A few days ago, I wrote about a very sad story–the untimely death of an Emory University grad student named Anoopa Sharma. As I said in my original post, Anoopa was a person completely unknown to me, but when I accidentally happened upon a website set up by her friends, the story of her life and death touched me as if I had known her. And I wish that I had. She sounds like she was a person worth knowing, and had she lived, I am certain that she would have made a difference in the world.

But in a way, Anoopa has. Before her death, Anoopa mentioned that she wanted to donate a kidney to an aunt who was in renal failure. Her family decided that if they gave one of Anoopa’s kidneys to her aunt, then why not the rest of her organs and tissues. They believed it was what she would have wanted. And so to date, Anoopa’s heart, kidneys, pancreas and liver have saved the lives of five people so far.

Yes, Anoopa, you have made a difference.

Atlanta’s Fox channel 5 local news reported on her case, and the video is availabe on her website, anoopa.net. Be forewarned, you will need a box of tissues.

Anoopa’s mother apparently read my blog entry and sent me a beautiful comment. I will write her back, and let her know how much I appreciated her taking the time to do so.

No April Fool’s joke here. April 1, 2005 is now the designated “Asbestos Awareness Day.”

No asbestos has not gone away, and neither has the health problems that it has caused. The whole asbestos saga is one of the prime examples of industry covering up a deadly product, and allowing millions of people to be exposed to it–many of them small children.

We’ve known about the potential problems of asbestos for over 100 years. As early as 1897, a Vienna physician wrote that emaciation and pulmonary problems in asbestos weavers and their families left no doubt that asbestos inhalation was the cause. In 1906, Dr. H. Montague Murray reported on a fatal case of asbestosis to a British Parliamentary committee on compensation. And the first detailed case report of asbestosis appeared in the medical literature in 1924. Eight decades ago.

In June 1930, a landmark appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the most widely read medical journal in the United States at that time. Authored by Dr. E.R.A. Merewether, medical inspector of factories in Great Britain, it described the clinical characteristics of asbestosis, the dust control requirements to prevent the disease, and the importance of educating workers about the hazards of asbestos.

But was anything done to protect workers and the general public? Well, here are some highlights of how industry reacted to the growing and alarming medical literature about the dangers of working with asbestos:

In 1948, the Johns-Manville Corporation adopted a policy not to tell employees when their medical exams show they have asbestosis. (Nice guys, huh).

In 1953, Dr. O. A. Sander, medical consultant for Southern Asbestos Company, publishes an article stating, “Asbestosis is compatible with good health and a feeling of well-being.” Why didn’t this guy have his medical license revoked? Better yet, he should have been sentenced to breathe in pure asbestos dust 24/7, until he too, could delight in that “feeling of well being” brought on by asbestosis.

In 1962-64, the Philip Carey Manufacturing Company, a producer of asbestos pipecovering, hired Dr. Thomas Mancuso to investigate asbestos. Mancuso’s report noted that “there is an urgent need to protect the company’s employees and customers from the danger of Philip Carey asbestos products.” Guess what, he was immediately fired. His report is buried. No warnings are placed on Philip Carey products.

And so it goes. The list goes on and on, cover-up after cover-up. So now, happy asbestos disease awareness day. It’s only taken 108 years.

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization Applauds U.S. Senate for Passage of Resolution to Establish National Asbestos Awareness Day – Sponsored by Senator Harry Reid

April 1, 2005 to Serve as First National Asbestos Awareness Day

From ABC.com:

In a 2-1 ruling early Wednesday, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said the parents, who have battled with their son-in-law for years over the woman’s fate, “failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims” that Terri’s feeding tube should be reinserted immediately.

Merits of their claim? Uh, the woman will die without food or fluid. Is that merit enough?

It is sad that this has turned into a political platform, a battle of political parties, but if anything good comes out of it, this saga will force us to view this hazy area of life and death. Who has jurisdiction over a patient’s life? A “husband” who has been living with another woman for the past decade and has two children with her, or parents? When do we decide that a “guardian” is not acting in the best interests of the person that are supposed to be taking care of? And finally, how much power should the courts and government have in this case?

What I find very peculiar is how the courts seem to ignore the fact that “Terri’s wishes” were only revealed by Michael Schiavo years after the fact. Years after she has been in this state, he suddenly announced that he “recalled” that Terri said she wouldn’t want to live this way.

Anyway, I am assuming that she will die, Michael will collect his cash and be rid of her, and then we can feel proud, that as a nation, we allow disabled citizens to be starved to death.