Hospice on Film
Labels: documentaries, hospice, prison hospice
Labels: documentaries, hospice, prison hospice
Labels: " assisted suicide, barbara glickstein, end of life care, hospice, jeff sharlet, knight fellowship, prison, WBAI
I wonder if they would have the same reaction to a new hospital next door? Residents of an upscale British Columbia building protest a new hospice that is being built next door. The article claims that the aversion is cultural. I wonder if non-Asian residents are having the same reaction.
Dozens of angry Asian residents of a posh, University of B.C., highrise building aim to stage a placard-waving protest rally to protest a 15-bed hospice being planned next door.
“We cannot have dying people in our backyard,” said rally organizer Janet Fan, Wednesday “It’s a cultural taboo to us and we cannot be close to so many dying people. It’s like you open your door and step into a graveyard.”
Fan lives on the 17th floor at Promontory, at 2688 West Mall, near Thunderbird Stadium.
She said residents weren’t consulted and only found out when an open house on the proposed hospice was scheduled for Monday.
UBC planners are planning to build St. John Hospice next door.
“Next week we’re going to organize a march, holding banners, to the office of the president of UBC,” said Fan, a stay-at-home mom. “We’re going to tell him we don’t want this hospice and how enraged, angry and shocked we are.”
Fan said 80 per cent of the residents of her 18-storey building are Asian and are strongly opposed.
“Units here are worth $1 million,” she added. “We put our life savings into this.”
She said residents are worried the hospice will have a negative impact on their property values.
Asian residents living in other buildings in the upscale Hawthorn Place neighborhood have signed a 200-name petition, including 65 from Fan’s building.
Qing Lin, who bought a Promontory apartment for $900,000 almost a year ago, said she and her seven year old daughter will have nightmares if the hospice goes ahead.
“We believe that people dying outside will bring us bad luck,” she added. “I’m very angry and upset. If I had known it was going to be a hospice, I wouldn’t buy it for half the price.”
Her neighbour Anglea Gao, 34, clutching her nine-month-old son Ryan, agreed.
“It’s very disturbing,” she said. “My kids and I are going to feel so frightened and angry just to think there are dying people so close to us.”
Residents wrote a letter Jan. 9 to Jan Fialkowski, executive director of the University Neighborhood Association, (UNA) saying they feel a hospice is the equivalent of a funeral home or crematorium.
“‘Death is the Yin and ‘Live’ is the Yang,” it read. “If the Yin and Yang are near to each other, ‘Death’ will bring bad luck, meaning sickness and even death . . . The ghosts of the dead will invade and harass the living.”
The letter said Asians believe that living next to “death” would “lead to failure of business, the loss of money, the break of marriage and family, and the healthy growing up of children will be affected.”
Sharon Wu, chairwoman of the UNA said 60 residents came to a UNA board meeting Tuesday.
“The UNA respects cultural beliefs,” she said. “UBC is planning to address the concerns of the residents. It’s a very emotional and sensitive issue.”
It’s not the first time the hospice has met with opposition.
It met with complaints when it was originally planned for Marine Drive, close to Place Vanier student residences.
Joe Stott, director of Campus and Community Planning, said objections came from students who didn’t want to have to keep quiet at night and from Pacific Spirit Park and the Wreck Beach Preservation Society.
Stott admitted planners have been caught by surprise by the latest round of complaints.
“Prior to the concerns raised on Friday with the UNA, it was to come up before the UBC board of governors in February but now it won’t do so,” he said.
Stott said the residents’ concerns will be examined.
“We are aware that graveyards are a bad thing and funeral homes are a bad thing,” he added. “We’re going to do some research into this but there’s no evidence that a hospice reduces property values.”
Labels: british columbia, fear of the dead, hospice
Labels: end of life care, hospice
Labels: abortion, catholic church, david mills, end of life care, first things, hospice, redemptive suffering, wesley j smith
The simple truth is that Bill is dying. It’s a fact that can’t be changed or denied.
But Hospice can give the Gallaghers resources and ideas and friendship and support that allows them to maintain more control right through the process.
“To know that you can call them any time, so you're not walking this alone,” Tomi says. "I think this is the biggest thing that they have going. You’re not alone.”
Labels: hospice, prisoners, terminal diagnosis
The law also calls on the Health and Human Services secretary to conduct a three-year, budget-neutral demonstration project of concurrent care for Medicare patients at 15 hospice-care sites.
The use of hospice and palliative care has grown steadily in recent years. Nearly 1.5 million patients received hospice care in 2008, up 36% from 2004, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, which represents 80% of the country's hospices. Yet physicians offering this alternative to patients often receive hostile responses from patients and families who view it as the final step through death's door.
The median length of stay in hospice is less than three weeks."There are people who, when talking about hospice, they'll say, 'Don't say that word in front of my loved one,' " said Christian Sinclair, MD, associate medical director of Kansas City Hospice & Palliative Care in Missouri. "We get such a visceral reaction to changing toward a palliative care goal."
Choosing hospice care can be especially scary for patients on Medicare, said Diane E. Meier, MD, director of the nonprofit Center to Advance Palliative Care. Some private health plans cover concurrent care, but for Medicare patients -- and, until recently, children covered by Medicaid -- choosing hospice has meant giving up aggressive treatment efforts.
"The Medicare hospice benefit is the jewel in the crown of Medicare in that it's truly interdisciplinary care," said Dr. Meier, director of the Hertzberg Palliative Care Institute at New York's Mount Sinai Medical Center. "But in order to get this wonderful benefit that is hospice, you must, on the flip side, sign a form giving up the right to regular Medicare. People feel, quite rightly, that it's like signing a death certificate."
The benefit this change offers patients, families and carers at the end of life is increased time in hospice programs, greater assistance to those facing end of life planning and decision-making, and more flexibility in where they are treated.
"You go from one phase to the next phase with something to hold on to as you make that transition," Schumacher said. "Many people say, 'I wish I'd come to hospice sooner.' "
Getting patients into hospice earlier gives them access to expert advice to help decide whether curative efforts are worth pursuing further, Schumacher said. "We believe involving hospice sooner will help people forgo nonproductive treatment."
The new law also calls on Health and Human Services to conduct a pilot program to test the efficacy of the changes:
The law also calls on the Health and Human Services secretary to conduct a three-year, budget-neutral demonstration project of concurrent care for Medicare patients at 15 hospice-care sites.
The demonstration project will test whether paying for concurrent care helps patients and saves Medicare money. Then the HHS secretary will recommend to Congress whether to change the hospice-care payment policy. A Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services innovation center created in the health reform law also may be able to act on the recommendations. Hospice care cost Medicare $11.2 billion in 2008, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
Some of the greatest benefactors of this change may be ill children:
In the meantime, children with terminal illnesses and their families should benefit from Medicaid's coverage of concurrent care efforts, Dr. Sinclair said.
"In pediatrics, the prognosis for patients can be a lot harder to define," he said. "Having a concurrent care model is helpful, because those families need a lot of help, especially from psychosocial and the other resources that hospice can provide."
Labels: concurrent care, hospice, medicaid, medicare
Re “Lifesaving Devices Can Cause Havoc at Life’s End” (Business Day, May 14):
As a doctor who specializes in hospice and palliative medicine, I see more patients and families facing critical decisions about advanced technologies near the end of life each day. People should consider hospice not only to assist with pain and symptoms, but also to facilitate decision-making around goals of care and advanced technology devices like defibrillators.
Hospice teams have the knowledge, skills and resources to guide patients and families through these difficult decisions.
R. Sean Morrison
President, American Academy
of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
New York, May 15, 2010
Labels: eol planning, hospice, social services
Vice President Biden's mother died earlier this year at the age of 92. Before her death, Mrs. Biden received care at the hospice in St. Francis Hospital. After her death, the hospice leaders asked the family if they could rename the family room in her honor, and the family agreed. Tom Taylor, regional director for Compassionate Care Hospice, says the family room was picked because family was so important to Mrs. Biden. "It was just so evident by the way she supported her children, her grand children," Taylor said. "It was a very family-centric moment. This is going to be their first Mother's Day without their mother."
Labels: conversation, dnr, end of life, hospice

His conclusion: "Recent legal decisions have not necessarily prohibited the health care system from refusing to provide care, but they have questioned, and perhaps narrowed, the circumstances in which the medical community can refuse to provide care it believes is both ethically and medically inappropriate."
In a section titled "unsettled legal foundation," O'Connor writes: "Courts have recognized that physicians cannot be forced to provide care that is not beneficial. However, they have failed to announce concrete standards or consistent principles to guide the medical community to resolve disputes between it and patients (and their families)."
O'Connor, actually goes beyond making the point that the law is unsettled ans suggests that it is getting even less provider friendly. Citing the March 2009 Betancourt opinion, he writes that "Although courts, and in some cases, state legislatures, have shown a willingness to recognize circumstances in which the health care system can refuse to continue care that is not beneficial, recent events indicate that the tide may be turning."
Labels: conscience clause, disability, futile care, hospice, informed consent, pain management, patients' rights
Labels: discrimination, health care, hospice, patients' rights, racism
Labels: end of life care, hospice, palliative care
Labels: end of life care, grief, hospice, terminal restlessness
Nearly 30% of seniors will eventually need someone else to make healthcare decisions for them, according to a recent report.
Researchers at the University of Michigan reviewed the records of 3,746 people aged 60 and older (the average age was 80) who died between 2000 and 2006. Nearly 30% of those individuals at some point prior to death became unable to make healthcare decisions for themselves, researchers found. Of that 30%, roughly two-thirds had a living will of advance directive.
Most individuals with an advance directive wanted non-aggressive palliative care; only 2% wanted aggressive life-prolonging care, according to the report. The research appears in a recent edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Labels: advance directive, end of life care, hospice, palliative care
And I was embarrassed that instead of engaging in a thoughtful dialogue about how we die, and how we should die, for several months we were immersed in a shrill shouting match about issues that bear no relation to the reality that my patients and I face every day. In short, as that public debate was unfolding, I felt very much the same way that I felt as the nation watched Terri Schiavo's story reach its conclusion in 2005.
And that reflection is ironic, because the advance care planning legislation that sparked the death panel debate was designed to prevent the sort of family disputes that made Terri's care so difficult. But what should have been an unobjectionable provision in the health care reform legislation quickly became mired in partisan rhetoric and outlandish rumors. A straightforward mechanism to promote choice and autonomy was quickly reframed as precisely the opposite. Looking back on those events, it's difficult to believe that we're any closer to an open dialogue about death and dying than we were five years ago.
In fact, a dialogue may be even less attainable now. As if the "death panel" label weren't destructive enough, recent health care reform discussions have linked end-of-life care to cost-savings and rationing. So whereas five years ago the public was afraid that family members might "pull the plug," now those fears have focused on Congress.
It's no surprise, then, that Congress has shied away from end of life care. As a result, advance care planning was never given the consideration it deserved in the Senate bill and eventually dropped out of sight. In fact, it's unlikely that we can expect any meaningful end-of-life care legislation from Washington in the foreseeable future. End-of-life care has proven to be too divisive, and too politically dangerous.
Labels: aid in dying, end of life care, hospice, martyrdom, palliative care, patients' rights, pvs, terri schiavo
Carol Filak had heard about painful, repeated shocks that people sometimes experience from those implants in their final days. So when her father, Joseph Hoffman, was diagnosed with terminal cancer, she asked at his cardiologist's office: What about the defibrillator he'd had implanted years earlier? It's too soon to worry about, she was told.
Two months later, Hoffman, 81, entered hospice care in his West Orange, N.J., home and still Filak had to make numerous calls to the cardiologist before someone arrived to deactivate the defibrillator. "You need to be told that this is something that's not going to prolong his life," says Filak. "When he died, it was a very peaceful death."
It's not unusual for health professionals to avoid the topic, says Dr. Nathan Goldstein of New York's Mount Sinai Medical Center. His research, published this month in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggests most hospices — expert in end-of-life care — aren't making defibrillator decisions part of their routine. Nearly 60 percent of hospices he examined had at least one patient shocked within the past year, sometimes multiple times at once. Yet just one in 20 hospices had a method even to identify who harbored the implant when they entered the program.
But with more than 100,000 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, or ICDs, inserted every year, more and more families like Filak's will face the question.
"We're trained to save, save, save, cure, cure, cure," says Goldstein, who has studied end-of-life defibrillation since seeing a dying lung cancer patient brought to the emergency room because his implant kept firing. "There are some folks we can't cure. We have to make them as comfortable as possible."
Labels: defibrillators, end of life care, hospice, over-treatment, prolonging death
Labels: end of life care, hospice, morphine, over-medicated