Angel Flight gets some good local press

True, my perspective is colored by my own local experiences with AF.
Here in
the northeast, AF is often a matter of convenience (albeit a
significant
one!) rather than necessity.

On the Gulf Coast, it's a matter of necessity. We're very spread out
here. There are major cancer facilities in Houston and San Antonio,
and effectively nowhere else in the area. I've flown patients in from
all over Texas, Arkansas, Missisippi, and Louisiana. They're looking
at 6-12 hour drives to make Houston - and usually flying them in by
airline is no faster (or cheaper!) because we're looking at commuter
airlines making connections. Many of these people simply can't make
the trip - it's just too rough. The only realistic option for them is
medical charter - which most insurance (including Medicare) won't pay
for.

What's more, medical charter is significantly more expensive than my
airplane - in part because their pilots and mechanics need to be paid,
while I fly and turn wrenches for free, and in part due to regulatory
costs (which have NOT given them a better safety record than Angel
Flight).

I agree that in the NE, Angel Flight is probably more a matter of
convenience than anything else, but here in the sparsely populated
parts of the country it's a matter of life and death for many.

Unfortunately, all too often they die anyway. Most of the patients I
fly are very old and very sick. I've flown for Angel Flight a little
over four years, and tonight I fly my 50th mission. Most of the people
I have flown are dead. Once, I actually took a woman home (to
someplace in Louisiana that was hours away from the nearest airport
with commuter service) who was told by her doctors that they had tried
all they had, and there were no more experimental treatments for which
she qualified. All they could give her was something to ease the pain,
and the local sawbones could do it just as well. They were sending her
home to die.

It is the nature of experimental treatments that most of the patients
don't make it. Some do. Sometimes the patient pulls through. I
recently heard from a patient who had not flown with us in months.
When I first started, he would be here every week or two and I flew him
several times. Then he sort of disappeared from the mission rosters,
and I assumed the worst. He had some sort of leukaemia, after all.
But it turned out he was simply down to a two visits a year now, for
monitoring. He is in remission. Sometimes, you win one. It makes it
easier to keep going.

Michael

"Peter R." wrote in message
oups.com...
Gary wrote:

Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--
and especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good.

I disagree, but honestly I have never sat down and performed a
cost-benefit analysis of AF versus the many other charities out there.

It's a matter of relative benefit, which I think Gary already pointed out
reasonably well.

In developed nations, we spend an awful lot of resources (read, money)
keeping just one person alive (and in many cases, they even want to be kept
alive ), when those resources could be applied elsewhere to keep
thousands, tens of thousands, or more alive.

This sort of analysis can be applied to a variety of things we do as
developed nations; it's not unique to Angel Flight. But it definitely
applies to Angel Flight (and similar charity work).

I'm not passing judgment (nor does it appear that Gary is). But like Gary,
I agree that it's helpful to at least keep things in perspective.

Pete