My mom spent most of Friday at UC Davis going through test after test to get on their Kidney Transplant list. She is a Kaiser patient and had been on their list before their program got shut down.
Even with all the poking and prodding they did, they still want more. She has to go get a mammogram and something else (the memory is faulty).
I learned something new about transplants. You have to specifically note if you will accept a trasplant from an older donor, older being something like over 40 years old. This shocked me. If an organ is healthy, what does it matter how old the donor is (was)?
Beverly, my wishes for peace and ease of spirit join all the others here. As this season turns for you, may your heart beat steady with StE's spirit.
Beverly, I'm very sorry for your loss. Much strength and love to you and your family.
what does it matter how old the donor is
I wonder if it's a question of how much wear is left to an organ.
I am crying tears of happy.
The best kind of tears.
My mom spent most of Friday at UC Davis going through test after test to get on their Kidney Transplant list.
Bleh. I'm glad they've restarted the program but it's silly that they can't look in a computer for her earlier info rather than make her go through all of that.
No clue about the benefits/disadvantages of older vs. younger organs, other than the obvious disadvantage of one having been used quite a bit more than the other.
Continued peace and coping vibes for {{{Bev and family}}}.
Beverly, I am so very sorry. I love you, and am keeping your family in my thoughts.
No clue about the benefits/disadvantages of older vs. younger organs, other than the obvious disadvantage of one having been used quite a bit more than the other.
Part of me is thinking that she is 65, so even if the organ is over 40 but younger than her - hey, bonus time.
Also, I used to think there was ONE organ donor list, but no - each program has its own list. She had her choice of going to UCSF's program, which has a longer list and does more transplants or UC Davis, which has a shorter list and smaller number of transplants. But, even if she were to hop back and forth between lists, she would keep the date she was first added to the first list as her "priority date".
Beverly, I am so terribly sorry and saddened by your loss. I wish peace and continued strength to you and your family. Love you.
My written assignment this week goes along well with the discussion here the other day. I have to write a 2-3 page paper on the importance of infant and toddler nutrition. Does anyone have any good links?
If I had to point fingers at a single entity, I'd blame government corn subsidies for just about every declining health statistic in this country over the last quarter-century. HFCS isn't actually any worse for you than table sugar (it's only "high fructose" in relation to normal corn syrup), but it's so damn cheap that it gets put in zillions upon zillions of products that wouldn't otherwise be sweetened with anything.
Fructose as opposed to other simple sugars, yes. But your average table sugar is higher in fructose than HFCS -- it's just easier to over-consume HFCS because it's such a common additive, and you can put it in things and still label them "No sugar added!"
There is some evidence, actually, that it IS worse for you than sugar. The theory goes that the body doesn't register the calories, that they don't satiate the appetite.
Ah, here's the wikipedia article: [link]
Unlike sucrose, HFCS consists of a mixture of glucose and fructose, which doesn't require an enzymatic step to break it down before absorption in the intestine.
