Good Energy for May 8

Round three in the transplant fight: a May 8 meeting with a UCLA cardiologist. The director of the program and the surgeon, with whom I met on April 16, will bow to her decision regarding my suitability as a transplant candidate.

The possible outcomes of this meeting:
* overturning the director and surgeon's decision to keep me off the pancreas list
* giving me her blessing for placement on the kidney-only list
* requiring me to undergo more tests before she can make a decision
* refusing to put me on the kidney list

The first is highly unlikely. The second is also a real long shot, according to Dr. Butman, who told me yesterday that patients who had no history of heart disease are often required to undergo an angiogram, so someone like me surely will have to do so.

The last outcome is the one that haunts me. I try to stay focused on 2 and 3, but 4 keeps creeping in.

If she hits me with 4, I will offer her this analogy: The doctors' hesitancy to put me on the list because of an angiogram done in 2006 seems analogous to a 35-year-old who applies for a job and is told he is not a candidate because he was arrested for shoplifting when he was in junior high. He tells HR that he's radically changed since then and is now an upstanding citizen--and he has church membership and community-service awards to prove it.

This seems to be the situation I'm facing. Why are the UCLA docs focused on my "arrest record" rather than on the miraculous transformation my heart has made since the onset of dialysis? (For the past month, I've been lifting weights and walking two to three miles four days a week.) Am I missing something? Are there flaws in my analogy? What more can be done to get them to see the "upstanding citizen" and not the "troubled youth"?

Literary devices worked wonders for Socrates and Jesus. Maybe this analogy will do the trick for me.