Saturday, May 22, 2010

Protesting a 94 Year Old's DNR.

Oy. Should we really point out the differences between a 94 year old unconscious alzheimer's patient with a DNR order and Terri Schiavo? Or should we just let this reporter slip in a divisive name in order to get the story some eyeballs? How can this be written as anything other than absurd -- all under the guise of fair reporting by representation of "both sides"? And at what point is the media irresponsibly sensationalizing death?

I find this to be some of the most irresponsible reporting -- and a frighteningly sad case. Does the niece expect her aunt to live to be 100? 110? Can death really be cheated? What kind of pain is the patient in? And what is the niece willing to do to prolong her aunt's death? How misguided is this "local right-to-life" group to take up this case with protests -- and to what end? And what good is a medical proxy when any family member or hospital administrator (as seen in other cases) can over-ride decisions? Isn't grieving and decision-making enough effort without protests? And why is the reporter irresponsible enough to allow the commenter to equate sedation with euthanasia?? Absolutely outrageous.

We can only hope that cases like this show the absurd belief we have fostered over the past few decades that humans can live forever; that doctors can perform miracles; that a DNR equals removal from life support or that it signifies anything other than compassion; that life, no matter how pained, frail, aged or afflicted, is worth "saving." And yeah, thanks for listing the address of the elder home.

Family members of an elderly women under a court-ordered "do not resuscitate order" in an Orland Park assisted living center joined members of a local right-to-life group Saturday to protest the court decision, saying their "beloved aunt" should be kept alive by all means necessary.

"This is the dark side of probate court," said Jay Drabik, a nephew of 94-year-old Lydia Tyler, who remained heavily medicated and unresponsive in a room at the Brighton Gardens Assisted Living Center at 16051 S. LaGrange Road.

The case has echoes of the prolonged court battle over Terri Schiavo, in which family members feuded for seven years over whether Schiavo's feeding tubes should be removed as per the wishes of her husband.

In Tyler's case, her brother, James Drabik, and two other relatives authorized a court-appointed guardian to convene an "end-of-life" meeting for Tyler late last month, leading to the "do not resuscitate order," said Lynn Drabik, a niece who joined other protesters Saturday.

Relatives who want to keep Tyler alive dispute a doctor's finding that she is in a state of advanced Alzheimer's and not capable of living independently. Only a month ago, they say, Tyler held a birthday party and posed for pictures with family members.

Attempts to reach Tyler's brother, or an attorney representing him, were unsuccessful Saturday.

Meanwhile, protesters fear Tyler could die at any moment under the influence of strong narcotics meant to ease her into death without pain.

"Nobody wants her to be in pain, but you euthanize pets and animals, not people," said Jay Drabik.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Hospice Experiences.

I had an experience last week at the in-hospital hospice where I volunteer that has left me wondering deeply about the roles of volunteers, patients, family members and hospice nurses in end of life care-taking.

Because I visit only once a week and the stay of patients there tends to be quite short, there is little continuity to my visits. I don't often see the same patients and their families more than once or twice. While there are 18 beds, the number of weekly deaths is high enough to render most rooms with new patients and emotional situations each week; I approach the rooms seldom knowing who is in them -- beyond their name -- or what the emotional situation is -- beyond brief notes in the volunteer book.

I am a volunteer and I often find myself saying that I am just a volunteer. My role is to be whatever the family members need, to fetch water or coffee for them, to run to the pharmacy for the nurses, to sit by the beds of the dying so that they are not alone; whether they know they are alone or not is often outside our realm of understanding. It is not uncommon for patients and their families to see me as another channel of communication for needs. They will ask me to call the nurse, ask if they can see a doctor, tell me what they think a patient needs. But the culture on the floor is -- necessarily -- that I shouldn't intervene with the care the nurses provide and should not undermine their treatment. I respect this and try to defer requests unless they are pressing or necessary. I try to be a helpful presence, not a factor.

I usually enter a room, introduce myself, ask the patient or family if I can sit with them, see if they are willing to chat, or I simply act as quiet company to them.

When I arrived at the hospice last week, it was for a new evening shift; my schedule had been changed to accommodate my weekly engagements and those of the hospice. I immediately noted, with some dismay, that a nurse I found to be gruff and dismissive during prior encounters was on duty. I respect her -- she has apparently been working on the floor for some many years -- but I distinctly felt that her view of volunteers was that we were meddlesome and in the way. And in my new role, I often agree with her, wondering what I am supposed to be doing.

I began to make visits to the rooms; the equivalent of knocking on doors in a neighborhood, not knowing what one is to ask or find. I heard a respirator running it's mechanical in-and-out cycle before entering one room; I've learned that respirators in a hospice ward can mean very few things: a young patient who was resuscitated but will not survive; or a family that still hopes against odds for their loved one to survive, for instance. When I entered the room, a woman, clearly once attractive but now quite haggard, sat on the edge of her chair next to the bed, her eyes wide in something like shock, her body poised in agitation, her hands never still. I introduced myself and asked if I could stay with her for a little while. She said nothing but shook her head slightly.

Because there was no other chair, I got down on my haunches against the wall beside her chair. "He looks very calm," I told her. She directed her blank and pained stare to me.

"Is the respirator bad?" she asked me. Immediately I knew I was over my head. I didn't know the patient's diagnosis (though he was in a hospice ward) nor the history of how he got there. I asked her when they arrived. That afternoon.

"Are there many respirators here?" she asked again, her numb face fixed on me.

"Respirators are not uncommon," I told her. She looked at her husband, a large man who filled his bed from side to side, the bulk of his large body slightly shaking with each pump of the mechanical machine that blocked a hole in his throat. His face had fallen, his jaw hanged open, his eyes were still behind the lids.

"Did I do the right thing?" she asked turning to me again.

My body tingled with the memory of how it feels to not know what to do as a family member, a care taker, in such a situation. Nothing prepares us to be informed consumers at a time of death. We are left to hear the options, to ask for the doctor's recommendations, to wrestle those with our own powerful hopes of keeping the patient, a father, a spouse, in our lives as long as possible.

"Whatever decisions you've made, I'm sure you've done the best for him that you can," I told her. "Don't be hard on yourself," I said to her, "You're making decisions the best way you know how." I didn't sound very reassuring to myself.

I heard someone approaching from behind. Their daughter, about 20 years old, drove up to the doorway on a mechanized scooter, her legs withered and resting without purpose on the machine's footboard. She introduced herself and continued to chatter in one long string about where she had just come from: the drug store. She had purchased jelly beans and spent the next five minutes telling me in a sing-song tone about them: how she had selected them, how one can match the color of the jelly bean to a chart on the back that tells you it's flavor, how much they cost. The other snacks she might have bought but decided not to. She barely acknowledged her mother or her father. We might have been sitting in a park or riding the subway; two strangers talking about jelly beans in order to fill the time.

The respirator machine beeped a high and disturbing tone, interrupting the daughter's buoyant banter and the father's in-and-out breathing. Then again. His breath halted, held, sputtered, then began again The mother jumped to her feet, her lost hands fluttering over the machines, the tubes, the face of her husband, like two panicked birds caught in a room and unable to find the window. She was so agitated by the routine beeps that I thought perhaps fetching the nurse would be helpful -- a knowledgeable voice to explain to her what was happening. They had only arrived a few hours before. Maybe no one had yet had a chance to speak with them about what was happening, where they were, that their husband and father was dying.

"What's wrong with the machine, maybe it should be adjusted. Why does it keep doing that," she said in her sustained panic, a pitch higher now. Please can you get our nurse." She said the nurse's name. The name of the stern nurse I work so hard to avoid.

I found the nurse in the break room, eating her dinner out of a plastic container and surrounded by a few other colleagues.

"Excuse me," I said. "I'm sorry for interrupting. The wife of patient X is very upset. She's asked for you."

"Listen," said the nurse, "How about you stay out of that room, OK?" I nodded my head in humiliated obedience, pushing the door behind me closed so that no one outside would hear our conversation. "That man's got multiple diseases and they're still act like he's going to get better and go home," she said. I stood still for a beat, perhaps with my own mouth hanging open. Then I compliantly shook my head yes and turned to leave. I heard her push her chair back to reluctantly stand and follow me out of the break room.

I slowly made my way to a few other rooms; one patient clearly in the end of life stage, very close to death, had a volunteer sitting with her, holding her hand and playing war era music on an iphone for her. It seemed peaceful but I wondered if the patient wanted a stranger holding her hand, if she liked the music. She was hispanic; maybe her taste in music had been different, maybe she didn't even know the volunteer was even there.

In another room I found myself sitting with an old Southern black woman, her face worn and wrinkled as an old pair of shoes, a colorful scarf tied around her head. She had somehow made her way from her bed to an armchair in the corner. She asked me to stay and talk with her and, because there was no other chair, she directed me to sit on the end of her bed (something that all volunteers are told not to do). I hesitantly sat down, then in time found myself swinging my feet and enjoying her colorful stories of family, the old South, her work and her love of New York. She was spry and so long as she was talking about events of decades ago, she was coherent. But when she approached recent events in her conversation, her memory was disjointed and her talk fantastical. She was getting ready to go home, she told me. We talked and laughed for nearly half an hour as she sat comfortably in the chair at the end of her bed, two long tubes running from under her clothes to the clear bags hanging on a metal stand by her bed.

Her nurse, a woman that I had grown fond of during my routine visits, entered the room with a pen and a few papers in her hand. I asked if it was ok that I sit on the end of the bed.

"You stay right there, honey," chirped the lively old patient. "You ain't hurtin' a thang," she said in her beautiful Southern accent. The nurse gave me a nod of approval, checked that the tubes were not too stretched, then held the paper out to the patient and asked her to sign on a dotted line. Immediately, the old woman changed, protested, proclaiming that she wouldn't sign anything unless she knew what it was. "What is it? Just tell me what it is," she exclaimed. The nurse didn't. She pushed the patient to sign, the patient, growing louder and louder, refused, pushing the papers and the pen away.

"I know what you're trying to do, you're trying to take my money away. That's what that paper is. You wanna get my money. They're always trying to get my money," she said to me. In a calm voice I said to the patient, thinking perhaps our rapport would calm her, reassure her, and using her name, "No X dear, that's not what the paper will do." I didn't know what the paper was. I suspected it was a DNR order.

"I'm not signing anything unless I know what it is," she yelled again. Just then the gruff nurse walked in the door behind me.

"You," she said to me. I need you to go to the pharmacy. Get x for me."

"Don't I need a prescription?" I asked.

"No," she said sighing. She wrote the name of an ear drop drug on a paper towel and off I went to the third floor pharmacy, feeling as though I had been told again, in another way, to leave and not at all certain that I shouldn't. When I returned to the hospice ward, I found the gruff nurse, handed her the ear drops with a "ma'am," and went to the break room to grab my coat.

In the break room, the nurse who had been unable to get the old black woman to sign the paper said as she looked up at the news program on the TV, "She's a difficult patient." I nodded my head.

"I'm leaving,"I said. She clapped her hands twice, whether at my announcement or something on the TV program I didn't know. I was a half hour before my shift was over when I left the ward. I was done.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

GeriPal on DNR Orders and Doctor "Saves"


It is a story that happens all too frequently in a fragmented healthcare system. A woman with cancer on chemotherapy codes in the emergency room. Nobody knows her code status. The ER physician uses the skill and talent gained from years of training to successfully resuscitate her. The family arrives to let the physician know that the women had a DNR order. After discussions with the women’s oncologist and ICU team the family decided to not pursue dialysis and withdraw the ventilator. Disappointment sets in for the young physician as seemingly everyone gives up on his “save”.


Labels: , ,

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Is a Default Choice Still A Choice?

A shameless reposting of Joanne Kenen's post at The New Health Dialogue, because the entire piece reveals the default "choice" of aggressive care that individuals must work against to direct their own care:

I’m traveling this morning to a palliative medicine conference in Boston, so it seemed a good time to leave you with my thoughts about a recent Narrative Matters essay in Health Affairs, called “Shock Me, Tube Me, Line Me."

Perhaps I don't really have to write much. The title says it all.

I usually like these narrative essays. They are thoughtful, literary and evocative. But this one has been bugging me for weeks. The author, Boris Veysman, an ER doc at an academic medical center in New Jersey, writes about taking care of a terminally ill woman, suffering from metastatic cancer. Her wish to have a low-tech death, not tied up to tubes and machines, merely confirmed his own desire to have “everything” done to prolong his life when his time comes.

Let’s be clear. People in our medical system have a right to choose aggressive care, as Veysman has. That’s not the point of his essay. He is not arguing that we are taking away that right. He is arguing against exercising it. And while he understands the components of end of life care, from ICUs to hospice, he has the sequence all mixed up.

This patient arrived at the ER, conscious. Her daughter dropped her off, and went to park the car. Almost immediately, the woman collapsed and was close to death. Dr. Veysman, appropriately, asked if she had a DNR, do not resuscitate. Or a DNI, do not intubate. No one knew the answer immediately -- the daughter was still parking. Without that knowledge, the ER team did the appropriate thing. They resuscitated. They intubated. They did aggressive and forceful CPR, with the doctor doing the compressions himself, not trusting anyone else's strength and expertise but his own. “Yes, she is now sort of alive because of me," he wrote. They put in a central line and got her on an external pacemaker. They gave her heart electric shocks. They stabilized her.

Then they found out she had a DNR. And a DNI. And metastatic cancer that had stopped responding to one chemotherapy treatment after another. But he had saved her. "The interventions were optimized and performed without delay by skilled hands," he wrote. She awoke, gagging, coughing and reaching for the breathing tube in her throat. He ordered sedatives and powerful painkillers.

She had been weak, he learned. She had little appetite and had felt unwell. She was depressed. Her kidneys were failing. She was dying.

He did not think it was time for her to die. He thought she might have a few weeks left. He thought she should spend them on dialysis.

"I think there’s a good chance she is fixable in the short term," he told the family. "She needs dialysis, but other than that we can address every other comfort issue. I think she can wake up and talk, probably even write or use a computer. I think her depression, weakness, appetite, dehydration, and malnourishment can be effectively treated. Whatever her prognosis is from the cancer, I think she can probably get at least a few good weeks, which is done best by a hospice. She might want to do something with that time. To finish up. To say goodbye and good luck. I think it’s too early to die. To give her a chance, however, we must go all out and ‘do everything’ for the next several days."

He had never met this patient before. He did not know her values, her beliefs, the length and depth of her illness, the severity of her pain. He was right of course that hospice could help with both the physical and existential symptoms. We can only wonder regretfully why the family had not gone that route earlier -- and wonder whether or why her oncologist had failed to suggest it. We can only wonder what the final course of her life would have been had she gotten palliative care even earlier, helping her all through the course of her deterioration and illness, even before it was time for hospice. But now her kidneys were failing. She was ready to die. The ER doc disagreed.

He wanted her to get dialysis so she could get hospice so she could die a little later. (Never mind that, according to a hospice industry official I consulted, a hospice was unlikely to take a patient just beginning dialysis in order to survive long enough for hospice. Patients can continue dialysis and get hospice services if the kidney disease is not terminal, is not the disease that qualifies them for hospice. But the idea of starting dialysis in order to get hospice would be unusual to say the least).

End of life, he writes, can be done better. He’s correct. It can. "Give me a motorized wheelchair and a feeding tube if I need them, along with a tracheostomy to help me breathe and dialysis to filter out toxins. Those do nothing to stop a good mind and a strong spirit, while permitting both to overcome obstacles of blood and flesh." That's his opinion and his wish. Today he could have that wish granted -- and Medicare, meaning the taxpayer, would pay for it all. But then, after having all those machines and tubes and procedures, he does acknowledge that time would come when maybe he wouldn't want them any more. "If I wish to die, let me die," he writes. Hopefully when his time comes, his ER doc will be aware of his wishes.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

GeriPal: Family Meetings, DNR Orders and Quill.

From Alex Smith at GeriPal comes this story of how medical personnel handle family meetings where members disagree about the manner in which to proceed with treatment:

We moved on to discuss a challenging conflict that occurred during a recent family meeting. The patient was in her 80’s, had advanced dementia, and had experienced a precipitous decline in her health status since suffering a compression fracture one month prior to admission. She no longer walked due to back pain. She had developed bedsores. She was admitted to our service with urosepsis, her third admission in the last month. In the family meeting, the patient’s husband agreed to the suggestion that she not be resuscitated in the event of a cardiac arrest. The patient’s son and daughter, however, strongly opposed a “Do-Not-Resuscitate Order,” saying, “We want everything done for our mother.” I asked the intern, who ran the family meeting, how he felt when this conflict came up. He said that while he wanted to support the husband, he didn’t know what to say to the adult children. He felt he had lost control, as family members had begun talking over each other and the medical team, and tensions were rising. I passed out an article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine by Quill et al., “Discussing Treatment Preferences With Patients Who Want ‘Everything.’” This terrific article describes a structured approach to addressing these issues with patients and families, beginning with an examination of the underlying reasons and emotions behind the request, an exploration of the benefits and burdens of treatment options and their alternatives, and culminating with a recommendation for care that encompasses what is known about the patient’s values and preferences. We role-played the family meeting, with the other house officers playing the part of family members. The intern used the suggested structure and his own words. He still struggled, and we had to rewind a few times to play parts over, but ultimately he learned, and felt more prepared to run a “real world” family meeting.

We on the outside can talk about coercion, natural death, end of life planning, and medical proxies all we want. But the actual experience of consulting with a family - and Smith's effort to share that with us - is a necessary lesson to those of us who write and think about end of life care.

The article referred to in this excerpt can be found at the above link and here.

An aside: Quill has taken a lot of flack from "pro-life," anti-choice-in-dying advocates because of his role in the Vacco v. Quill court case in 1997 which challenged New York states law against assisted suicide. Below is an excerpt from an interview conducted with Quill regarding that case.

A case with one of your patients led to a national debate in 1991. What happened?

A longtime patient, Diane, developed acute leukemia, with a 20 percent chance of long-term survival with aggressive treatment. I recommended treatment; she told me, “I don’t think so.” …

I was taken aback; she was a relatively healthy young person … but I eventually accepted it, and we referred her to hospice care.

But Diane said: “I want a choice; I want some medication if it gets hard at the end.” We had a number of family meetings, and she convinced me she’d worry about the end. I prescribed her barbiturates with the promise that she would meet with me before she took them to be sure we turned every stone.

She had a wonderful three months on hospice. …

I got the bright idea I was going to write about this case with Diane. I thought [Jack] Kevorkian was too easy to dismiss, … and I thought this case would be something people would struggle with. I wrote it up in narrative form. sent it to the New England Journal of Medicine and got a call from (the editor), who asked me if I knew what I was getting into. …

I was told I would never be successfully prosecuted, but I went through a serious process on the way to that.

What led to Vacco v. Quill, the Supreme Court case that challenged New York’s ban on physician-assisted suicide in 1997?

In the 1990s, there were initiatives to try to legalize physician-assisted suicide – in Washington state, California and Oregon, where it passed.

At the time, a number of people decided we would try to challenge the laws preventing assisted suicide; we thought patients should have the right to request and doctors the right to respond. We do allow some patients to decide –– patients on ventilators –– but patients suffering more who aren’t on ventilators don’t have the choice.

This went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the vote was 9-0 against the right to assisted suicide. … But there was language in the decision about the right to a dignified death, a death that avoids pain and despair, that encouraged debate at the state level and opened the door to terminal sedation to relieve suffering. …

The middle ground has moved forward. Palliative care and hospice have moved forward. There’s increased acknowledgment of tough cases and a lot more conversation, evaluation and exploration of options.

Labels: , , , ,