MikeHeim
Well-known member
I'll echo what several others on the site have said about the shock factor. I was 28 at the time of my diagnosis, and was absolutely numb for a couple days after I got it. I spent my entire college career ravaging my body with various chemicals, but I always kept running to stay in shape. I felt absolutely betrayed that the one organ I was trying to take care of was actually the one to fail me! Anyways, if your doctor says it's OK to run, then it's OK to run. I was told after my diagnosis that I needed to slow down a bit (I was running about 7:30 miles) and that I needed to stop if I got any SOB. I also quit lifting weights immediately.
As far as second opinions go, I have mixed feelings. I would say that if you are not comfortable with what the first Cardiologist tells you, that is probably grounds for a second opinion. By "comfortable", I don't mean that you have to like the answer. For instance, if you feel good, and the doctor says to hold off on surgery, I would think you should be comfortable with that diagnosis. When I was diagnosed, I had some of the valve regurgitation symptoms and was not at all happy with having an untreated heart condition. The tests (TEE, Angiogram) confirmed the severe regurgitation and the Cardiologist said I needed surgery. Basically, I knew that he was right and I was comfortable with the diagnosis and moved forward with it. If he had said that I was in perfect health and didn't have any valve issues, I would have definitely went for another opinion.
Others may disagree, but I don't like the idea of getting a second opinion just to get a second opinion. If they disagree, whose diagnosis do you accept? Are you then forced to get a third opinion to validate one of the earlier ones? Like I said, if the diagnosis you get makes sense with what you know and what you feel, I would feel fine with not getting a second opinion.
As far as second opinions go, I have mixed feelings. I would say that if you are not comfortable with what the first Cardiologist tells you, that is probably grounds for a second opinion. By "comfortable", I don't mean that you have to like the answer. For instance, if you feel good, and the doctor says to hold off on surgery, I would think you should be comfortable with that diagnosis. When I was diagnosed, I had some of the valve regurgitation symptoms and was not at all happy with having an untreated heart condition. The tests (TEE, Angiogram) confirmed the severe regurgitation and the Cardiologist said I needed surgery. Basically, I knew that he was right and I was comfortable with the diagnosis and moved forward with it. If he had said that I was in perfect health and didn't have any valve issues, I would have definitely went for another opinion.
Others may disagree, but I don't like the idea of getting a second opinion just to get a second opinion. If they disagree, whose diagnosis do you accept? Are you then forced to get a third opinion to validate one of the earlier ones? Like I said, if the diagnosis you get makes sense with what you know and what you feel, I would feel fine with not getting a second opinion.