 |
 |
Heather, I am sorry to hear about your dad. I am a physician diagnosed ar 44 now 52. So i think I know what both you and your dad are going through. You seem as though you are looking for the definitive procedure- the cure and do it sooner rather than later. If pallidotomy was a cure for PD I'd probably agree with your logic. But it in reality is a palliative procedure that helps control symptoms both of the illness and medication induced side effects. It appears that your dad is in the early stages of the illness. In the early stages of PD medications usually work extremely well. PWP usually don't need or significantly benefit from pallidotomy until 5-15 or more years with the illness. Your dad is lucky that there are so many new drugs and treatments being developed and we may be only 5-19 years away from "the cure". Pallidotomy is a useful procedure but it also is destructive of normal brain tissue. Hopefully by the time he needs to think about surgery what will be available is something that will regenerate or replace the damaged cells. I know you want it "over with" ASAP. But, waiting and treating conservatively is clearly the way to go. Good luck to you and your dad. Charlie morse wrote: > > Hi. > My name is Heather. I just learned for the first time yesterday that my dad > has Parkinson's at 48. I am currently a nursing student. He was just > diagnosed in June. > > Maybe it's just me clinging at straws or my own naivete', but is > Paliodotomy everything they say it is . . . relief of "90% of signs in 90% > of patients"? Of course, I WANT to believe this . . . > > He's got two small children and a wife. They say surgery is not covered by > insurance because it's still experimental? How much does it cost . . . > anyone know? How about raising money for the surgery - anyone know anything > about that? > > I want to think that he SHOULD get the surgery now while he is still > relatively healthy, cognitive and semi-ambulatory? Again, maybe it's just > me looking for a quick resolution - fat chance. I'd like to see him live > another 35 productive years. To me, it seems like an inevitable step if he > wants to actually make it that long? He has only slight tremors, he is > obviously bradykinesic. Am I off base? Should he really wait until it's all > he has left? > > Heather > [log in to unmask] -- CHARLES T. MEYER, M.D. Middleton, WI [log in to unmask]