directed organ donation

[Guest guest]

i've been thinking about all this, a lot.

i think out of anyone in our amazing group, it would be tim long (but *especially* his wife irene!) who would be able to make the most passionate, eloquent defense of direct donation... tim's beloved brother-in-law/irene's beloved brother transplanted into himself/her equally beloved husband. i've saved tim's 6/2/03 post: "...I always said that I had the easy job, because I had no choice after the tx started, but my wife had to endure all those cute things sticking out of my body, watch me suffer through some not so fun moments and try to hold herself and our girls together without my help. How our significant others get through this experience without a breakdown is awe inspiring to me. How Irene got through my transplant knowing that they were burying her brother without her and that I was receiving his liver... is beyond me. I believe that our caregivers have great courage and strength to manage the things that they confront and I applaud them all..."

the husband of a dear, long-time friend (our then family pharmacist) was dying and so wanted jim to have his liver. his name was jim, too. i cannot begin to express to this group how surreal it was for jeri & i to have conversations each week, as i would go to the pharmacy with either jim's need or my own... as both our husbands were declining, me answering her questions about my jim's current condition, she sharing with me what her husband so wanted to do for my jim. of course we knew it wouldn't be possible because her jim was dying of cancer. but it made for a pretty special bond between jeri 'n' me.

so many people in this group are making extremely valid points -- it's a most worthy, enlightening topic of discussion!

i know it's apples & oranges, and it's not my intent to open up a wriggling can of worms here (after the day i had yesterday, the last thing i want to do is escalate this topic of conversation in a negative way!), but one thought that popped into my head in the midst of reading some of the back-and-forth was an image of a young woman/couple experiencing a crisis pregnancy choosing their baby's right to life over their own right to abort, choosing to put their baby up for adoption, loving their child enough to give their daughter or son away to other people to raise, to what they regarded a better home than they themselves could provide. now, do laws and rules and regulations all in the name of fairness step in and dictate that, for instance, that baby's parents cannot decide to choose adoptive parents who are Jewish or Christian or... perhaps of a certain heritage... or even a certain race? goodness no. in many instances, that birth mother can choose from among a plethora of hopeful adoptive parents who have laid their lives right out there, pages in a book. the biological mommy ideally takes much time to select just the right people who touch her heart... truly a king solomon decision of biblical proportions if there ever was one.

i can understand the people with the "whatever it takes" stance. i can appreciate that pat summerall encountered no "age discrimination" and was not determined to be "too old" for his second chance at life... and i can also sympathize with those who feel concern and say "wait a minute... isn't pat summerall a recovering alcoholic?" i take real umbrage over an incarcerated man who, according to others' testimony, was non-compliant with respect to his PRE-tx meds being approved for transplant... and that man did end up dying (and according to others' testimony, his non-compliance issues did come into play). i don't deny anyone's right to be evaluated and waitlisted and take their place in a long, long, ever-growing line of those waiting for their right to a cadaveric organ. in the case of that incarcerated man who died, i hold the "system" that was supposed to carefully evaluate the organ recipient culpable for essentially wasting a liver that could have gone to ...a law-abidin' God-fearin' fine upstanding person? no! just someone who would have been compliant with their post-tx meds for pete's sake!!!

anyway, sorry! i digressed (as i'm wont to do!). back to directed organ donation: as others have shared, i can also see the problems this might well invite. tim r makes some excellent points (he always does!); johnathan understands all too well the potential for abuse... that someone in dire need of a liver might be in no shape to launch such a campaign on behalf of themself; barb conveys her texan tenacity & mother love at doing anything -- repeat, anything -- for her beloved ken.

i think my point is... we just don't live in a perfect world, so how can we expect "total fairness" in *all* things? (who ever said life was s'posed to be fair, anyhoo)? our group's good ole steve rahn took an anonymous quote from an office paperweight and made it his tag line, for quite some time: "Face the Worst, Expect the Best, Do the Most, Forget the Rest." in other words, in an impossible/imperfect situation (like the critical shortage of organs and a less-than-perfect system that doles them out), one can only do the best they can and leave the rest to -- no, trust! -- God.

maureen (wife of jim, UC, PSC, living related Tx, post-tx skin cancer issues)