My view: Salt Lake City’s homeless deserve hospice care

By Kim Correa

homeless and hospice care
Death is a natural process, and since the dawn of humanity, people have been dying at home. But where do homeless people go to die? The shelters are not equipped to deal with the end of life.

Is Salt Lake City a city of compassion or a city of abandonment? About 50 homeless people die here annually. Death is a natural process; since the dawn of humanity, people have been dying at home. But where do homeless people go to die? The shelters are not equipped to deal with the end of life, hospitals can’t keep these patients for weeks or months on end, and most lack insurance to pay for a skilled nursing facility. Without a stable place to live, they end up in and out of the emergency room, straining our city’s fire, police and hospital resources, and eventually dying on the streets or in parks.

The INN Between provides a real solution to this small but critical segment of our city’s homelessness crisis. We opened in August in the old Catholic Convent on Goshen Street, providing a safe and comfortable place where about 13 of Utah’s terminally ill homeless men and women can experience the end of life with dignity. Our residents are grateful to have a place they can call home for their final time on this earth. Since opening, we have provided death with dignity to three people and provided over 420 housing nights to a total of 22 people. We have beautified the grounds and our presence has reduced loitering and potential criminal activity around a previously vacant building. The INN Between is almost full — a major concern as winter sets in.

The INN Between had been approved to operate in our other building, the former Guadalupe School, in May, under the zoning use of Eleemosynary Facility — “a facility operated by a nonprofit charitable organization or government entity to provide temporary housing and assistance to individuals who suffer from and are being treated for trauma, injury or disease and/or their family members.” The school building can house an additional 10 to 20 residents.

On June 19, the Salt Lake City Council blocked our use of the school by excluding “end of life and respite care” from the Eleemosynary definition. Now it is proposing an additional restriction to exclude “facilities not licensed by the Utah State Health Department.” The public hearing takes place Tuesday.

The proposed changes were intended to address a gap in zoning law and ensure people’s health and safety. We agree that there is a gap, but we disagree on its nature. The gap is the lack of housing for terminally ill homeless people. And there is nothing healthy or safe about dying on the street.

The INN Between is an ideal solution that offers safe housing — better than any housing our residents have had in years. In fact, the Utah State Department of Health has determined that our program complies with health and safety standards, exempting the INN Between from licensing. The Department of Health understands that all these people need is a home in which to die naturally.

The council’s proposed changes effectively mandate that the homeless die in state-licensed facilities, like nursing homes. But who will pay the $4,500 to $6,000 cost per month? The city, i.e., the taxpayers? If this were a viable solution, we’d already be doing it.

In order for the INN Between to meet community need, we must be allowed to operate under the pre-June 19 definition of Eleemosynary Facility. If adopted, the proposed zoning changes will demonstrate Salt Lake City’s lack of compassion for people who are dying and discriminate against Utah’s most vulnerable homeless people by severely limiting their access to housing and hospice care. Learn more on www.theinnbetweenslc.org/zoning.

Complete Article HERE!

Some Older Patients Are Treated Not Wisely, but Too Much

By Paula Span

older patientsOver many years, the 77-year-old patient has managed to control hisType 2 diabetes. Thanks in part to daily doses of a drug that reduces blood sugar, his glucose level is a very low 6.5 percent.

Like a lot of older people, he copes with multiple medical conditions, including high blood pressure and severe kidney disease. But with four prescription drugs, plus Tylenol forlower back pain, he’s doing reasonably well.

Oh, and he’s a hypothetical example, concocted by researchers at the University of Michigan and the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System. They sent this fictional case study to primary-care professionals at Veterans Affairs medical centers across the country and asked a series of questions about the man’s treatment.

The researchers believed their nearly 600 respondents — mostly physicians, but also nurse practitioners and physician assistants — would recognize that such a patient risked developing dangerously low blood sugar, called hypoglycemia. But no. About half these professionals said they wouldn’t worry about potential harm from the man’s rigorous treatment regimen.

Evidence is accumulating that older adults with diabetes, hypertension and other conditions should be treated less aggressively than they commonly are. “Deintensification,” the Michigan researchers have named this approach.

As this and another related recent study have shown, not for the first time, getting that message out to practicing physicians has proved difficult.

“In our health care system, we are all more scared of failing to do something than of doing too much,” said Dr. Jeremy Sussman, a primary care physician and research scientist at the Ann Arbor hospital.

Under current guidelines, most older patients with diabetes don’t have to get their blood sugar to rock bottom; a 7.5 or 8 percent blood glucose level (measured as HbA1c, an average of several recent readings) produces the same benefits as very low glucose. Blood pressure readings, too, should be allowed to rise as patients age — up to 150 millimeters of mercury for systolic pressure. The previous goal was to keep it below 140.

There are good reasons to be less vigilant. In older people with diabetes, for instance, maintaining very low blood sugar — often called “tight control” — can do more harm than good. “People can feel fatigued and weak, get cold sweats, feel like they’re going to pass out,” said Dr. Tanner Caverly, lead author of the Michigan survey, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. Thefainting and falls that may result can have devastating consequences.

Further, a widely cited study called Accord, published in 2008 in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that intensive therapy to reduce blood glucose actually resulted in higher mortality.

Yet a large national study by Dr. Sussman and his colleagues, published last month in JAMA Internal Medicine, reveals how rarely deintensification occurs among patients over age 70.

Reviewing Veterans Affairs data on more than 211,000 patients, the researchers found that fewer than 19 percent of those with very low blood pressure had scaled back their medications. Only 27 percent of those with very low blood sugar had done so.

“There’s been a huge effort to ensure that fewer people are undertreated,” Dr. Sussman said. “Now, maybe we’ve crossed the line and too many people are overtreated.”

Examples of both extremes are easy to find.

Among older adults, substantial proportions still don’t take advantage of vaccines, among the simplest of health protections. A third of those over age 65 didn’t get flu shots last season, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than 40 percent haven’t been vaccinated against pneumonia, and fewer than a quarter have gotten the shingles vaccine.

But older Americans receive too many colonoscopies and too many mammograms. Last year, a study found that more than half of nursing home residents with advanced dementia, a terminal disease, were receiving drugs of questionable value; about a fifth took statins to lower cholesterol.

Overtreatment, however, rarely brings the sort of hand-wringing that undertreatment does. You might think it would be welcome news that older diabetics can do well with lower doses of medication, and that in some cases they might be able to stop taking glucose-lowering drugs altogether.

Tight control takes great effort, and it makes sense for young and middle-aged people with diabetes. The benefits accrue slowly, over years, so younger patients are more apt to receive them. The young have stronger bones and better balance, so they are less likely to be injured in the falls that too-low blood sugar can cause.

Older, frailer people with lower life expectancy and many additional health problems face different trade-offs.

“As you get older, the benefits go down and the risks go up,” said Dr. Sei Lee, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, who has written about the subject for years. “What was good for you at 55 might be bad for you at 75.”

As a member of the American Geriatrics Society’s Choosing Wisely panel, Dr. Lee helped draft its recommendation that a 7 to 7.5 percent blood glucose reading is a reasonable goal for healthy seniors. For those with additional health problems and life expectancies of less than 10 years, the panel suggested a 7.5 to 8 percent goal, rising to 8 to 9 percent for those with many medical conditions and few years ahead.

Given all that, it’s disappointing that more primary care providers in the new Veterans Affairs study never thought to tell our fictional 77-year-old that he could afford to let his blood glucose rise a bit, and maybe eat a cookie once in a while. But sometimes patients themselves resist, especially if they have been dutifully monitoring their disease for years.

Dr. Sussman recalled a veteran, about 80, who took pride in the way he’d managed his illness, testing his blood several times a day, injecting insulin, keeping his glucose below 7. He had lost weight with age, however, so Dr. Sussman suggested he stop insulin shots and begin taking the diabetes drug metformin, which comes in pill form.

The man gave it a try. “But he and his wife never lost their discomfort with doing less than they had been,” Dr. Sussman said. The patient went back to the injections.

At least his doctor had pointed out the option and explained the likely benefits. In the new Veterans Affairs study, nearly 30 percent of respondents said they lacked the time to discuss the risks and benefits. About a quarter said they feared that reducing the fictional patient’s medications could make them vulnerable to a lawsuit.

More than 40 percent worried that higher blood glucose would violate their institutions’ performance measures, the report cards doctors get — even though the Department of Veterans Affairs has never specified a target below 7 percent for these patients.

Just the contrary: The department last year announced a National Hypoglycemic Safety Initiative, changing its approach to diabetes management to avoid intensive treatment when it’s not warranted.

Still, older adults who haven’t reassessed their diabetes or blood pressure regimens for years probably should be asking their doctors if they can or should make changes. The doctors, for now, might not raise the subject themselves.

“It’s one thing to find out about something new and exciting and do it,” Dr. Sussman reflected. “It’s harder, emotionally, to look at something you’ve done for a long time and think, maybe this isn’t so good. And stop.”

Complete Article HERE!

All In This Together: Coping With Advanced Illness and Dying as a Family

By: Fred Nelson MSW, RSW

“The moment we heard about Dad’s cancer diagnosis, everything changed in our family. My sister has always been kind of withdrawn. Well, she started to take over. I felt like my own world had ground to a halt; I couldn’t do anything useful. My brother just got busier and busier – totally absorbed in anything as long as it had nothing to do with Dad. Our first family dinner together after we got the news: we were like strangers. We didn’t have a clue how to even talk to each other.”

We all have our own ways of responding to and getting through a difficult situation. Sometimes we can predict pretty well what we will feel and how we and others will react. Sometimes it’s a complete surprise – to ourselves and everyone around us. The fact is that we are all affected – subtly or in a big way – when someone in our family is diagnosed with a serious illness. Our outlook on life can change. Our behavior can change. Our roles can change. Naturally, all of this affects how we come together as a family.

family

 

‘Family’ is whatever it means to you: a parent and kids; a group of siblings and their partners; a multi-generational extended family; a group of friends who have stuck together through good and bad. That part doesn’t matter. What does matter is that every family, however structured or defined, has its own established roles, rules – generally unspoken – and ways of communicating.

Here are some examples of rules, roles and patterns of communication that may occur within a family:

  • Nobody in the family talks about negative feelings. If you’re sad or angry, keep it to yourself.
  • If you have an issue with someone in the family, don’t talk to them directly; speak to Mum and she’ll deal with it.
  • We catch up on what everyone’s doing on Fridays after work.
  • Uncle Bill always mows the lawn and cleans up after a barbecue.
  • Nobody mentions Peter’s first wife, even when their son is visiting.
  • Only Dad can initiate discussions about family vacations.
  • Nobody ever praises a piece of pottery that wasn’t made by Mum.
  • We all congratulate Chris on his game, even when his team loses.
  • If you need to talk to someone about a disappointment in your life, talk to your big brother.
  • Aunt Julie can’t keep a secret.
  • New Year’s dinner is always at Uncle Remy’s – no exceptions.
  • Amanda is always the one who pushes for us to get together to plan our holiday activities.

family2All of this can be thrown up in the air like a deck of cards when someone in the family gets a serious, life-limiting diagnosis. And what happens when the cards come down? The possibilities are endless as family members:

  • deal in their different ways with strong emotions
  • consider how the future might unfold
  • move, willingly or unwillingly, into roles that have been occupied by someone else
  • work within or challenge established ‘rules’ about gatherings and ways of communicating

Even if individual family members stick pretty much to the roles they have occupied in the past, it is very likely that the intensity of the situation will ‘crank up the volume’ on the ways they interact with one another and force old differences to the surface. For instance:

  • I have never been compensated for the fact that Dad took you into the business and not me.
  • Who said this was my job, anyway?
  • Don’t tell me how I should feel!

Caregiving

Eventually, and sometimes right away, a serious, life-limiting illness means caregiving. Directly or indirectly, someone in the family is likely to become responsible for caregiving. The responsibility may be shared, but often it isn’t. And caregiving can be exhausting – emotionally, physically and financially. The emotional rollercoaster can be extreme (sadness to relief to hurt to fulfilment to guilt to satisfaction to tenderness to anger and resentment to just not knowing how to help). Physical challenges can be immense. (Am I ever going to get a good night’s sleep? How do I get him into this wheelchair?) And while many family caregivers will tell you that the experience is not only doable but life-enriching, tensions are inevitable. For instance, if the needs of a seriously ill family member outstrip the ability of a family caregiver to provide appropriate care. Disagreements over the right course of action are common between the main family caregiver and the person who is ill as well as among family members. Add to this mix, intense feelings, new or entrenched patterns of coping, and new roles, and it may be unrealistic to expect smooth sailing.

Decision-makingfamily3

First and foremost, the person who is ill should remain the central decision-maker for as long as he or she chooses or is able to be.  It is also important for the person who is ill to decide who will make decisions on his or her behalf if necessary. Even if a single member of the family becomes chiefly responsible for the care of the family member who is ill, it is likely that other family members, perhaps all of them, will need to be included in some important decisions. Financial decisions are a good example, and people avoid them for a variety of reasons. For instance, a person who is dying may not want to face financial issues because doing so would require a genuine acceptance of his or her condition. Or it might mean confronting some differences in the ways individuals in the family see things.

The best advice from people who have been in this situation is to be practical, honest and straightforward. For example:

  • I know that you want to be in control of your affairs and money as you have always been, but I am concerned about the ‘what-ifs’.
  • If you haven’t made these decisions and completed the paperwork, I worry about us not being able to do what is important for you when you are unable to do so.

Telling people what they should do – someone who is dying or another family member – may lead to resistance and is usually not as effective as speaking for ourselves.  (E.g.You need to do this now vs. I am concerned that…)

In many families, there is a tendency to try to protect one another by avoiding frank conversations. If we talk about it, we will take away all hope. Or If we talk about death, it will happen sooner. Or This is just too hard for him/her to talk about, when in fact it might be truer to say, “This is too hard for me to talk about.  While such reservations are common, they can actually leave all involved (the person who is ill and family members) feeling isolated and that their feelings and concerns are not heard or understood. It can take a lot of emotional energy not to say what needs to be said. In the end, expressing ourselves to one another and going through tough times together can free up energy for something more worthwhile and help us feel more connected to one another.

Anger

family4Family members are not always on the same page at the best of times. In times of stress, disagreements, conflicts and anger are much more common. Anger often comes from a place of frustration, being misunderstood, being afraid or not being heard or acknowledged. It is a natural reaction to the threat of loss or loss itself. Hurt, fear and feelings of guilt can contribute to anger. Anger often surfaces when we feel insecure or vulnerable.

When everyone is under stress due to a serious illness and an intense caregiving situation, try not to take anger personally. If you can, consider – with as much compassion as you can find within yourself – where the anger is coming from and what feelings or experiences it might be rooted in. Remember that all relationships have a history and that past grievances commonly surface during times of stress. Counselling support can help provide a fresh perspective and help family member talk to and better understand each other, although there certainly are times when differences are too entrenched and individuals are too wounded to resolve issues.

A wise person once said, ‘At any given moment, human beings are doing the best they can.’ The bottom line is knowing what each of us can and cannot take responsibility for, and finding a way to be okay with that.

Conflict

The presence of conflict doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with you or your family, although it certainly can feel that way. When conflict is making you feel like you or your family are failing, think again of all of the changes that are in play – changes in feelings, roles, family ‘rules’, situations, finances – and the stresses that everyone involved is enduring. In fact, it would be surprising if there were no conflict.

Again, with as much compassion for yourself and others as you can muster, step back, take a breath and consider everything this particular conflict is rooted in. Consider all the places that you and your family members find support – community, professional, through the health care system, friends and family – and figure out how to access them. Consider what you can do and what is simply beyond your control. Make sure to treat yourself with kindness and respect.

After all, you and your family members are dealing with the countless changes and challenges that come with caregiving and loss. There are no perfect solutions. But like other human beings, you are doing the best you can. Looking back on this intense time, you may, like many other families, be surprised by your resourcefulness and resilience.

Complete Article HERE!

WHAT’S THE BEST WAY TO DIE?

Given hypothetical, anything-goes permission to choose from a creepy, unlimited vending machine of endings, what would you select? Should you have the right to choose?

contemplating death

 

BY ROBYN K. COGGINS

After a particularly gruesome news story — ISIS beheadings, a multicar pileup, a family burnt in their beds during a house fire — I usually get to wondering whether that particular tragic end would be the worst way to go. The surprise, the pain, the fear of impending darkness.

But lately, I’ve been thinking that it’s the opposite question that begs to be asked: what’s the best way to die? Given hypothetical, anything-goes permission to choose from a creepy, unlimited vending machine of endings, what would you select?

If it helps, put yourself in that mindset that comes after a few glasses of wine with friends — your pal asks something dreamy, like where in the whole world you’d love to travel, or, if you could sleep with any celebrity, who would it be? Except this answer is even more personal.

There are lots of ways to look at the query. Would I want to know when I’m going to die, or be taken by surprise? (I mean, as surprising as such an inevitable event can be.) Would I want to be cognizant, so I can really experience dying as a process? Or might it be better to drowse my way through it?

Many surveys suggest that about three-quarters of Americans want to die at home, though the reality is that most Americans, upwards of 68 percent, will die in a hospital or other medicalized environment. Many also say they want to die in bed, but consider what that actually means: just lying there while your heart ticks away, your lungs heave to a stop. Lying around for too long also gets rather uncomfortable — as anyone who’s spent a lazy weekend in bed can tell you — and this raises a further question: should we expect comfort as we exit this life?

Sometimes I think getting sniped while walking down the street is the best way to go. Short, sweet, surprising; no worries, no time for pain. Sure, it’d be traumatic as hell for the people nearby, but who knows — your death might spark a social movement, a yearlong news story that launches media, legal, and criminal justice careers. What a death! It might mean something. Does that matter to you — that your death helps or otherwise changes other people’s lives? If there’s not a point to your death, you might wonder, was there a point to your life?

These are heavy questions — ahem, vital, ones — that don’t seem to come up very often.

I got curious about how other people would answer this question, so I started asking colleagues and friends for their ideal death scenarios (yes, I’m a blast at parties). I heard a wide variety of answers. Skydiving while high on heroin for the second time (because you want to have fun the first time, according to a colleague). Drowning, because he’d heard it was fairly peaceful once the panic clears. Storming a castle and felling enemies with a sword to save a woman, who he then has appreciative sex with, just as he’s taking his dying breaths. (That poor gal!) An ex-boyfriend of mine used to say that the first time he lost bowel control, he’d drive to the Grand Canyon and jump off.

My own non-serious answer is to be tickled to death, sheerly for the punniness of it.

002

Anecdotally, young men were more fancy-free about their answers, while the older folks and women I spoke with gave more measured answers or sat quietly. Wait, what did you ask? I’d repeat the question. A pause. Hmm.

One old standby came up quite a lot: dying of old age in my bed, surrounded by family. The hospital nurses I asked had a twist on that trope: in bed, surrounded by family, and dying of kidney failure. Among nurses, there was consensus that this is the best way to go if you’re near death and in intensive care — you just fade out and pass, one ICU nurse told me. In the medical community, there’s debate about how calm death by kidney failure actually is, but really, who can you ask?

These answers are all interesting, but my nurse friend got me wondering about people who deal with death on the regular — what do they think about the best death? Do they think about it? Surely hospice workers, physicians, oncologists, “right-to-die” advocates, cancer-cell biologists, bioethicists, and the like have a special view on dying. What might their more-informed criteria be for my “best death” query?

I started with a concept that I think most can agree with — an ideal death should be painless.

***

Turns out, a painless death is a pretty American way to think about dying.

Jim Cleary, a physician in Madison, Wisconsin, specializes in palliative care, cancer-related pain relief, and discussing difficult diagnoses with patients. “Eighty percent of the world’s population lacks access to opioids,” he tells me. That includes morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and many of the other drugs used to soothe patients in the United States. Cleary is director of the World Health Organization’s pain and policy studies group, which is working to get these relief drugs to other nations to help those in need — burn and trauma victims, cancer patients, and women giving birth.

In his work with American cancer patients, he’s careful not to suggest that dying will be comfortable. “I can’t promise ‘pain-free,’” he says. What he can promise is that he’ll try his best to help patients end their lives as they wish. “Listen to your patients,” he tells his colleagues, “they have the answers.”

Cleary says you can lump the different ways we die into categories. The first is the sudden death. “That’s not going to be a reality for most of us,” he’s quick to point out. The other category is the long death, which is what most of us will likely experience. “The reality is death from cancer,” says Cleary, “where you actually know it’s going to happen, and you can say goodbye.”

According to the American Cancer Society, a man’s risk of dying from cancer is 1 in 4, and a woman’s 1 in 5. (It’s important to note that those numbers are just for dying from one of the many types of cancer, from bladder to brain, prostate to ovaries. The odds that a man will develop cancer are 1 in 2; for women, 1 in 3. Reality, indeed.) In long-death cases, most care does not extend life so much as extend the dying process, a fact noted by many end-of-life experts, from surgeon and author Atul Gawande to hospice patients.

Cleary thinks the idea of a “best” death or even a “good” death is a little misleading, as if it’s a competition or something one can fail at. He prefers the term “healthy dying,” which isn’t as oxymoronic as it sounds. To him, healthy dying means that death is “well-prepared for, it’s expected, and other people know about it.”

003

“We as a society have to do much, much more on accepting death as a normal part of living,” he says. “So rather than even talking about what’s ‘the best way to die,’ how do we normalize dying?” In a country where funeral parlors handle our dead and corpses no longer rest for days in our own parlors at home, we’re rather removed from the whole ordeal.

Still, I press Dr. Cleary to answer the question at hand: How would he choose to die? “Would it be sudden death walking along a beach in Florida?” he ventures, then quickly reconsiders. “But if your family doesn’t know you’re dead — dad goes for a walk or run and doesn’t come back — is that good for them? It may be good for me, but it may not be good for them.”

***

In many American hospitals, you’ll find representatives from No One Dies Alone (NODA), a nonprofit volunteer organization formed in 2002 by a nurse named Sandra Clark. NODA’s founding principle is that no one is born alone, and no one should die alone, either.

NODA volunteers work in groups of nine. Each carries a pager 24 hours a day during their assigned shifts, so that one of them is always available to attend a death. Usually, a nurse makes the phone call summoning NODA volunteers. The vast majority of people who NODA visits are comatose. But that makes no difference, the principle abides; comatose or not, it’s still important for someone — anyone — to be present.

Anne Gordon, NODA’s current program director, has helped hospitals around the country start the program in their facilities. She has a worldly perspective similar to Cleary’s, and different from the expectations that most Americans have on the topic of death.

“Dying is a process, not [just] the last breath,” says Gordon. If you’re a hospital patient in the process of dying, there’s a specific protocol to qualify for NODA services. You need to be actively dying — estimated to pass in the next day or so. (“Seasoned nurses can tell,” Gordon says, which is why they’re often the ones to page the NODA volunteers.) You must have reached a point where you will not receive any further interventions — that means comfort care only, with a required “do not resuscitate” order. And you must be without family or friends who can keep you company as you pass away.

Nobody? How does it happen that a person has nobody to visit when they die?

“Sometimes a person’s outlived everyone, or they’re estranged,” Gordon explains. Maybe they do have family, but for whatever reason, the loved ones needed to leave, or live far away, or just cannot bear to be present. Some of the patients are homeless and, just as in their healthier days, have no one to comfort them. Whatever the reason, NODA will be there.

004

As Gordon sees it, death is an act of meaning, and the process — what she calls “the human family coming together” — is an act of intentionality and love. “I find the whole process to be so compelling,” she says. “It’s our shared experience — a key transition we all share.”

Gordon, a Baby Boomer, sees her work and the recent public interest in end-of-life issues as a byproduct of her generation aging — an extension of the consciousness-raising of the 1960s and “one of the good echoes” from that era, she quips. “As we get closer to death, we like to talk about these things.”

There are “death cafes,” informal coffee hours where friends and strangers get together, eat cake, and talk about dying. There are high-demand conferences where people share their personal experiences of loss and grief. There are bestselling books about coming to terms with your own mortality and how to prepare for death — spiritually, familially, and financially. Even Costco, the bulk-retail giant, sells coffins alongside its low-price tire changes and discount cruises. It’s mostly just static noise, though. Death is never fully discussed, only hinted at from the margins.

Gordon believes that now — with Baby Boomers entering retirement, many losing their parents, and many more coming to grips with their own mortality — is the moment to talk through these issues as a culture, to discuss the process of death in specific terms, beyond the anecdotal and platitudinal. “When death is a daily concept,” as it might be in Bhutan, she offers, “it’s not as terrifying. What matters is quality of life.”

When I ask Gordon how she’d like to die, she demurs. “I have no answer. I figure it’ll be what’s appropriate for me.”

***

Pamela Edgar is an end-of-life doula and drama therapist in Brooklyn, New York. Similar to how birth doulas help pregnant women bring new life to the world, end-of-life doulas help people on their way out.

Edgar grew up with a mom who worked in nursing homes, and young Pamela sometimes tagged along, visiting people at different stages in their lives, including the final ones. As she grew older, Edgar got especially interested in those last months: “What is the kind of relationship that you can have with someone when it might be one of their last new relationships? What can that be like?” she wondered.

Edgar has worked in nursing home dementia units and other late-life facilities for the past eight years. After working in a Veterans Administration hospital during an internship as a creative arts therapist, she requested to go to the hospice unit. (“Nobody ever asks to do that!” she remembers her supervisor replying.) For the past three years, she’s been an end-of-life counselor with Compassion & Choices. The organization is primarily known for advocating right-to-die legislation at the state level, but it also helps anybody seeking assistance to “plan for and achieve a good death.”

“As a drama therapist,” Edgar says softly, “I look a lot at roles that people play in their life, and one of the things that I really see — and this is a little bit related to a good way to die — I see that for a lot of us, a lot of our lives are spent doing. What can we do for other people, how we define ourselves by these roles that are really about what we can do, or what we have. And as people get older, of course, that role system gets smaller, and often people can’t do all the things they used to do. I think it’s really an interesting moment for people then: What is their identity, and who are they now?”

For many, dying becomes about control and autonomy, she says. “Here are the things I still can do and what I can still control are really important for some people.”

Others get spiritual. Edgar shares the example of a patient in his 70s who’d been diagnosed with ALS and lost the ability to do many of the things he loved. “He decided that he was ready, and he and his wife kind of describe it that ‘his spirit had outgrown his body.’ He was on hospice care and he chose to stop eating and drinking, and the wife had a lot of support, and hospice was really excellent and supportive of them. It was a very peaceful passing for him.”

Peaceful. Especially given the circumstances of a degenerative illness, “peaceful” seems like an indispensable criterion for the “best” death.

005

Edgar has been particularly affected by seeing choice taken away from patients. Many of the people she worked with early in her career wanted to go home but, because of what she calls the country’s “medical model” of dying, never were able to. After helping hundreds of people with their deaths — filing wills, deciding on final treatments, aiding loved ones with the transition — she’s developed an idea of a good death that’s based on her background in psychology. You’ve heard it before: letting go.

“Ultimately, we are going into an unknown,” Edgar says. “Even when people think or have ideas about what’s next, truth is, we don’t have proof. So there is that sense of going into an unknown and do people feel ready — body, mind, and spirit? Are they really ready to go?”

Sometimes, Edgar says, the body and mind are ready, but the person isn’t emotionally there yet. Or vice versa — the person feels spiritually ready, but their body’s still holding on.

“My personal answer for the best way to die is being ready, like being physically, emotionally, spiritually ready to go.”

Before we end our conversation, she stresses a point to me: “Life and death are not opposites,” she says. “We haven’t figured out how to stop either. They’re partners.”

***

In the autumn of 2014, the story of Brittany Maynard incited conversations on this topic in average American living rooms. Maynard, a 29-year-old newlywed, was diagnosed with an incurable brain cancer that gave her seizures, double vision, headaches, and other terrible symptoms that inevitably would intensify until her almost surely agonizing death.

As she looked at that future, Maynard decided that she wanted to end her life on her own terms with the help of legal medication. Unfortunately, she lived in California, which didn’t allow doctors to write life-ending prescriptions. So Maynard, her husband, and her mother packed up and moved to Oregon, where the right to die is legally recognized.

Through the ordeal, Maynard partnered with Compassion & Choices to spread the word about her journey for a good death. Her story appeared on the cover of People magazine, was featured on CNN, the Meredith Vieira Show, in USA Today, in the op-ed pages of the New York Times — you name it. Such a young woman facing such a terrible fate: it’s compelling, even wrenching, and hard to turn away from.

Disregard your personal beliefs on the morality of this situation for a moment, and think about what you would do in the face of an agonizing terminal diagnosis. Would you seek medical care until the very last breath, demanding chemo from your deathbed? Or would you prefer to go without, letting the disease take its natural course? Which path do you fear the most?

After Brittany Maynard

David Grube is an Oregon family doctor who, in his own words, has “delivered babies and sung at people’s funerals.” He wants to die “feeling perfectly well, and just not wake up.” Over his 35-year career, he has prescribed life-ending drugs to about 30 patients (though “aid in dying,” as it’s often called, only became legal in Oregon — and for the first in time the United States — in 1994). He did not prescribe Maynard’s medication, but he did talk to me about the process of aiding in a patient’s death.

Grube, who is the medical director for Compassion & Choices, says that though many people ask for the drugs, few end up using them. The prescriptions require a psychological evaluation, sign-off from two different physicians, and a 15-day waiting period before they’re available. The fatal dose will be a barbiturate like pentobarbital, a sedative that’s also used in animal euthanasia — it’s the same drug as the “sleeping pill” that killed Marilyn Monroe, Grube notes — or secobarbital, a bitter anesthetic and sleep aid. Someone like Brittany Maynard would likely stir the drug into a glass of juice, drink it, then await its effects.

In her final message to the public, Maynard wrote, “The world is a beautiful place, travel has been my greatest teacher, my close friends and folks are the greatest givers. I even have a ring of support around my bed as I type. … Goodbye world. Spread good energy. Pay it forward!” Her husband, Dan Diaz, said that as she took the medication, “The mood in the house was very peaceful, very loving.” Within five minutes, she fell asleep. Then she died.

Grube says that’s usually how it goes with these cases: within an hour or two, the person stops breathing and experiences “a peaceful, simple death.” On the rare occasion when the patient takes the medication with a glass of milk or with a large dose of anticonstipation medication (vanity doesn’t automatically disappear with terminal illness), they will sometimes wake up. But when taken as prescribed, most people who choose to end their life this way will, like Maynard, pass with tranquility. It is, in a word, peaceful.

Another term for Maynard’s act is “physician-assisted suicide,” but Grube rejects that concept wholeheartedly. “They don’t want to die!” he says. “‘Suicide’ is such a harmful word … and words are scalpels; they can be healing, kind, or destructive.” Some of Grube’s allies prefer the term “physician-assisted dying,” while others talk about the “right to die.” Compassion & Choices has settled on its own values-based language to discuss cases like Brittany Maynard: “death with dignity.” Partly due to Maynard’s activism, the California legislature and Governor Jerry Brown passed the “End of Life Option Act” this October, just before the one-year anniversary of her death.

Grube says most people who ask for these prescriptions are educated, motivated, and confident. What they want, he explains, is to determine the timing of their imminent death.

Control. When a disease is controlling your body and mind, when you’ve lost pleasure in the things you once loved, when you’re in pain, when you’re suffering and you fear burdening those around you, when there’s nothing more to do but wait for death, having the power to take — or not take — life-ending drugs can be a supreme comfort. But it’s a fine line of morality.

As a philosopher and bioethicist at Vanderbilt University, John Lachs considers these situations all the time. His mother, Magda, lived to 103, but given her ever-increasing collection of age-related illnesses, he wrote in Contemporary Debates in Bioethics, “living longer seemed to her utterly pointless: the pain, the indignity and the growing communicative isolation overshadowed her native optimism and the joy she had always taken in being alive. She decided that she had had enough and she was ready to die.”

NobodySurvivesLife

Magda stockpiled prescriptions, ready to overdose on them, but lost them in a move, according to her son. She tried to die by abstaining from food and drink, but, as Lachs put it, “there was enough love of life left in her to make this a regimen she could not sustain.”

Is it okay to help someone else die? Lachs argues that “doctors should help us through every stage of life,” including the final one. Furthermore, exercising freedom — in this case, the freedom of choice to end one’s life — is not the same as following moral rules. “We have the right to terminate our lives even if it is wrong to do so,” Lachs says — with an important caveat. “Healthy young adults who propose to kill themselves cannot demand aid from others. … The situation is altogether different with suicide that is justifiable.”

To Lachs, context is of the utmost importance. “We don’t want people to choose death over life,” he tells me. But when the end is near anyway, and the person is suffering, what’s the argument against it?

  1. The philosopher has developed a set of five standards for the ideal death:
  2. It must be after a person has exhausted his purpose; there’s got to be nothing more for him to truly do.
  3. Corresponding to the loss of purpose is a lessening of energy — mental and physical.
  4. The person’s affairs should be in order — paperwork, wills, goodbyes, all of it.
  5. The person should feel he’s leaving something good behind — “I didn’t live for naught.”
  6. The death should be quick and painless.

Lachs has seen and heard of people who are near death but linger on. “It’s so much better when the other conditions are met and they just pass on,” Lachs says. “Ideally, life is such that it gives you a chance to get ready for death.

“Nobody has ever survived life. The bet is going to be lost. All of life is uncertain. We think it’s not, and contingency is the name of the game. But ultimately, we’re going to have to come to terms with the end of it.”

Magda, Lachs’ mother, finally did pass in the “subterfuge” way that hospice workers sometimes quietly administer: a nurse offered a morphine solution that depressed Magda’s lung function and finally accelerated her death.

What’s the best way to die? It’s a question that Lachs has spent time considering. His favorite answer comes from a medical colleague of his, but it’s an old yarn: being shot to death at 90 years old by an irate husband while biking away from sleeping with the gun-toting man’s wife.

Barring that, Lachs says, he’d like to die having met his own criteria — quickly, of a heart attack.

***

One of the last people I posed my question to was Doris Benbrook, director of research in gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma. Her specialty is much different from the health care staff I’d spoken to previously — she studies cancer on the cellular level, particularly apoptosis, or programmed cell death. Does the microscopic level of dying give us any other ways to think about the best way to go?

In its most basic sense, a cancer cell over-multiplies and begins causing bodily trouble. “At the organ and tissue level, it eats away at vital organs. It grows, duplicates, divides.” That clogs up organs, cascades into other systems, and makes its body croak. How utterly unfair of something so tiny. Some cancers you barely feel, like the notoriously silent ovarian cancer, while others, like bone cancer, cause immense, deep pain.

Benbrook’s work with apoptosis aims to switch off that growth, to figure out how to flip the cell’s existing kill-switch so it can’t wreak such havoc. Years from now, she hopes, doctors could even use this mechanism as a cancer-prevention method.

Interestingly enough, CPR and other familiar cardiovascular attempts to keep people alive take the opposite tack: “They want to prevent cell death,” Benbrook notes. So there are many different ways to think about what the end of a cell means for the end of the human. But cells die constantly, and a few cells dying here and there don’t kill a person. Even though our cells die with us, she stressed that the microscopic level isn’t the right place to look when considering dying.

Her personal answer to the best way to die, however, was my favorite, if only for its imagery.

“I would like to die by freezing to death,” she says. “Because from what I understand of the process, it’s that you eventually just go numb and don’t feel anything. I have experienced extreme pain. I don’t ever want to do it again. I would like to go peacefully.”

Interesting. But it’s where she’d like to freeze to death that moved me.

“I would think that if I were to just sit on an iceberg floating up in the Arctic Ocean, that it would be a peaceful death. I could look up at the stars, I could think about life, and it could be a good experience.”

The frozen night air blowing over your body. The dead quiet of nature interrupted only by laps of the ocean and the occasional fish flopping out of the water. The icy sensation of your tears freezing as you look up at the Great Bear constellation for the last time. That really doesn’t seem like such a bad way to go.

006

But Benbrook and I come quickly back to land. “Of course I would like to have my family surrounding me, and the chances that I’m going to go sit up on an iceberg in the Arctic Ocean to die — that is not likely.” She laughs. “I’d probably be laying in a bed surrounded by loved ones. My goal would be to go peacefully.” Back to the beginning.

***

So I turn to you, brave and patient reader: from the absurd to the probable, how would you like to die? Allow yourself to think about it, in as far as you’re ready to do so. Do you want a breathing tube snaked down your throat if it becomes necessary? Do you want to be fed if you can’t do it yourself? Would you mind dying in a hospital? You can even get down to ambient details — do you want punk music blasting, a warm room, someone rubbing your swollen feet?

Whatever you wish, however deeply you’re willing to think about it, the key is to share your ideas about a good death. Talk to your family, write down what you want, and keep it somewhere they know about. Ask people about it at parties. As anyone who’s made a “pull the plug” decision can tell you, any guidance you leave will be helpful if you can’t speak for yourself on your last day.

This is your last possible decision, after all — better make it a good one.

Complete Article HERE!

The strange landscape of living and dying in the United States

By 

What Really Matters at the End of Life?

The extraordinary pain of many people around you is unaddressed, and the scale of that unmet need would shock you if you saw it. Compartments of privacy separate you from the experience of your neighbors and even your own families. I understand that you have been unaware as well as hopeful that our medical system will either fix the problems or, at least, soothe the pain. It does neither consistently. The grappling of human beings to make sense out of the fact that they die has only been hiding in plain sight for a short time, and our society is awakening. That is both good news and a difficult truth.

Don was a “damn good” bookkeeper, he told me at our first palliative care visit in his home, and an amazing father according to his daughter. Don wished he hadn’t smoked the way he had, but 438,000 cigarettes later, he had widespread lung cancer. Taking a shot with palliative chemotherapy, neither of us had much confidence it would deliver value.

It’s a fair estimate that 107 billion people have been born in about 140,000 years of human history … the mothers and fathers of us all. Our modern medical system is less than 100 years old. Through technology and deepening understanding of our biology, lifespans are extended and the quality of life for most of us currently living is enhanced … for a while.

And yet, when we actually begin to complete our lives we do so without the simple things we need. For nearly all of human history, dying was no surprise as it occurred in close proximity to our living. In our modern system, we have hidden it away in hospitals, nursing homes and behind the closed doors of neighbors we don’t really know very well. The structures of coping were family and community, supported by the best efforts of those possessing certain skills directed at soothing the process without any illusions about changing the outcome. With such support, people died well, in peace, and with context. While our modern medical system brings enormous value to us while we navigate the beginning and the middle of our lives, it is an open secret that people have never suffered as badly as they do now as they complete their lives.

His weight continued to peel off, and even one cycle of chemotherapy was a “nightmare.” He accepted hospice without a lot of fanfare. With a long and short acting opiate, and a whiff of lorazepam at bedtime, his pain and breathlessness were well controlled despite increasing oxygen requirements. He got to work on “closing the books” and his daughter moved in.

A dynamic conversation about care for people with serious illness and those approaching death is exploding nearly everywhere in our society. From outside my field of palliative medicine, there is the work of Ellen Goodman and the Conversation Project, the intimate chronicles of Oliver Sacks last days in the New York Times, and the Institute of Medicine’s sentinel report on “Dying in America.” Atul Gawande with his bestseller, Being Mortal, offers his own awakening to the terrible truth of how our system of medicine fails to deliver the care needed and perpetuates the flimsy idea that we can fix anything.

From within the health care system, decades of effort from the likes of physician/author Ira Byock and trailblazing physician/ leader Diane Meier, as well as thousands of dedicated and inspired professionals, are bearing fruit to bring Palliative Care to central relevancy in discussions of health care delivery and reform. Baby Boomers like myself are being confronted with the truth of aging, the limits of technology, and the waste of a system that is doing exactly what it is designed to do. In his recent TED talk, BJ Miller put it simply, “Health care was designed with diseases at its center, not people. Which is to say that it is badly designed.”

As the weeks unfolded, Don’s world got smaller as he spent more time with the TV off instead of on. When I asked him about his process, he shrugged. He admitted that he was feeling physically better than he had now that the chemotherapy was cleared out, and that he was more relaxed with his daughter in the other room and hospice available anytime. “They are great, and a big relief.”

A millennial voice was also recently heard. That of Brittany Maynard, the 29-year-old Californian woman who relocated to Oregon to complete her life on her own terms with a legal and lethal prescription. In the last few weeks of her life, she pulled back the curtains and shared the experience of a modern death with a society that has had the habit of averting its gaze from such common experiences. With this act of empowerment and resolve, she has electrified the social discourse around self-determination and dignity, spurring California’s End of Life Option legislation. The bill was signed into law recently by a circumspect Governor Jerry Brown, and the landscape of self-determination was transformed.

His daughter thought he was too weak to make his way across the house to the cabinet where the medicines were kept. She had thought this thought because of hints and sideways remarks about “pointlessness.” Don would never be described as “patient,” she told me. In the dark and quiet of the night, he got up and did make what must have been an epic and lonely journey. He got all the pills, returned to his recliner, and removed his high flow oxygen before swallowing dozens of tablets. Alone.

For the last fifteen years, I have been a specialist in the field of palliative care and hospice. I have accompanied thousands of people and their families in the face of severe illness and a system of care that often fails to even avoid making their experience worse. I am a beginner. There have always been so many more people than there are teams of palliative care and hospice professionals to care for them, and this will be the case for decades. Even with the best palliative care and hospice support, we observe profound suffering, and we are often powerless to offer anything more than being there.  That’s usually enough. But sometimes, it’s not even close.

As I move into a future where folks like Don and his daughter don’t have to be alone as they contemplate and choose their own path, my own sense of humility and respect for the people that seek my care continues to grow. When it comes right down to it, I trust people to know the path forward for themselves and I am honored that they allow me to accompany them.

This is a remarkable moment for our society for reasons far beyond any legislation. We are awakening to the truth of things. We are beginning to realize that the measure of us may have something to do with how we care for each other in our most difficult moments and how we address the deepest challenges faced by our society and our planet.

Perhaps, if we can begin to live life as if we won’t live forever, we can create a better world to live in and to die from.

Complete Article HERE!

Dogs now have bucket lists too

Charleston
Sarah Westcott and her boyfriend Vincent Bova trucked in 600 pounds of crushed ice so that Charleston could have one last snow day.

Last July, the doctor delivered news no pet owner ever wants to hear. Seven-year-old Tank’s cancer had spread. He likely had just two months to live.

So Diane Cosgrove, 37, set out to give her beloved Rottweiler as many memorable experiences as she could, making a bucket list that included going to a baseball game, getting Shake Shack treats and a pet-store shopping spree.

“I did everything to make his last month and a half special,” says Cosgrove, who lives in Pompton Plains, NJ.

The 2007 Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman movie “The Bucket List” brought the notion of a “things to do before you die” checklist into the mainstream, but the concept is no longer just for baby boomers. It’s also for pooches and pet owners, who are granting Fido’s every woof in his final days. A mutt’s dying wishes are even the plot of a current Subaru commercial.

“We’re afraid of death. The bucket list is just a way . . . of managing,” says Dr. Stephanie LaFarge, senior director of counseling services at the ASPCA. “Now that pets are part of the family, it’s natural that we extend this practice to them.”

When Lauren Fern Watt, 26, learned her 6-year-old English mastiff Gizelle had bone cancer last year, making an ambitious bucket list for the dog helped her to process her illness. The dog’s final adventures included canoeing, road trips and dockside ice-cream eating.

“It seemed like a good way to celebrate my dog’s life, rather than cry over it,” she says.

Gizelle
Lauren Fern Watt took Gizelle boating after her dog was diagnosed with cancer.

Last January, after Gizelle passed away, Watt, a freelance travel writer who lives in the East Village, put together a photo essay for Yahoo about the dog’s bucket list. It was so popular, it resulted in a book deal. “Gizelle’s Bucket List” is due out next fall from Simon & Schuster.

Sarah Westcott, a Brooklyn dog trainer, practically moved the sun and the stars when Charleston, her 5-year-old Labrador, was diagnosed with inoperable fibrosarcoma in the summer of 2008.

She and her boyfriend trucked in 600 pounds of crushed ice and dumped it on her grandmother’s lawn in Bensonhurst to give the snow-loving dog a final romp in fresh powder. Mini pints of Guinness, unlimited cheese and one last Hamptons jaunt rounded out Charleston’s adventures before he died three weeks later.

“It was good to know that I had done everything I could have for him,” says Westcott.

Vets say that bucket lists are fine, so long as the dying dog’s best interests are kept in mind.

“It should be something that the pet, not the human, is going to enjoy,” says Sonja Olson, a veterinarian with BluePearl Veterinary Partners. “Stressing an animal out can stress their immune system further. Talk about it with your veterinarian. It might need to be dialed back.”

In the end, Cosgrove had to modify Tank’s bucket list. Three items — going to the beach, riding in a convertible and eating at a restaurant — remained when he was euthanized in August.

But he did make it to a New Jersey Jackals baseball game.

“He wasn’t feeling that great,” remembers Cosgrove, “but for the couple hours he was there, he was really perky and alert and enjoyed being outside.”

Complete Article HERE!

Florida’s New Anti-Gay, Anti-Woman Bill May Be the Most Malicious Yet

By Mark Joseph Stern

screen_shot_20151023_at_4.16.10_pm
Bill sponsor Rep. Julio Gonzalez, photographed on April 8, 2015.

There are very few feminist homophobes in the world, which makes sense: Those who seek to deprive gay people of their fundamental rights are rarely eager to enact laws respecting women’s dignity and autonomy. That near-truism is playing out in Florida—where, not content to debase just gays, the legislature is now considering a bill that demeans both gays and women in creative and innovative ways.

Florida’s new “religious freedom” bill, just introduced but already gaining traction, begins with an Indiana-esque guarantee that most businesses and corporations may legally turn away gay couples if doing so “would be contrary to [their] religious or moral convictions.” Similarly, the bill allows private adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples if such placement goes against “the religious or moral convictions or policies of the agency.” In other words, an adoption agency needn’t even articulate a specific religious reason why it would rather keep a child orphaned than place her with a loving gay couple. The agency need only state that its “policies” mandate such homophobia, and it is protected by the bill. (Florida’s legislature considered a similar anti-gay adoption bill in April, but it died after one courageous Republican denounced it from the Senate floor.)

So far, so familiar. But here’s where things get odd—and grim for the women of Florida. The bill states that “a health care facility,” “an ambulatory surgery center,” “a nursing home,” “an assisted living facility,” “a hospice … operated by a religious institution,” and any “health care provider” can refuse to treat a patient or administer a medication if doing so would be contrary to its “religious or moral convictions or policies.” The implications for women here are obvious: Pharmacists could refuse to provide birth control or Plan B; doctors could refuse to place IUDs; nurses could refuse to assist in medically necessary abortions.

For LGBTQ people, this provision of the bill should be equally chilling. Despite the fact that gay and trans people face unique health challenges, LGBTQ-friendly health care is terribly deficient. The Florida bill would compound this problem by permitting doctors to turn away LGBTQ patients if treating them—or treating ailments they perceive to be LGBTQ-specific—would violate their “convictions.” Doctors could refuse to perform surgery on LGBTQ people, unless that refusal “places the patient in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury.” Cleverly, the bill doesn’t just shield doctors from liability suits from would-be patients: It also shields them from disciplinary actions by their hospital or medical association. So much for the Hippocratic Oath.

The remainder of the bill—the portions allowing elder care facilities and many hospices to turn away gay people—are almost comically evil. In fact, they are so ridiculously malevolent that I must wonder if Rep. Julio Gonzalez, the bill’s sponsor, a physician who was endorsed by Sen. Marco Rubio, doesn’t have an ulterior motive here. A narrower anti-gay discrimination bill (inanely dubbed the Pastor Protection Act) has already sailed through a subcommittee and looks likely to get a floor vote. Perhaps Gonzalez’s bill is designed to make the other, somewhat less odious bill appear moderate by comparison. That is pretty much the only rational reason I can imagine a putative representative of the people would even consider such a plainly malicious, proudly discriminatory, profoundly malefic measure.
Complete Article HERE!