In Transplant News This Past Week...

This past week has been filled with appalling headlines. Both of which I'd known about earlier on. But one thing has become "official", whereas the other news of noting is still "in the works". In the end, both stories go against ethics of humanity and ethics within the Transplant world.

First of all, let's talk about the (ahem) 'lovely' Janet Brewer, Governor of Arizona and her cuts that SHE passed in to affect.

I'd written a piece about her and what her plans were a while back in regards to those that are waiting on organs and are served by the state's Medicaid Assistance. To read that post, CLICK HERE.

Now, these "Death Panels" have been officially put in to place. The cards are all laid out. And HUNDREDS of Arizona citizens that are waiting on a LIFE SAVING organ transplant will NOT live long enough to get it.

Why? Because the worst of the worst will be removed from the Waiting List, and are on Medicaid Assistance in the state of Arizona.

Governor Brewer signed in to affect, budget cuts to "save money" in her state. One of those slashes were to Medicaid. And primarily those waiting on an Organ Transplant.

To read the latest article on it, CLICK HERE. This is an older article, yes, But now Janet Brewer has set in to motion, a wave of death.

Now, as for the other article that has been capturing my attention, and has for some time now, as the story has been unfolding is the story of the two sisters from Mississippi who were sentenced to LIFE in prison for their crimes, but were RELEASED after serving sixteen years, on ONE condition... That one sister IS to donate a kidney to the other, who's own kidney is failing.

Apparently, the judge that ordered this "new sentence" is not very well versed in the rules, regulations, ethics and overall practices of Organ Donation. Because if the idiot was, he would KNOW that to FORCE anyone to be an organ donor (especially when it's NOT known at the time if indeed the sisters are an actual match) is considered unlawful and goes against EVERYTHING that UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) stands for and has laid out as the procedures to give and receive organs.

To read the article in reference to the criminal sisters who got off on a strange "technicality", CLICK HERE.

They were ALLOWED to move out of state (which normally is a no-no with Probation). But the transplant cannot take place until they BOTH lose weight. And hey, they get a PERSONAL TRAINER for that, and Gastric Bypass Surgery. Then of course, the Organ Transplant Surgery.

Like the doctors, I'd REALLY love to know WHO is going to pay for this? It's obvious that neither of them have medical insurance. And by my understanding of practice, the patient MUST have some kind of medical insurance to be approved as a Recipient.

Plus the Judge who ordered this weird release states that the transplant MUST happen within a year, or (hypothetically) they will be sent BACK to prison. WTF?? I say that they should have NEVER left on these types of terms.

Maybe I should have been imprisoned BEFORE my transplant that I had for my eye. Then all MY bills would be paid FOR me. Instead, I have pretty good insurance, but still stuck with on-going bills for the REST OF MY LIFE for the transplant its self and for the lifelong, on-going care I will need (and possibly ANOTHER Corneal Transplant down the road). Because apparently, it PAYS to be in prison these days, instead of a "punishment".

Yes, Virginia, words *CAN* hurt.

Words. They are probably the most powerful tool that we possess as human beings. They can be used to encourage, relate with and help in the healing process. They can also cut like a knife, aggravate and maim another to their very core.

Some words, while spelled the same, can have two very differential meanings. Take the word "ship". One is a boat that floats on the water, carrying people abroad from one piece of land to another. The other "ship" means to carry items from one location to another for people through a mailing service.

But the word that we will be focusing on that has become ever so quite popular to use in various context is "retard/retarded".

From Dictionary Reference ...

"re·tard·ed"

[ri-tahr-did]

–adjective

1.characterized by retardation: a retarded child.
–noun

2.( used with a plural verb ) mentally retarded persons collectively (usually prec. by the ): new schools for the retarded.

Origin:
1800–10; retard + -ed2

—Related forms
non·re·tard·ed, adjective
un·re·tard·ed, adjective

—Synonyms
backward, disabled, handicapped.

"re·tard"

[ri-tahrd, for 1–3, 5; ree-tahrd for 4]

–verb (used with object)
1.to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.

–verb (used without object)
2.to be delayed.

–noun
3.a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine.

4.Slang: Disparaging .

a.a mentally retarded person.

b.a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard.

5.Automotive, Machinery . an adjustment made in the setting of the distributor of an internal-combustion engine so that the spark for ignition in each cylinder is generated later in the cycle.

[End of definitions]

Now, in all the years that I have gone with my father, my husband or on my own to the Mechanic to get my vehicle checked have I ever heard the word "retarded" come out of their mouths to describe the setting of my car's distributor.

I have though, heard of those with mentally debilitating handicaps being referred to as being "retarded" or being a "retard". Both by the medical community, and through society's "common man". And honestly, I literally cringe when I hear those words. No matter their context.

My daughter has a friend who's younger sister is severely handicapped. She cannot walk. She cannot talk. She cannot eat normally like you and I do. But she is sharp. She can bounce around her home with ease upon her knees. She can speak through a "voice box" communications computer, or uses sign language. And she must eat through a bottle, seeing as her "food" has to be in almost a completely liquid consistency.

She has Cerebral Palsy. She is what people would call "retarded". But after you see all that she CAN do, she can place most of us "normal" people to shame. My children play with her at school and within their home. She and I have fun talking and she is ALWAYS giving me hugs and when she sees me in passing at school, the biggest smile comes to her face and she is about to bounce out of her wheelchair to get to me and wants to high-five me.

My biggest pet peeve though, with the words "retard" and "retarded" is when they are used in a non-medical, derogatory manner. Saying to someone, "You are such a retard!" is not only insulting towards the person you are referring to, but to those that REALLY DO have mentally challenging handicaps.

And when you say, "That's retarded.", you are insinuating that something is "slow, stupid, obtuse or ineffective". But listen to yourself as you say it. It's on the same level as stating "That is so gay!". So something is having a relationship with it's own kind? That made no sense. And it insults those in your community that ARE in fact, Gay.

How would people like to hear something along the lines of "It's so nigger."? Sounds great, doesn't it? *insert eye roll here*

Or how about "Stop being such a Jew!"?

My son has several mental disorders that have in the end, deemed him disabled by the state and by the Federal Government. He is NOT stupid, slow, defective, a socially inept being, or a hindrance. He is my son, who is bright-minded with some quirks. He is disabled emotionally, socially, maturely and mentally (to an extent).

What are his disorders, you ask (for those that are new to my blog, or just don't know)? He has ADHD, OCD, ODD, Mood Disorder (basically, he has Bipolar, but due to age, is Dx'd with the Mood Disorder until later in age), and Asperger's Syndrome 'tendencies' (he does not have full-blown Asperger's, but is borderline).

He can be violent, abusive and easily short tempered. He cannot handle change well (especially sudden or massive changes at one time). He has Manic-type mood swings with outward evidences of 'highs' and 'lows' (extreme hyperness or extreme sadness) at any given moment of each day.

But on the flip side, my child is one of the most loving, caring, affectionate, brightest children you would ever meet. With even his bad days, it's hard to NOT love him or want to do your best by him. No matter the cost.

The one thing my son is *NOT* is "retarded". By ANY meaning of the word. I certainly would NEVER let a medical professional refer to him as being such, let alone anyone within "general society". He is handicapped or "challenged". Nothing more. Nothing less.

So, before you (generalizing the word 'you', not pointing fingers to any specific person) go and state that someone is a "retard" for any reason, or say that something is "retarded", think BEFORE you speak those words from your lips. Because once you say them, you can NEVER take them back.

Even those within the medical community have started the change from using the words "retard" and "retarded", seeing the hurt and anguish those two 'simple' words bring to those that ARE affected by mental and physical disabilities, as well as their families and friends.

That alone should tell you something. That wording and context are EVERYTHING. So yes, while sticks and stones may break bones, names (and misuse of words) *CAN* hurt. Especially those that know of someone, or they themselves are personally affected with being handicapped.

Please if you wish to help stop the spreading of the "R-Word" in it's wrong verbiage, join me at...




I have taken the pledge. Will you?


Also, while I am NO fan of severe Right-Wing Conservatism, nor am I NOWHERE near a 'fan' of Sarah Palin, I WILL agree with her anger and I WILL side with Palin in regards to Rush Limbaugh's uses of "retard" and "retarded". Even as he referred to those that REALLY ARE cognitively and developmentally disabled persons.





Don't even get me started on Ann Coulter...

Death Penalty. YOUR thoughts.

We all have to die at some point. It is a given. Some will be old and have lived a good life. Some will fall gravely ill and pass young. Those of any age can be killed in a vehicle accident. And there are some that will be murdered. And some will be put to death as punishment for taking another human's life.

Today, we are going to talk about the latter. Executions and Death Row. Now, before you go off on a tangent and yell at me that God commands us to not kill and that executions are wrong and/or immoral, I urge you to READ THIS FIRST before commenting right off the bat.

Also, be sure to read PART 2 OF THIS WHOLE STORY.

This woman put a hit out for someone that she was supposed to have loved and his son, who of course thought she loved him like he was her own flesh and blood.

Instead, she loved the impending Life Insurance Policy payout more and had two men break in to their home and kill the son, first. Then, as her husband was BEGGING for mercy, they then shot him, too.

The reason that Teresa Lewis is sitting on Death Row, awaiting her fate, twenty days from now is because she put this whole ordeal in motion. She was as guilty as those that pulled the trigger.

True, those two men received life sentences. But her part was much more heinous. She PAID to have her husband and his boy killed. Not because she was in harm's way, was being abused or anything of the like. But for the money.

Now she is begging that her life be spared, as are her attorneys and anti-death penalty activists, and they all are asking the judge show this woman 'mercy'?? WHAT?!?!

Where was 'mercy' when her step-son and her husband pleaded and begged to not be hurt or killed, and said that the men could have ANYTHING they wanted? It wasn't there that day. Mercy for those two men were nowhere in sight.

She has had to have been segregated from the common prison population for seven YEARS. WHY? And with that said, how will she be of "help" to the other female inmates, as to use her faith to help others? You cannot do that when you are NOT AROUND other inmates!! Duh.

Yes, I do support the Death Penalty. Many who are there, deserve it. If it is indeed proven that they had the means, the motive and the forethought to take a fellow human's life, as to gain from it monetarily (or any other means of ganing something materialistic in nature), or even just to kill someone, then yes, serve them death. On a silver platter.

If it was purely for self-defense and/or to protect your children, then that is a different matter. At least you are not killing someone just for the sake of killing and getting a rush (or something materialistic).

And yes, this woman, Teresa Lewis, deserves the ultimate punishment. If she wasn't so callous, money-hungry and devious, then maybe, just MAYBE, Julian and CJ Lewis would still be alive and well today.

Those that know her closely have even stated that she is a con-artist and has even fooled a couple of pastors (in months/years before this tragedy) in to thinking that she was an upstanding citizen of the community, and a good Christian woman.

Come to realize later, many that knew her, feel that she had a hand in the car wreck that took her husband's other son, almost to the day of his death, a year before. That son had apparently had a good sized Life Insurance Policy as well.

Seven years is a long time. A long time of being away from the main prison populous, sitting in Segregation. And a long time of my husband's and my tax dollars going to that prison to house, feed and clothe a murderess, who is a classic example of a Black Widow wife.

Not all killings deserve the Death Penalty. But, ones like this do. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. She reaped what she sowed. And for her, it ended with a hefty price.

True, killing her will not bring back two men that were dearly loved by their daughter and sister. But it will bring justice to two men that still deserved better than to be wasted for money.

Cell Phones In School. Should The Ban Be Lifted?

I think for today's post, being that it is nearing that time of the year once more, I shall touch on a subject that could become a hot button topic of debate.

Cell phone usage in schools by students.

Our city school system is thinking of lifting the ban on students from carrying cell phones on their person, while on the school's grounds.

Read about LIFTING BAN ON CELLS here.

Personally, I think that the ban SHOULD be lifted. Superintendent, Dr. McKendrick is correct, as is Heritage High's Principal. There are too many students in today's world that carry cell phones. And it can be quite time consuming to pull each offender in to the Principal's office and confiscate the phones. They average 15 to 20 per day!

Time could be much more well-spent on other areas of running the schools. Like on bullying, creating a positive learning environment, and ensuring everyone's safety. As well as ensuring that the students are getting everything that they can from their classes.

Personally, I have no problems with High School, or even Middle (Junior) High School students carrying cell phones on their person. As long as the usage is before school starts, during lunch break, and after school's last bell rings.

If the student is caught using the phone (via texting or talking) while switching classes, during class, or any other time not deemed appropriate (say during a field trip), then confiscate the item until after school for the remainder of that day.

Then, if a secondary offense occurs with the phone, then confiscate to the parent. If a third offense with the phone happens, then I feel that the school has a right to confiscate and keep the phone until the end of the school year.

We live in a high-tech age more so now than ever before. Our children are using things that were mere dreams when our parents, and even we were growing up in our generation.

Computers for the home didn't even come out until the 1980's. Then, came the message recorder for phones, cordless phones, CD Players, and then, in the early to mid 1990's, finally came the first cell phone. And that has gotten smaller, sleeker, and more 'hide-able' since it's inception in to our world of communication options.

So, with that said, what are YOUR thoughts about kids in High School (or even Middle School) carrying Cell Phones in their backpacks, along with their books and pencils? Yay or nay? Why so?

One of the *most* controversial videos in music history...

While the above is not the original video (thanks to embedding being disabled), 'Like A Prayer' by Madonna is one of the most controversial music videos of all time. If you were to watch the real deal, you will see the following...

Yes, my friends, these pictures contain blasphemous things. Oh the horror!!

There is a black Jesus. And there are burning crosses. Along with a Church Choir.

Who ever said that Jesus IS a white man? He was raised a Jew in Nazareth. So, technically, the man was not black, nor was he a white man.

As for the crosses that are burning, they are to symbolize the time in which this video's story takes place. Back when the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) reined supreme, primarily in the South. And if you read about our nation's "lovely" history about racial segregation and the severe and violent racism, you would "get it" that the burning crosses are telling of that piece of the south's history and their HATRED of the black communities.

As for the Church Choir, I like it. Those people singing bring the song full circle to me. And they are helping to tell the story of their ancestors of the past, while they were mistreated, feared and hated in the time of the KKK. And it shows how African Americans were blamed for practically anything and everything back then, as well.

Look how the black man helps Madonna's character after two WHITE men beat her and are about to rape her. The cops locked up the black guy, they didn't run after the REAL culprits. Racial profiling was running rampant back then as well.

Even today, in the new millennium, this video gets A LOT of flack. Mainly by the Christian sect. And mainly due to the fact that Madonna has crosses burning as she is dancing. It wasn't to be blasphemous or for "shock value". It was to show the REAL history of our nation, in a time when being even friends, let alone being in a relationship with a black person was one of the MOST vile things a white person could do.

If people who jump and holler about 'Like A Prayer' were to sit down and REALLY watch the video, as well as listen to the words, then maybe, just maybe they would see it is not a "video of Satan".