Saturday, November 26, 2011

Hospice on Film

The Idaho Press-Tribune highlights two films about hospice programs, "Serving Life," and "Except for Six." The first is about the hospice program at Angola prison in Louisiana. The second follows a character and his family through the dying process. You can watch the trailer for "Serving Life" here, at the Oprah Winfrey Network, it's producer. More on "Except for Six" can be found here.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, August 11, 2011

I'm Having a Moment.

It's a great day! Not only am I on the radio tonight but a friend, Jeff Sharlet, has a new book out with an essay in it about yours truly and--this is big--I've been awarded a fellowship with USC's Annenberg School of Journalism, the Knight Grant for Reporting on Religion in American Public Life, to write about how American's die. Now if I could just get a date....

Details!

11 pm tonight on WBAI (99.5 FM) I'll be talking to the amazing Barbara Glickstein about how Americans die, denominational healthcare, and hospice. Here are the details--and a picture of me in WBAI's studio. Catch the second segment of this two-part series same time and place on August 25th.

A new book of essays by New York Times bestselling author Jeff Sharlet, a friend and my predecessor at The Revealer, is not only cover-to-cover full of brilliantly written essays about "faith and faithlessness," but one's even about me. Buy Sweet Heaven When I Die: Faith, Faithless, and the Country in Between here. Right now. Hurry up. Chop-chop.

And here's exciting news: I've been given a fellowship by USC's Annenberg School of Journalism, the Knight Grant for Reporting on Religion in American Public Life, to report about how American's die--prison, end of life and hospice care, denominational health care. Over the next nine months I'll be traveling to Montana, California, Arizona and Alabama to investigate how state and religious regulation effect health care choices by the dying. Here's more on the fellowship and the humbling field of other winners.


Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 17, 2011

Protesting the Hospice Next Door

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: , ,

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Ira Byock and Elliott Fisher Talk About Better EOL Care

From Thaddeus Pope, this link to a conversation on better end of life care.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Framing Pain as Necessary.

It's been quiet around here -- and I have some good excuses -- but there's nothing like a prompt from a friend and the romanticized notions of pain in David Mills recent column for First Things, "Death Dignified by Christ" to snap me out of my pressing distractions.

Mills is the deputy editor of First Things, a historically Catholic site that has been flirting with keeping the big C on the down-low and bringing in various other voices to freshen up their demographics. The print magazine (which still exists and this month features the likes of Stanley Hauerwas, Ross Douthat and Dinesh D'Souza) was founded by the Anglican-turned-Catholic priest, Richard Neuhaus, who wrote often movingly about American life in the "public square." (Nathan Schneider pointed us to Alan Jacob's review of American Babylon, Neuhaus' last book before he died in 2009. The review slights Neuhaus for failing to move into the digital public square.)

First Things is also the blog-home of the scoundrel Wesley J. Smith (I'm taking license, maybe, but he does appear in a leather jacket in a publicity photo and pick a lot of fights), a vocal and long-time confuser of the facts regarding end of life care, assisted suicide, and health care. Smith's taken his "anti-euthanasia" show on the road to countries where bills have been considered and his views have had influence over U.S. presidents as well. I've spent a lot of time debunking Smith, when in my blogging swing, because he exemplifies what American media get so wrong about health care and end of life care. In other words, Smith works within a common frame of understanding that is grossly divorced from how health care really works.

But back to Mills. A writer and editor, Mills has headed a number of prominent and award-winning Episcopal and Catholic journals. He's also a member of the National Organization of Episcopalians for Life (NOEL), now called Anglicans for Life. It's a group with what first appears to be a singular, stated focus: to end legal abortion. Yet, such a crusade -- and I mean to imply that AoL, like most "pro-life" groups are religious in nature -- rests on a moral opinion of human sexuality, not on actual human behavior. I point this out because Mills' recent article for First Things too has a singular stated focus, one which is more difficult to frame than the issue of abortion. (In the prevalent and successful narrative against abortion babies are cute, even if they're hypothetical; it's hard to get many segments of the American public upset about the slighted reproductive rights of women; suffering poor health or an unwanted pregnancy is "acceptable" punishment for immoral acts, like sex.) Mills is out to emasculate the Death with Dignity movement.

In "Death Dignified by Christ," Mills glorifies suffering as a redemptive, saving force. His essay is really just a reiteration of the old theological answer to the even older question, "Why does God make us suffer?" To punish us for our "immoral" acts is the answer for abortion (or to teach us the beauty of babies and discipline). But that doesn't fly so well with today's baby boomers who are facing modern and painful ways of dying. They've got less of a grip on their need for punishment. (Which is why Death with Dignity is currently legal in three states in the U.S. -- Oregon, Washington, and Montana.) So the religious/moral arguments that have been so successful in the erosion of women's reproductive rights don't fully work when used to address end of life suffering.

Beyond Mills' assertion that we should all be subject to his interpretation of God's laws, he resorts to Smith's common approach: degradation of those who want to end their suffering. In writing about his dying father, Mills says he "took it like a man," as if dated concepts of gender and masculinity are enough to convince us that suffering is a show of strength. Those who consider assisted suicide are, he writes, "declar[ing] yourself God," and choosing an end "without fuss or bother or pain." (Try that one on Robert Baxter.) Dying means to suffer, he tells us -- and suffer is loosely defined in the article as inclusive of being alone, losing our faculties and being "dressed by cheerful young women the age of your granddaughter."

By perpetuating the idea that suffering is strength, Mills would like to make heroes of those who approach death in pain. Forget Cicely Saunders' concept that pain is relative and varied. (Saunders, a devout Catholic, founded the modern hospice in the late sixties/early seventies, in part to combat the "euthanasia" movement.)

Death and pain are irrevocably tied in Mills' assertion. But they don't have to be so in our hospice facilities and hospitals. The medical world possesses methods of controlling pain. And if that fails, we all own this body that carries us around; who's to say we shouldn't escape death when we're ready -- regardless of the place we plan to visit afterwards? Glorifying suffering or asserting that pain is a necessary part of dying ignores the medical advances of the past 50 years (for patients' good and bad) and perpetuates inhumane and unnecessary ideas about rights at the end of life. We have the right to die peacefully, without pain, regardless of what we believe. Mills and others are successful in perpetuating the myth that pain makes us better, redeems our immoral behavior, and is inexplicably tied to the dying process. But why are they? Why do all but 20% of our seniors die in the hospital when 80% wish to die at home? Why are discussions of patients' desires at the end of life seldom had? Why is it shameful to accept declining functionality and frailty? To suffer pain without seeking medical treatment?

Take God out of the question and you get, "Why do we suffer?" I would say we suffer pain at the end of life because we wrongly think we have to. For the lucky of us, our diligent hospice nurse is working her heart out on our appropriate medication dosage.

(h/t Carla Axtman)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 30, 2010

Hospice Stories

North Country Public Radio is doing a series on hospice, showcasing individual stories to explain what hospice is and how it works. The first episode, linked above, features the Gallagher family from Serenac Lake. Fighting isolation is one of the issues discussed as a priority of hospice.

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: ,

Monday, August 9, 2010

Prisoners Are Expensive, Elders Aren't.

So why is it acceptable to discuss the cost of end of life care in prisons when discussing end of life care "outside" sends media and conservatives into a tizzy? Mention the savings involved in getting the dying into hospice even one week sooner and the media (and Wesley J. Smith-heads) freak about the "sanctity of life."

Yet, this article about elderly, dying prisoners raises the money question, and invites more:

Won't the state be responsible for these patients even if they're released, via Medicare and Medicaid? Why don't these government programs apply to prisoners? What would the quality of life be like for most of these (vast majority) men when they're released. How many have somewhere to go? And is terminal illness enough to make society forgive these (convicted) rapists, murders, burglars? Is bed confinement? A respirator? Chemotherapy?


Labels: , ,

HFA Online

The Hospice Foundation of America, thanks to funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has a new information center online. You can access it here: http://www.hospicefoundation.org/infocenter

Labels: ,

Monday, May 24, 2010

Expanding Hospice Care to Include Concurrent Care.

New guidelines, adopted in March, will expand Medicare and Medicaid and to cover hospice services that include "concurrent care." Both Christian Sinclair and Diane E. Meier are quoted in the article. From Amed News:

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: , , ,

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Hospice Does End of Life Planning.

It's a simple but obvious point that surely needs repeating: Hospice can help with end of life planning. If doctor's don't get reimbursed for those long conversations and families don't know where to start, perhaps we should think of hospice as the best resources for preparing for end of life care, as Sean Morrison, president of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Care, reminds us in a letter to the NYT editor, below. Don't know how to get that defibrillator turned off? Don't know what planning resources are available? Your local hospice does.

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: , ,

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Bidens Dedicate Hospice Room

Joe Biden and his family have dedicated a room at St. Francis Hospital in Wilmington to Catherine Finnegan Biden, the vice president's mother. Writes WHYY news:

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: , ,

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: , , ,

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Provider Refusal of Futile Care.

Thaddeus Pope has an intriguing post at his blog today about what can be termed the undermining of doctors' refusal of care. He cites a recent article by Christopher M. O'Connor, associate legal council for Lancaster General Hospital (where I was born), in the recent Journal of Lancaster General Hospital. The article is titled, "Can the Health Care System Ever Say No?" and addresses the lack of clear guidelines and protections for physicians who wish to end care that is not beneficial.

I have written passionately about the problems of provider refusals (so called conscience clauses) that often allow a provider -- a doctor, a denominational institution, pharmacists, etc. -- to deny services that they are morally, ethically, and most often religiously, opposed to. Twenty percent of Americans are treated in Catholic hospitals, for instance, where they are denied medical services that the Catholic Church opposes. These guidelines discriminate against women predominantly regarding reproductive services, but also against gays and the elderly. I strongly oppose this type of discrimination and see it as a violation of patients' rights.

But Connor comes at it from another angle. What about doctors who are, by emotional family members or fearful terminal patients, asked to provide care that will not prolong life? Doesn't the provider refusal law protect them from perpetuating the suffering of patients?

Jessica Mitford wrote in her 1963 bestselling expose of the funeral industry, "The American Way of Dying," that most of us are coerced into buying services and products for our deceased loved ones because we are uneducated consumers, distraught with the emotions that surround death, pressured by cultural forces that dictate a contrived form of propriety, and forced to be consumers of an industry that we know very little about.

The health care industry is not unlike the funeral industry in that we know little about it as consumers until we are forced to make use of it, often under great distress. As death and illness have become more and more institutionalized, taking place primarily outside the home, our culture has become less and less versed in how death occurs, how the medical industry operates, what choices we have in cases of terminal illness. And too, medical technology has created more choices and options, making that removed industry even harder to understand easily. We are uninformed consumers, in other words, lost, when forced to enter into the health care system, in the complications of it all. And the emotion of it all. The responsibility of making decisions is a terrible weight for the ill and their family members. Doctors are looked to as paternal, autoritarian advisors, the ones who know everything and can make the best decisions for us.

This can be detrimental in the case of a young woman who has been raped and happens to enter a Catholic hospital where state laws don't require that the emergency room workers where she is treated inform her of the existence of emergency contraception. Lives are ruined in these instances. But the other side that Connor reminds me of this morning, is when a doctor has to say to an unknowing and distraught loved one that a Do Not Resuscitate order is the very best for their loved one, a path that will cause the least amount of suffering.

In a culture where denial of death is championed, where suffering is glorified, where patients are faulted for "giving up" if they go into hospice, where fighting against death and illness is termed as a battle that requires great strength against all odds, how can we educate emotional family members and patients about how to die? And how do we equip well-intentioned doctors to not only communicate impending death but to make legal decisions about ending futile care? I don't have concrete answers. And obviously neither does the medical industry. Certainly the answers aren't to be found in the cultural stories that we are bombarded with daily by all sorts of media.

I have a hospice patient right now who is having a difficult time understanding that he is terminal. His family members and friends keep sending him cards that say "get well soon." The facility's church group come to pray for a cure for him and tell him that no miracle is too impossible for God. We had a very difficult time finding an effective pain management regiment because he was ashamed to tell the nurses when he was in pain, intimidated by their authority, and unsure of what was happening to him. He failed to understand that there is life between full function and death and that the period of disability he is entering has value -- because like the rest of us he just didn't know. He doesn't know what's coming and he has no reference to the experience in his prior 65 years. He looks to the nurses and doctors for direction; they look to him for decisions -- neither fully able to discuss the matter frankly.

Patients will only be able to make informed medical decisions when they are informed consumers. Unfortunately, so many factors impede proper informed consent. Yet I fear that strengthening provider refusals improperly limits patients' rights, taking the most important decisions out of the hands of those lives directly affected. There's nothing like informed, patient, incremental conversation to prepare a patient for what is ahead. Until doctors and society are willing and able to have those conversations, we will struggle to keep decision-making in the right hands: the patient's.

The post:

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: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Reader Writes: Racial Disparity in Health Care.

Check out the comment on my March 13 post regarding racial disparity in hospice enrollment. And please join the discussion.

How do we eradicate racism and discrimination from our health care delivery system?

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Pardi and Palliative Care.

The New York Times has posted letters to the editor regarding the much-talked-about recent article on Dr. Desiree Pardi, a palliative care practitioner who died of cancer. You can read the letters here.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Tired and Teary.

I often think that it's the personal stories of how we make it through the dying process that are the best instruction available. At Rickety Contrivances of Doing Good, Susan Pawlick describes getting through the last days with her mother. Warm wishes, Susan.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, April 5, 2010

NEJM, Health Care Choice, and Losing Our Ability to Decide.

A new study shows that about 30% of us lose our ability to make our own health care decisions by the end of life:

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.


More here. And here.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Reports on the 5th Anniversary of the Death of Terri Schiavo.

Here are some links and commentary from yesterday:

Family Research Council has new "guidelines" for end of life care

Jason Poling, a pastor, writes for In Good Faith blog at the Baltimore Sun about the ironies of the Religious Right's demonization of Michael Schiavo while supporting traditional marriage.

Americans United for Life is justified in making up their own facts so long as it's for a godly cause


North Country Gazette podcast link, with Bobby Schindler (ususal "murder" stuff)

Arizona Daily Star offers resources for those planning for end of life care

Psalm123 Blog "Martyr of the Culture of Death"

Bobby Schindler at Town Hall spinning Schiavo's death as "cruel bigotry" against the disabled

Stephen at Not Dead Yet

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life derides "quality of life" discussions

David Casarett, MD, at HuffPo, "As a palliative care physician, I was fascinated, amused, shocked and embarrassed, in more or less equal measure, by the myths that circulated about end-of-life care." And a clip:

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: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

You're Dying; When Do You Turn Off The Defibrillator?

From MSNBC, a very good question: When during the dying process do you turn off your heart defibrillator? A new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine examines the challenge of deactivating heart defibrillators in the dying:

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."


I like this issue because in many ways it forces us to face the challenge of dying in a world where technology has solved many functionality problems but has only complicated the definition of death. Once was a time where death meant the rather simultaneous cessation of breathing, heart beat and brain function. But technology can now sustain the former two almost indefinitely with respirators and defibrillators. Terri Schiavo's heart, for instance, was shocked back into operation by paramedics when she was found after her collapse. For the first few years she was kept breathing by a respirator, then was slowly weaned from it. But her lack of brain function remained. What does death mean now?

As the discussion regarding defibrillators in the dying comes to the fore, necessarily, I think it helps us to clarify what is meant by prolonging life and prolonging death.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, March 15, 2010

Medicating the Dying.

After noting the false but common accusation that hospice and palliative providers receive - that they simply over-medicate patients to death - Hospice Doctor notes that sometimes, families don't buy the "morphine causes death" hype and ask for more medication. HD explains a situation recently encountered:

Not long ago, I ran into the opposite problem. Anne was in the last phases of her colon cancer, admitted to our inpatient unit and, by the assessment of every staff member, comfortable and pain-free. "Not so," said her two adult daughters, "we want her sedated even more. Our mom is a stoic. She wouldn't report pain to you. But we know she's in pain, and we want her to have more morphine." Anne was intermittently conscious, and she had blinked when the daughters asked her if she was in pain. That was their evidence. But her face and body were relaxed, and her breathing was easy -- all signs that tell hospice workers their patients are pain-free. The staff felt they were being railroaded into giving more medication than they felt was justified. A nursing supervisor recorded a conversation at four o'clock in the morning with one daughter. "Are you telling me you want euthanasia for your mother?" she asked. "Yes" was the reply.

I spent a couple of hours with the daughters over the last two or three days of their mother's life, talking in great detail about how we assessed patients and why we thought she was comfortable. I explained how we balance giving enough medication to relieve suffering while trying to avoid any hastening or acceleration of the dying process. The daughters didn't buy it. Right up to the end, when Anne was deeply unconscious and skipping breaths for 30 seconds or more, they clamored for more drugs. Our staff was convinced that Anne died peacefully, but there was no peace for those she left behind.

What motivates families to make a request like this? There are cynical explanations -- a son needs to get back to work, or there's a lot of money to be inherited. It's hard to believe that getting a will into probate faster would motivate a child to ask for euthanasia for a parent, but I suppose it's happened now and then. Or there may be an ambivalent relationship between players in the end-of-life drama. Perhaps there are unresolved issues stemming from childhood. Now that the child can, in effect, exercise parental power over his parent, it may be tempting to turn the tables once and for all. That, too, has probably happened from time to time.

But I believe the reason lies most often with the intense pain that people feel when their loved ones are dying before their eyes. Pain...and impotence, the inability to change the outcome, to protect a loved one from the finality of death. If I have no power to prevent my wife from dying, then I'll exercise my power to prevent her from feeling any pain at all. Both hospice workers and families share the goal of relieving suffering. But because we work in the fishbowl that is America's ambivalence about dying -- think of the "Obama death panel" insanity -- hospice people also must be sensitive to charges that "all you do is give them morphine and kill them." That need to balance is irrelevant to families grieving the loss of a loved one in advance of the loss itself. And therein, I think, lies the seed of the conflict we had with Anne's daughters. I know of no easy solution to the "medicate, medicate" dilemma other than to educate, educate.

Having been through this myself, I can attest to the fact that I wanted to have more and more meds for my father who was dying of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. He was restless and agitated - and to my novice but familial eye - he was suffering. It's hard to watch our semi-unconscious loved ones struggle, to feel disoriented by their surroundings, to try to get out of bed repeatedly, and to work hard to breath. But now, as a hospice volunteer, I understand that this is a fairly common experience for the dying - and attending loved ones. But isolation from how we die had convinced me that my father was in pain. What did I know of dying? What the media told me. No one discusses what it can look like, how it can happen. It took the experience of watching other dying patients in a hospice ward to understand what distinguishes pain from disorientation from the natural process.

And yet, as most Americans continue to die in hospitals, we tend to be removed from the dying process, unfamiliar with how patients' die. It's hard to explain to someone what to expect, particularly when they are in the experience with a loved one. Emotion makes everything highly charged.

But educate we must! Until more people understand the differences between pro-longing life and pro-longing death we'll continue to see patients' in hospitals at the end of life despite their desire to die at home.



Labels: , , ,