Speaking of things-I-wish-I-could-discuss-more-frankly-with-the-Ancient-and-Venerables: health. Theirs. They've been amazingly well for 81 and 85 years, but* at 85, Pater was diagnosed with a slowly evolving heart issue, aortic valve stenosis, that has progressed from 'mild' to 'moderate' over the last year. He'll be 86 in March, so I have no right to expect him to be invincible. I don't. But he's my Pater, and even his Doc says he's more like a 75 year old - once again, I've been spoiled by good fortune. And, to her credit, we've all been spoiled by the Mater's careful stewardship. High fiber, low fat, low sugar, low salt - she's had them both on a strict regimen for decades. (H and I enjoy "corrupting" Pater with the occasional feast of forbidden fruit - bacon cheeseburger! It's safe - his *arteries* are clean as a whistle.)
Anyhow, their Doc sent him to a cardiologist who has seen him a couple of times now. The last time - last week - he said Pater could safely wait another year before undergoing treatment. Good news, right? And yet, that's what's bugging me.
The first time he saw Pater, Cardio Doc was pretty dismissive of anything less than valve replacement, but not at the mild stage where Pater was then.
Wait and watch. Watch and wait.
Now, however, he's sounding more interested in a balloon expansion. But from what I can gather, that's not considered a satisfactory *long term* treatment. So what is he aiming at? What are his expectations for this man, my Pater? How does a Doc decide how much treatment is ... "adequate?"
Green bananas, Doc - to buy, or not to buy?
_____________________________________
*assuming they weren't hiding it from me before - they're great for that, not wanting *me* to worry!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment