So Much For The Belmont Stakes

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Every now and again, I need to be reminded that my lung disease is not the only thing running my life. I just had a "lovely" hospital stay, with tons of tests and lots of blood draws for labs, trouble getting an IV line started, new medicines and disagreements with techs about doctors' orders, all to be reminded that just because I have a chronic and ultimately terminal lung disease, it doesn't mean that some other health problem won't reach up and bite me on my butt.

The upshot? I have been diagnosed with congestive heart failure, and am now taking Lasix and potassium chloride in addition to the pharmacopoeia of other meds I must ingest both for my lung disease and for the side effects of same.

Several states allow race horses which are being given Lasix to race, but New York state is not one of them. I have just lost my chance to run in and win the Belmont Stakes.

I am heartbroken.

Overall, my time in the hospital wasn't bad, considering that I was mentally unprepared for the entire experience. Still, I do have a few standing complaints which may serve as warnings for anyone out there who finds him/herself in similar circumstances. First, be 100% aware of not only what the doctors have ordered, but why. My pulmonologist wanted to get readings of my breathing and oxygenation rates overnight while using my BiPap machine, to make sure my machine was working properly. The respiratory tech who was assigned to set up the test didn't want to use my BiPap, because of "liability issues." I had to explain it to her about 7 times that using the hospital's BiPap would defeat the entire purpose of the test. She STILL didn't want to do it, probably for fear she'd get in trouble somehow. I held my ground, and she eventually either checked with one of her higher-ups, or finally realized I was right. I mean, she had the doctor's order right in front of her, and it specifically said that MY BiPap machine was to be used. Good grief!

If she hadn't done it according to the doctor's order, I'd have been forced to stay an additional overnight, which would not have done my mental health any good, and she probably would have gotten in trouble for not following the doctor's order in the first place.

Second, don't let the nurses gouge you over and over in the attempt to start an IV line. I admit to not being steadfast enough here, mostly because I know I am what they call "a tough stick." I sympathize with the difficulties the RNs have in finding a good place to start an IV on me. But I am learning to say "not only 'NO,' but 'Hell, NO.'" to someone sticking me repeatedly and, upon missing the vein, keeping the needle in and digging around to try to find it. It didn't prevent me from winding up with both arms--and hands--black and blue. But what backbone I exhibited did keep my arms and hands from being abused even worse than they had been. Next time [and there will be one, I know--Ed.], I'm not even going to give them two chances. One try, no digging, and if it fails, I'm going to insist that someone else be called upon to start the IV line.

Third, there are some things that just are not worth getting upset about. Leads and wires and oxygen tubes and phone cords and TV remotes will get tangled up. Live with it, be patient (pun intended), and just untangle them as needed. Fourth, even teaching hospitals are overworked and understaffed, so learn to be proactive. If an alarm on something you're hooked up to goes off, and you know why, AND it's not for a true emergency, turn it off! When I finally did receive an IV, the pump monitoring the rate of infusion clanged horridly once the IV was empty. I waited about a minute, and then, realizing everyone was too busy to drop everything and come for such a minor thing, I just shut it off. The patient in the other bed was happy, I was happy, and the RN on duty was relieved that he had one fewer bit of drudgery to accomplish.

Finally, remember that the hospital is no place to get any rest. Set things up so that you have at least 48 hours after you get home wherein you have to do nothing, so that you can catch up on your sleep and get your mind and attitude recalibrated. Your family will love you for it.

A Smell Worse Than Three-Day-Old Fish

Yes, I am about to address the saga of Nadya Suleman, already a single mother of 6 who just gave birth to 8 more via in vitro fertilization. The initial news reports said the mother of octuplets wanted her rest and privacy, yet suddenly she's all over the media. She says she's never even considered her [obvious--Ed.] resemblance to Angelina Jolie, but within hours, the news is full of stories of the several emails she's sent to the actress. [She's also obviously had a lot of plastic surgery done to increase the resemblance, but until she learns how to sit up straight instead of hunched over in a pile, she'll never even begin to fake carrying it off.--Ed]

She claims to be able to support all her 14 children on her own, but is getting disability payments for 3 of the older ones, and Medicaid is taking care of the expenses engendered by the 8 preemies in the NICU, which according to news reports are over $2,300 per day. She says the same man is the biological father of all 14 but that by her choice, he's no longer in her life in any meaningful way . . . but later news reports suggested he bolted upon learning she was going to have 8 more on top of the 6 she already had. Some reports also suggested that there was more than one father involved.

She says that only one doctor did all the procedures to give her all 14 of her children, but reporters discovered that the doctor who helped her with the first 6 refused to help her have any more. [I am also very glad to know that the doctor who did do the in vitro that resulted in the octuplets is being investigated by medical authorities. I don't know of a single ethical doctor who'd do such a thing for an unwed, unemployed mother of 6. I bet the doctor who did is hoping to jump on the publicity gravy train, too. What has been reported about him to date is rather unsavory.--Ed.]

Her own mother called her decision to have the octuplets "unconscionable," though she's doing what she can to help.

What offends and scares me most about the entire mess, however, is how Nadya talks about her children. She says she will be there for them, will love them and will hug them. This is not how a mother talks about her children. This is how a child talks about her pets.

It stinks, especially for the children. She can't even keep their names straight as it is. The ultimate effect of her sick need to be the ultimate mother is that none of her children are going to grow up feeling loved and secure. They're going to feel as though they've all been lost in the crowd.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Arguments--

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

A QUESTION I WISH SOMEONE WOULD ASK--AND SOMEONE WOULD ANSWER

I watched a PBS "Frontline" program last night about Parkinson's disease. It was at once a family history and a recap of the research history, including the arguments for and against the use of human embryonic stem cells in the context of whether federal funding for same was appropriate. Under the Dubya administration, of course, it was not. President Obama may change that.

During one of the Senate hearings (chaired by Sen. Arlen Spector, R-Pennsylvania), a priest argued that respect for human life should preclude the use of human embryonic stem cells in all such research, even though the embryos from which the stem cells would come would otherwise be destroyed and utterly wasted. He drew the analogy to prisoners on death row: they are going to be killed, so why not use them in the meantime? His answer was that it was wrong, plain and simple. Just as respect for human dignity forbids so using prisoners, so should it forbid using embryos.

The question I wanted to ask him is this: isn't the life that's already here worthy of equal, if not more, respect than is a microscopic collection of cells that represent only the potential for life? Note that framing the issue this way puts the lie to the priest's analogy to prisoners on death row, too. Those prisoners are also "life that's already here," so using them for research just because they've already been convicted to death is still wrong.

What phrasing the question the way I have does is acknowledge the human dignity of the life that's already here, the life suffering from diseases [not just Parkinson's, but Alzheimer's and any number of other illnesses, from MS to cystic fibrosis--Ed.] for which cures may be had, and soon. The only embryonic stem cells that would be used are those about to be discarded as medical waste. Where is the human dignity in being thrown away? Far better that they be put to noble purpose rather than just being literally trashed.

I propose a solution: have the donors sign agreements authorizing the use in research of any embryonic stem cells they do not themselves use. That would be no different from someone signing an organ donation card in the case of his/her death. People who do not wish to sign the agreements do not have to do so. Any of their unused embryonic stem cells can be discarded as they are at present. But the stem cells from other embryos, ones pre-authorized for research, can do unmeasurable good in the service of lives already here on this Earth.

The Apocalypse May Be At Hand

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

The government is--for once--implementing sensible rules. Medicare has announced that it will no longer pay for a list of 10 "reasonably preventable" conditions that happen to patients who are injured by medical mistakes during their in-patient care. The list includes such errors as giving incompatible blood transfusions, second surgeries to retrieve sponges left behind by the first, serious bed sores, and infections caused by improperly placed urinary catheters. Every one of these errors can be prevented by taking an extra few seconds to double-check whatever is being done at the time it's being done. [One wonders why paying for these things was ever allowed at all.--Ed.]

Nor will the hospitals be allowed to bill patients for the costs of treating those errors. Why should a patient have to pay beyond the obvious pain and suffering caused by such errors in the first place?

It's an excellent idea. Not only will this save taxpayer money (and patient pain), it gives hospitals added incentive to make fewer mistakes. It's less expensive to implement a few additional double-checks than it is to eat the costs of actually making the mistakes. Lower costs and improved patient care. What's not to like?

I have two quibbles. First, as the New York Times report noted, hospitals will not be allowed to bill patients "directly" for the costs generated by their medical errors. They thus have the option of raising the money "indirectly." Hospitals will be able to increase their prices for everything to cover the estimated added costs of their errors. As long as it's a very small, truly across-the-board increase, however, I cannot take too much exception to that. After all, that's just putting the concept of insurance into action--by spreading the costs throughout as large a coverage pool as possible, every individual's actual expenses are held as low as possible. We all make mistakes. As long as we do everything we can to minimize them, it's not wrong to allow for the few that inevitably will still occur.

Second, the government is doing things that make sense. Can "The End" be far off when that starts happening?