lots of blinking
One day Anni was twirling and singing one of her original compositions.
"It's my gift!" she declared.
Dizzy, she fell with spectacular gracelessness.
Laying on her back on the tile floor she began flapping her arms and legs
as if she were making a snow angel.
"Falling down is also a gift!" says she.
After I found all the eggs, and then hid them all over again for Annika to find ("But make sure they're not so hidden, 'kay?"), the girls broke into their Eastereen bounty. Each one of the eyeball candies is chocolate with a different filling inside. Annika held one up to me and asked, "What's inside this one?" The type of filling is handily stamped on the outside (which kind of ruins the authenticity, as far as I'm concerned), but I was busy shooting photos, so I said, "Why don't you guess?" Annika's response was to shake the chocolate up and down, as if she were rattling a Christmas present. "Peanut Butter," she pronounced confidently. I have no idea what kind of sound, exactly, peanut butter makes inside a chocolate eyeball, but I'm thinking she and Forrest Gump need to have a little talk.
Then Hepburn found one of the eggs. Well, "found" it sitting right in the middle of the floor, and began doing that crazy paw-batting and pounce thing that cats do, even 16-year-old cats with bad thyroids. "Oh, no!" shrieked the girls, and there was much chasing and screaming and faux-concern over the egg's well-being.
I'm pretty sure that we'll be having Easter every day for the next couple of weeks.
Annika actually looked better today than she has for a while, and her rosy lips told me that her hemoglobin would come back fine. Which it did. Well, much more anemic than she was before all this started, but fine for her at this point given the situation (how many qualifiers could I add on here?). Up at Children's, the general rule of thumb was to transfuse when her hemoglobin dropped below 8. During those long months when her body was so sick that, apparently, making new red blood cells to replace the ones lost to bleeding was at the bottom of the "to-do" list, after such things as "reinflate right lung" and "close giant hole in abdomen" and "clear massive pus-ball resulting from leaked bowel contents," she rarely deviated from that 8 borderline, bumping up only temporarily after transfusions. I remember asking the PICU doctors once about any long-term effects of prolonged anemia, and at what point a hemoglobin was so low that it was considered dangerous. In the cheerful manner of one who has seen way too many medically freaky things at an age much too young, the fellow explained, enthusiastically, that it's not really the level of the hemoglobin that matters so much as how rapid the drop has been. "I've seen kids come in with crazy hemoglobin levels, like 2... and they're just fine! Because the drop for them has been gradual and their bodies have adjusted along the way. It's amazing, really."
I wonder if the same thing is happening to us, as a family. We were all so calm about the bleeding today. OK, it was easier to be calm because it was clearly not a massive loss of blood and she was acting mainly normal, except for a stubborn refusal to eat. But, still. Every other time we've seen such vivid evidence that things are still not all right inside her, we've reacted with, "Not again ... this can't be happening ... oh why oh why ... yadda yadda yadda." And I know that we got the straight-talk warning from Dr. Whitington that this would be happening frequently to her, but I'm still amazed at how quickly our brains and our hearts seem to be adjusting to this new life-style.
I wonder how low our hemoglobin will go before we notice the drop.
Because I am a total emotional masochist, I am currently reading Twice Dead: Organ Transplants and the Reinvention of Death by anthropologist Margaret Lock. It's not an easy read - in the first few pages she writes quite unflinchingly about the process of organ procurement and a transplant surgery, and then questions whether or not she would be able to put a child through so much suffering in the interest of prolonging his or her life. I've not gotten far enough to enter into a thoughtful discussion, not least of which because I have to re-ignite the part of my brain that can plow through sentences loaded with words like "reify" and "valorize." But I have to say that, so far, some of her criticisms seem to be missing the point entirely. For instance, she wonders why donors must remain anonymous and why there is no financial compensation to donor families for allowing their loved ones organs to be "commodified" in this manner (and I have to admit that one of the things that has grated on me most so far is the frequency with which she places words in quotes to indicate her raised eyebrows, but here I find myself doing the same thing with her). Clearly she's not talking about putting organs onto the open market, but instead about making the gift-giving more reciprocal. Although I can't say that this is a bad idea, especially not if you're talking about bestowing some sort of honors at burial for organ donors, I do wonder if a bad implementation of this idea might come off as insulting to donor families. If you're giving money to donor families in recognition of their act, you have to be very careful not to make it appear that you are putting a dollar figure on the worth of someone's donated organs. Or merely making a token show of gratitude that is woefully inadequate to the magnitude of saving someone else's life. The area of organ donation and transplantation is already fraught with ethical concerns, and recognition of this fact is one reason that I'm reading this book, but I cannot see how bringing money into the equation would do anything but raise even greater concerns. As it stands, organ donation is taken to be one of the true acts of altruism, and that is, I suppose, what makes it so moving.
I'm looking forward to reading more of the book, though, especially since I've always been curious about the Japanese stand on organ donation and why it is so controversial in their country. I don't mind having my assumptions challenged every once in a while.
And here's a lovely gratuitous photo of Frankie, in service to no part of this blog entry. Just so you don't think I only take photos of Annika.
[Annika with Maja: Anni's already eyeing her own black leather trench]
[Annika with Judit, enjoying the love]
Over the weekend, I did a bit of searching, trying to find people who had linked to Annika's medical fund in order to update my template with a big page of "thank-you" links. I was surprised at the number of people who commented that my journal was just too depressing, and I feel like I owe a bit of ebullience to balance out all those downer months, to myself as much as anyone. But on the other hand, my deeply entrenched superstitions hold that celebrating good fortune too soon is just like dancing on the edge of cliff, certainly exhilarating but also unquestionably risky.
This back-and-forth covers not only my emotional state, but also my more intellectual moments. Last week I was sent an invitation to share Annika's story on a website formed as "a support group for parents who receive an adverse diagnosis before or after birth," and to be a parent mentor for others in the same situation. At the very end of the email was the kicker, "This is a prolife support group with people of many faiths involved." Right then I knew that I could not get involved, mainly because I believe that support groups should never involve themselves in politics, even politics involving such personal issues. Or maybe, especially not politics involving such personal issues. Either you're there to provide support, or you're there to advance a political cause, and I don't think you can do both successfully.
And then, of course, there's the fact that my particular politics are pro-choice, although I certainly do not believe that terminating a pregnancy for Down Syndrome, which is what is usually caught in prenatal testing, should be automatic. (For a lovely, thoughtful take on being pro-choice and choosing to have a child with Down syndrome, check out Sarahlynn's post on her decision). Still, I was hoping that the website was not simply a new addition to the arsenal peppering guilt upon any woman who decides not to go through with a pregnancy. Because I was dithering away, flummoxed by my own conflicts, I decided to check the website out. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it mainly existed for people to explain their choice not to terminate a pregnancy in the face of devastating news, and why their choice was right for them.* Or, in the words of Michael Berube, attempting to "decrease the abortion rate by persuasion rather than by state coercion."
Of course, our particular story has absolutely nothing to do with any of those scenarios. Annika's liver disease is almost never caught in even the most advanced ultrasound, and perhaps does not even begin to develop until fairly close to birth. So I really don't have anything to contribute to the discussion of choosing to have a baby with a serious medical condition or not.
While Annika was in the PICU, on a ventilator, we sometimes chatted with the nurses about life with childhood liver disease. I talked about how much more difficult it was going through all this with another child so young at home. I talked about how we worried all through my pregnancy, worried that lightening might strike twice and she, too, would be born with biliary atresia. Or something else ... one of the countless afflictions that can befall hapless children in their earliest years. Our nurse was curious, would we have chosen to abort the child if we knew she would be born with biliary atresia?** We shifted uncomfortably. Everyone knows there's no easy way to answer that question. I wouldn't want to put a child through what Annika has had to go through, just to live. I mean, we were watching our child breathe on a machine. Blood was squirting out of her bottom on an hourly basis, and when we lifted her to change her diaper, tears would roll silently down her face, out of pain or fear or confusion - we had no idea which. But is there any reasonable person who thinks that saying "yes" to an abortion is easily done, either? And I would never trade my Annika for a chance at a different, healthy child, which is how the question ends up sounding, in the end, to parents in our situation. I responded that, if biliary atresia were a genetic disease and we knew that there was a reasonably high risk (say the 1 in 4 chance that two carriers pass on a recessive gene), then we would take extremely strong birth control measures to avoid exactly that question. But I have known parents who decided to give birth again, even with the 1 in 4 chance of a genetic liver disease, and have explained their decision in terms I can respect.*** I would no more take away their choice to give birth than I would take away another's choice not to.
I am constantly surprised by the strength and beauty in this strange world of childhood disease. The mother who lost her baby last week was certainly the youngest I've met at a hospital. I guessed her age to be 18 or so, but perhaps she was older. In any case, I gathered that her pregnancy was, at the least, unexpected. The family of the baby's father said, publicly, some of the most venomous things I've ever heard aimed at a young mother, and it wasn't clear how much social support she had otherwise. Yet there she was, spending her days mostly confined to a hospital room with her sick child, snapping photos of him like any proud mom, learning medical lingo, never complaining (at least not in public, and not to me), and never questioning the hard work she hadn't bargained for. Was I impressed with her commitment to her child, at an age when I most certainly would have sworn up and down that I wasn't ready to be a mother? You betcha. We all were.
I guess anyone that knows me, or has kept plowing through the sad times with us here on this blog, knows that I think Annika is a child worth having again. That she's a child worth another million dollars of insurance money to keep her here with us. That a child who makes up a game called "The Evil Queens of Bad,"**** in the process convincing her little sister to shout, "I'm a baaaaaaad baby! RRRRRRRRRR!," makes for one beautiful life.
[Oh, yes. She's baaaaaad, all right. She'll jump out of a shopping bag in a dark alley and knock you senseless with her overwhelming cuteness.]
So, now, if you've muddled through my muddled ramblings, you deserve to break out the champagne with us: our reinsurer has given up. All services provided in 2005 will be used toward our 2005 benefit maximum, not 2006. This means that Annika has enough insurance coverage left in 2006 to sign a contract to get her re-listed for transplant. Can I get a hallelujah?