Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts

February 1, 2013

Lingering Anger


One month from today will be one year since Mark's arrhythmia near death experience.

And I gotta say, there is still some unresolved anger regarding how everything went down.

Things should not have happened the way they did, and it's something that continues to bug us.

There have been only a couple of times over the years of dealing with Mark's health problems when we felt like he was receiving inadequate care. Like, his doctor(s) was taking a half-assed approach, not dotting all the Is or crossing all the Ts.

Unfortunately, we feel that the episode last March was one of those times.

You know how unsettling it can be when you discover that someone isn't who you thought they were? That you made an error in judgement, a mistake in trusting them? It rattles you, makes you feel unsure about YOURSELF. Makes it difficult to know who you can trust.

Mark's cardiologist did that to us. He had been Mark's doctor for over eight years prior to the arrhythmia. He had seen Mark through angiograms, stents, two heart attacks and bypass. 'Course, knowing what I know now, I wonder if he tried a little too hard to avoid bypass....

I feel like I'm being vague, so here's the thing: We are still angry at Mark's former cardiologist for seemingly writing him off. For basically refusing to call an arrhythmia specialist into Mark's hospital room to physically SEE him, pour over his chart and make a first-hand diagnosis.

He spoke with an electrophysiologist over the phone only. That guy was merely fed info from Mark's doctor.

And Mark's cardiologist gave us the distinct impression that he had no hope for Mark. He gave up.

I can understand how that could be an easy thing to do. When you list out all of Mark's problems, it is overwhelming and looks logically like he shouldn't be able to survive so much.

It honestly wasn't hard to convince Mark's entire family that he was at death's door.

But they were wrong. Not just wrong that Mark wasn't going to die yet, but wrong about his diagnosis!

If it hadn't been for Mark's plucky and steadfast kidney doctor (nephrologist), we may have never known the truth and Mark may not have received the correct treatment, which very well could have led to his death.

That is not dramatics; it is the truth. Mark's cardiologist diagnosed him with Atrial Fibrillation when it was actually Ventricular Tachycardia, which is much more serious. When we finally got Mark to an electrophysiologist, he told us that if he had treated Mark in the hospital, he would not have left without an implantable defibrillator, and his walking around without one was very dangerous.

Two weeks before meeting the specialist we had gone to see Mark's regular cardiologist for a post-hospital follow-up. I asked him point blank if Mark's problem could possibly be anything else. He gave me a definitive NO. But when Mark's shiny new electrophysiologist called the cardiologist at my tearful request (because I was hoping to get everyone on the same page), he said, "Oh yeah, I suspected V-tach all along."

WHAT?? You lying liar!

Up until then I had been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, while Mark had already decided this guy just didn't care about him anymore. I was all, "No, that can't be. How can a doctor do that?"


Apparently they can. Not only that, but so did other doctors in that hospital last March. It was a bit insane. They saved his life the first night he was there, but then endangered it with "hospital acquired pneumonia", and continued to endanger his life by not calling in a specialist. Mark had to be intubated twice because his heart wasn't responding to treatment because they weren't treating the right problem!

Because of all of this, we had to talk about hospice and other end-of-life issues. Mark even signed a DNR at one point because he thought he didn't want to be shocked again! It was a nightmare.

All of which could have been avoided if the necessary specialist had been called to Mark's bedside to make a completely informed diagnosis. Arrhythmia is a tricky thing. Why the cardiologist thought a phone consult was good enough I will never understand.

It is any wonder Mark did survive it. I give credit to his nephrologist for stepping up to advocate for Mark when I was too bewildered to. Everyone who loves him flocked to Mark's side and buoyed him, giving him strength for the fight. And he, Mark himself, decided he wasn't done. All the doctors treating him for those 13 days really did was fuck up.

It is so disheartening to feel this way, to feel like the next time Mark has to be hospitalized I will have to be hyper vigilant in making sure the doctors are doing their best for him. It is already exhausting to deal with a hospitalization, let alone have to also question everything you're told. And to not know if you can trust these people who have your loved one's life in their hands? Awful.

I know Mark has myriad problems. I get how taking one look at his chart could overwhelm a doctor or nurse. But dammit, you don't just throw your hands up and decide he's a goner. You fight for his life until he takes his last breath. You fight for his family and children. You sure as hell don't play God, deciding you know what's best all on your own. If you're not 100% sure of a diagnosis, you seek another opinion. And not just over the phone. A person's life is worth more than an obligatory phone call.

Now I know to ask for more, to demand it if I have to. I hope anyone who reads this will remember it, and do the same for their loved one.

November 9, 2012

Am I too trusting and naive?

Maybe.

I prefer to look at it as I see the best in people and give the benefit of the doubt. That I'm not harsh, judgmental, cynical or unforgiving.

Sometimes someone I shouldn't have given the benefit of the doubt to shows me their true colors and I get hurt. But I also learn something. A couple of years ago someone I thought was a good friend to me showed me some things about herself that I decided I couldn't reconcile in order to remain friends with her. I realized I couldn't trust her and I need to have friends I trust.

With everything I deal with in my life, I just don't have the energy to pretend to be OK with someone I don't trust. Or who I think are just mean. But in general, I am a very trusting person.

The reason I'm thinking about this right now is largely due to the presidential election earlier this week. It was a hard-fought battle and people have expressed very passionate opinions on both sides. I expressed my own firmly held beliefs right here.

But I have been arguing my beliefs with members of my own family, including my husband who loves to play devil's advocate. Not that he totally disagrees with me, but Mark has pointed out this "issue" of maybe being too trusting and naive about some things.

Late on the night of the election I wondered if now that Obama has been RE-elected, if people could embrace and respect him. I asked this question on both Twitter and Facebook.

My thinking is that if the majority of voters want Obama as President AGAIN, maybe there is something to that, and maybe he is actually a GOOD President.

That's not totally unreasonable, is it?

The first opposing response I got was:
I don't believe in big government. I don't want the government telling me what to do and how to spend my money. I do not believe in re-distribution. If it's yours, you should be able to do what you like with it. Socialized medicine is not a good thing. Talk to someone that has been forced to live with it. The older and sicker you are, the less likely you are to get the best care possible. We already have a program for people who can't afford insurance, it's called Medicaid. The Bin Laden thing was a work in progress long before he came to office, I know this from someone who actually worked on it. I own a small business. If my business makes $250,000 or more a year, even if I don't take a salary or see any of that money, I am considered rich and will be taxed as if I were.
To which I replied, "So it's just all about money then. There's more to life than that." All I got back was, "Whatever!!"

The other comment was:
I respect the office but absolutely not this President. He has an ideology that is contrary and dangerous to this country and our constitution. He routinely proves himself to be a pathological lier. For what he did, or I should say, did not do, in Benghazi, Libya I hope he is impeached and prosecuted. I spent 4 years in the military and 30 years in law enforcement fighting for right against wrong and your right to free speech; please don't ever give that up; because this president is coming after it. You just don't know it yet.
I have made no response to this. I can't find the words.

Both the person quoted above and I question each other's sources of information. He highly reveres and respects Glenn Beck. I have actively avoided him. I feel that he is an extremist and an alarmist. This person thinks he only seeks the truth.

Truth is different for everyone.

I don't understand how they can feel the way they do, and I know they don't understand why I feel what I do. It's all very hard to reconcile.

I really don't think I am someone who shelters herself from information she might not want to hear. I don't watch the news as much as I used to, but only because I don't feel the need to hear about every single rape, murder or fatal car accident. It hurts my mommy heart too much. But I am online enough to hear about many other things.

As of now, President Obama has given me no reason not to trust him. I've seen only a caring, thoughtful, decisive and steadfast man. I've gotten no oogy vibes when listening to him speak. There has been nothing scandalous that I can point to and say, "Ooh, he's a bad man!"

Besides, we will do all of this again in just 4 more years, with brand new candidates. HERE's some excellent perspective if you need it.

Maybe I am naive and too trusting. But I think I'd rather be that than un-trusting, negative and angry all the time.