enough for her. In 1998, her second daughter was born with CF. There was only a 25 percent chance that she and her husband, both CF carriers, would have another CF child, but fate struck again. They felt unbearable pain again.
Every day is a battle for her now. Every day, her girls must take a collective 34 pills and an array of oral medicines. They must complete 10 breathing treatments and six 30-minute therapy sessions. The treatments and medicines are designed to extend their lives.
Every day, she works tirelessly to raise money to advance any technique or medicine that might extend a CF child’s life a little longer -- that might, if promising new research goes as hoped, cure this dreaded disease.
Hers is the story of a mother’s love -- a mother’s powerful determination to breathe life into thousands of children.
Her name is Angela Kinney and she could use a little help. She’ll be participating in the Great Strides walk in Pittsburgh on May 20th (an event that is held throughout May in cities across America). To contribute to her efforts go to www.cff.org/great_strides/angiekinney or contact her directly at angiekinney@comcast.net.
You might want to wish her a Happy Mother’s Day while you’re at it. She’s certainly earned it.
For example, a lung from a 16 year old donor would first be offered to the person in the age group 12-17 with the highest lung allocation score and matching blood type in the vicinity of the transplant center. If there no suitable recipient in that age group, it would next be offered to the highest LAS-scoring candidate who is under 12 years of age. Finally, it would be offered to the highest LAS-scoring person of age 18 or older. If there is no suitable candidate within the area, the lung may be offered to someone farther away, within certain time and distance constraints.
Of course I'm happy. What else am I gonna be? I don't feel like I should have "days." I should be happy just to be alive. And I am! I'm alive because someone else is dead. I should just shut up and be happy, right?
Recently, a co-worker, an intelligent but brash young man, asked me a question about my late husband, Jim, that irritated me.
He said, "You knew about his cystic fibrosis before you married hihttp://beta.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifm, didn't you?" In other words, Jim was "damaged goods," and what was I thinking to marry him? The question also implies that illness precludes one from happiness and a normal life. How could a sick person possibly be a good mate?
I swallowed my pride, thinking this young man hadn't had life experiences that would allow him to understand why I had married under those circumstances. Then he asked, "Didn't your husband hate being alive?"
That one blindsided me. I answered as calmly as I could that Jimmy had loved living. Yes, he was short of breath. Yes, a bulky oxygen tank encumbered him. Yes, he had to do daily therapies, but at no time did I hear him say, "Gee, I'm sorry I woke up today!"
Paying Big to Be A Donor
Gifting an Organ Can Be Costly. Would a Tax Break Cross a Moral Line?
By Jason Feifer
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, March 20, 2007; Page HE01
Before Michael Friedberg donated a kidney to his wife last year, he underwent multiple tests and battled the usual jitters. Then he took one other step: He refinanced the family's home.
Friedberg, 60, works as an auto mechanic in Bladensburg, and he's paid on commission. Lifting heavy car parts soon after the surgery would be impossible, so he wanted to prepare for a drought of income by reducing his mortgage payments. The drought came: After the operation, he was out of work for two months and lost about $14,000 in wages.
Buy This Photo
Michael Friedberg of Bladensburg lost about $14,000 in wages last year while recuperating after he donated a kidney to his wife. Some states help compensate organ donors for expenses they incur, but such moves stir debate.
Michael Friedberg of Bladensburg lost about $14,000 in wages last year while recuperating after he donated a kidney to his wife. Some states help compensate organ donors for expenses they incur, but such moves stir debate. (By Lois Raimondo -- The Washington Post)
Save & Share Article What's This?
Digg
del.icio.us
Yahoo!
ad_icon
"I didn't have a choice," he said. "It was that or my wife was going to die. The waiting list was, at that time, like eight years to get a kidney."
There were 6,196 living-organ donors last year, and Friedberg wasn't alone in his financial losses. The recipient's health insurance typically pays for the donor's medical costs such as the surgery and various pre- and post-op tests, but donors are on their own for the rest: travel expenses for the numerous trips to the hospital, nearby hotel rooms before and after procedures and wages lost while they recuperate.
Transplant advocates fear those costs are a deterrent to donating, and so have been searching for ways to compensate living donors, who can give kidneys, bone marrow and a few other body parts. But by doing so, they're inching up on a loaded question: Is it morally wrong to pay people for their organs -- or at least for some of the costs incurred in gifting them?
Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine may weigh in on the question when he decides whether to sign a bill that would authorize an income tax deduction of as much as $5,000 for living donors to help cover uncompensated expenses.
The proposal is modeled after a $10,000 deduction that Wisconsin enacted in 2004. At least 10 other states have adopted similar incentives, and more are considering it.
Other reimbursement models have targeted donors' lost wages: The federal government and some states -- including Maryland and Virginia -- give their employees 30 paid days off if they donate an organ. Advocates have asked large companies to follow suit. But such measures, while appreciated by many donors, haven't solved their financial problems.
Ed Nicholson, of Eau Claire, Wis., was the first person to take advantage of his state's law. He lost about $3,200, mostly in missed wages, in donating a kidney to his brother; the tax law let him recoup a few hundred dollars. That's typical of the law's savings.
"It helps," Nicholson said, "but it doesn't go far enough."
Those who hoped a tax break might attract more donors have also been disappointed. Since the Wisconsin law passed, living-organ donations there have dropped from 199 in 2004 to 167 last year.
That's just the normal ebb and flow of organ donations, said the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Steve Wieckert. As the tax-break idea gains traction around the country, he predicts, organ donations will increase.
Who Pays -- and How
Some advocates see donor tax breaks as a matter of government responsibility.
"If a citizen is willing to step forward and . . . donate their own body, the least the state can do is pick up the expenses," said Idaho state Sen. Mike Burkett, the leading force behind a law in that state that allows living donors an income-tax credit. (A credit is more generous than a deduction: In Idaho's case, a donor can reduce his state tax bill by as much as $5,000 to compensate him for expenses associated with giving up an organ.)
The federal government is also preparing to provide compensation, through a four-year program that is expected to begin reimbursing donors later this year.
Donor reimbursements sidestep the law against trafficking in human organs, supporters say, because nobody stands to profit. Nor do they raise the kinds of ethical questions attached to buying and selling organs: They don't run the risk, for example, of turning retread organs into luxury items available only to the wealthy or of inducing murder because of a good organ resale price.
Still, while the medical community generally endorses reimbursement, health-care practitioners know they're on a slippery ethical slope, regardless of whether the practice increases organ donations and saves lives.
"I think that we have to be very careful about the debate, because I think the American public has shown that they're willing to donate but they have a lot of internal reservations about how to do it," said Cindy Speas, director of community affairs at the Washington Regional Transplant Consortium.
But economist David E. Harrington said the states' tax deductions are already tantamount to outright payment. If states were more direct about it, he said, more donations might follow.
Harrington, who teaches at Kenyon College in Ohio, compares the issue to the donation of cadavers to medical schools. The schools frequently pay for funerals or cremations after the cadavers have been used; in states where funeral costs are higher, more bodies are donated, Harrington said.
"Why don't you do the same thing with organ donation?" he said: Think of it as paying for the donor's eventual funeral expenses, rather than for his organ.
But other medical experts fear such gestures could upset the public. A report published last year by the Washington-based Institute of Medicine and co-authored by James DuBois, director of the Center for Health Care Ethics at St. Louis University, soundly rejected the idea of paying organ donors -- even for their funeral costs.
The report, however, didn't object to tax breaks for living donors. The difference, DuBois said, is that covering funeral costs can seem like a financial incentive, while tax breaks are generally considered an effort to remove a barrier to donation. It might be semantics, he said, but it makes a difference: "Will the public interpret [payment for funerals] as a sign of gratitude, or as a deceitful way of trying to buy organs?"
Making Do
In the meantime, living donors have had to find ways to cover their costs.
Some, like Hagerstown, Md., resident Lillian Ecton, said it's a matter of planning ahead. She knew for a year that she'd be donating a kidney to her brother, so she saved up as much vacation time as she could. In the end, she still had to forgo a week's pay last year, but she wasn't bothered by it.
D.C. resident Sahra Torres-Rivera donated a kidney to a friend in 2001 and took three weeks off to do it. She thought her company's medical leave policy would cover her surgery and recovery but learned that as a temporary employee she was not eligible.
Co-workers petitioned the company to reimburse her lost pay from an emergency fund into which they had contributed. "It was overwhelming, the support that I got from my co-workers," Torres-Rivera said.
Ultimately, the company decided to pay the wages itself.
And, of course, some have taken to the Internet. Luke Sams, a Seattle resident, last year launched a Web site through which he solicited -- and received -- $3,000 to cover his expenses in donating a kidney to a friend.
Although some donors interviewed for this article said the process had caused them financial hardship, none regretted their decision. A few weeks or months of lost wages doesn't compare to the potential loss of a loved one or friend, they said.
That's how Friedberg, the auto mechanic, sees it. His wife, Mary, is alive thanks to his kidney, and now he's hard at work, making up for the money he lost.
"The kidney's working good for her, and I've got good body parts," he said.
"I kid with her. I said, 'Listen, it's lasted me 60 years, so you should be able to use it for another 60.' " ?