Circle of Friends buys a residence for those at the end of life

deathhouse-HZT

 

“People close to dying often speak in metaphor and say they are going ‘home.’ Home is no longer a place, but a passage. Death then, becomes the vehicle in which we make safe passage.” These lines come from a dissertation entitled “Dreaming Out Loud: Initiating Plans for a Community-based Home for the Dying,” written by oncology social worker Elise Lark, who has been working to make this dream a reality in the Mid-Hudson Valley.

Lark is the founder of Circle of Friends for the Dying (CFD), a non-profit group that has purchased a Kingston house they plan to convert into a residence available to people needing compassionate care at the end of life. Instead of spending their final weeks or days in the isolating atmosphere of a hospital, the dying will be able to make their transition in the comfort of a home, attended by family, friends, and volunteer caregivers.

“In order to have a good death,” said CFD board member Gai Galitzine, “you need to be living while you’re dying.”

A century ago, observed Lark, who works at the Oncology Support Program at HealthAlliance in Kingston, death was part of everyday life. “People died in community. It was a social, not a medical event. In the 1950s, people started to die more often in the hospital, which is considered the best setting — a sterile environment, safe, convenient to doctors. But we believe people should die in a non-institutional setting, with a sense of everyday life, where they can enjoy the rituals of having meals together, sitting with a group of people, participating in life.”

The hospice movement has made strides in this direction, often bringing patients home from the hospital and providing support and education that allow the family to ease the dying over the divide. But a home death is not always possible. Often the patient needs round-the-clock care, which family members may not be able to provide if they live out-of-state, have to work, or are raising children. Some patients live alone. If home care isn’t an option, the only alternative in Ulster and Dutchess Counties is a nursing home.

The Home for the Dying in Kingston will be run by volunteers who will provide skilled care and companionship for people nearing death. If family members are available, they can spend time with their dying relative in a warm, relaxed atmosphere — at no charge.

Hospice agencies in some areas have established residences or hospital-based hospice units for the dying, but a study done in the Mid-Hudson Valley concluded that a structure dedicated to hospice was not feasible in our area. When Lark was working on her doctorate at Antioch University, she studied options for community-based care. She visited the closest hospice residence to her Kingston job, an eight-bed unit in Newburgh, but found it didn’t fit her vision for a modest, homely setting. Then she discovered the Home for the Dying model, which started with a Home in Rochester in 1984, organized by lay Carmelites. There are now 25 of these Homes in New York State. It turns out that a facility with more than two beds is considered an institution, subject to rules and regulations. The Home in Kingston will stick to two beds, so they’ll be free to provide the most appropriate care.

Community-based end-of-life care is a boon to volunteers as well as to the dying and their families. “I had deaths in my family where I wasn’t able to be there, and it stayed with me,” said Galitzine. “I had a good experience with my mother where I was able to get to her in time even though she’d had a stroke. The reassurance she felt when I was there was one of the most beautiful things. I could see it in her eyes, although she couldn’t speak. I love the idea of being able to help other people in that situation.”

“Death is not an emergency,” Lark pointed out. “It happens every day. It’s as normal as birth. Some people won’t like this idea, but I see death as a sacred rite of passage. To be present to that is an amazing experience, a gift.”

One study shows that 80 to 90 percent of Americans say they prefer to die at home — but only 25 percent actually get to do it. Hospice is offered when patients are told they have six months left to live, but most people only take advantage of hospice services for the last few days of life, when life support measures are abandoned, and palliative care takes over, doing everything possible to relieve pain and make the patient comfortable. Hospice shifts the focus from preserving life at all costs to enhancing quality of life. But the reluctance of doctors and family members to address the prospect of death is an impediment to getting end-of-life care in a timely manner.

“Medical culture operates on a culture of hope,” said Lark. “You can’t hold hope in one hand and the fact that people are nearing the end of life in the other hand. Doctors are not trained to have end-of-life discussions. People get on hospice late, so they don’t get to reap the benefits of hospice, which provides support to the caregiver. Unless we can have these conversations with our loved ones, we’ll keep prolonging the dying process.”

CFD has joined the international Death Café movement, organizing monthly informal gatherings in which people sit in small groups to talk about the subject most of us tend to avoid — how our lives will end. Death Cafés in the Woodstock area are run by psychotherapist Laurie Schwartz and social worker Barbara Sarah, founder of the Oncology Support Program at HealthAlliance. For people who are fearing death, grieving for relatives, or wondering about the mystery of end-of-life passage, the conversations provide a forum for sharing often unspoken thoughts and worries. The underlying purpose, said Galitzine, “is to create a culture where death is part of everyday life, to bring the act of dying back into people’s lives, so they won’t fear it and will talk about it.”

The Home for the Dying in Kingston will be available to people with three months or less to live. In addition to two bedrooms for patients, equipped with hospital beds for comfort, there will be a wing with quarters for family members who wish to stay overnight. Meals can be prepared in a full eat-in kitchen. A wraparound deck and garden will be accessible by wheelchair from the client bedrooms, which will have sliding doors to the outside.

Presently CFD volunteers are cleaning and refurbishing the house to rent it out for a year while the organization raises money for renovations. A capital campaign will begin in the spring, with plans to have the home in operation in 2017.

“There will be no white uniforms,” said Lark. “No one is confined to their room. They can use the whole house as if it were their own house. A good place to die is also a good place to live.”

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!

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!

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!

Will California’s end-of-life law push lethal drugs over costlier care?

Kevin McCarty, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Jay Overnolte
Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) is congratulated by Assemblymen Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento), left, and Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) after her right-to die measure was approved by the full Assembly in September.

By Soumya Karlamangla

Terminally ill cancer patient Barbara Wagner’s doctor wrote a prescription several years ago intended to extend her life a few extra months. But Oregon’s government-run healthcare program declined to pay for the pricey drug, saying the projected odds of the medicine’s keeping her alive were too low.

Adding to the distress of the rejection, Wagner later complained publicly, was what else was included in the denial letter she received. The state listed doctor-aided death as one of the treatment options that would be completely covered.

“[They] basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die, but we won’t give you the medication to live,” Wagner said in a television interview at the time.

Wagner’s case became a flash point of the medical ethics debate over helping the terminally ill end their lives in Oregon, the state that pioneered the practice in the U.S. nearly two decades ago.

Now, as California pushes ahead with a similar initiative, experts say state officials here could face their own ethical controversies as they weigh details such as who should pay for life-ending care, particularly for patients in government-backed health plans.

Covering lethal prescribed drugs for such patients without also offering to pay for other far more costly end-of-life treatments could inadvertently pressure people into choosing the cheaper option, said Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, a UC Irvine psychiatrist and director of the university’s medical ethics program.

“It’s certainly a cost-saver,” he said.

Supporters of California’s law and other experts say it ensures life-ending decisions will be left to patients and that covering drugs that aid in dying won’t push people to make that choice. So few people will opt for doctor-assisted deaths, they argue, that the financial savings will be tiny compared with overall healthcare costs and won’t create a significant economic incentive for insurance carriers to even subtly encourage that medical alternative.

Under California’s End of Life Option Act signed by Gov. Jerry Brown this month, physicians, starting sometime in 2016, will be allowed to prescribe lethal drugs to adults diagnosed with terminal illnesses who are expected to die within six months and request assistance to end their lives.

The law does not require private insurance companies to cover such medicine. And state officials with Medi-Cal, the health program for the poor that covers more than 12 million people, say they haven’t determined whether their plan will pay for such treatments.

A state legislative committee analysis concluded that any costs or savings for Medi-Cal from legalizing doctor-aided death would be minor, depending on whether the lethal drugs are covered. The biggest projected expenditure would be about $323,000 to set up and operate a data system to manage paperwork associated with the program.

Many health advocates and experts expect Medi-Cal, like Oregon’s state-run health plan for the poor, to cover the life-ending treatment.

William Toffler, a family physician in Oregon, says California would be making a mistake. He contends that Medi-Cal officials would be forced into a new and significant ethical dilemma, balancing their responsibility to control costs and ration care with ensuring that patients receive the most effective medical treatment possible. The barbiturates prescribed to patients to end their lives cost about $1,500. Average healthcare spending in a patient’s last year of life is $33,486, according to federal data.

“It’s a terribly wrong-headed move. It’s a conflict of interest for doctors; it’s a conflict of interest for the state,” Toffler said.

Vermont and Washington — which more recently permitted physicians to write lethal prescriptions — and the federal government’s Medicare health plan do not cover the drugs. Representatives from both state programs declined requests to discuss their reasoning.

Officials from Oregon’s health plan say that physician-assisted death is just one of many covered medical options offered to terminally ill patients, along with hospice care and pain medications.

Wagner was told in 2008 that she had only a few months to live. She was prescribed a medicine that might have extended her life for a limited time, at a cost of $4,000 a month. Oregon’s health plan denied coverage, based on a policy that requires treatments to provide at least a 5% survival rate after five years.

Advocates said the case was blown out of proportion by the media and critics. The denial of the costlier drug wasn’t because of its price, but its low efficacy, they said.

“Barbara Wagner was not harmed by the Oregon aid-in-dying law. She was not harmed by the Oregon Medicaid system,” said Barbara Coombs Lee, president of the groupCompassion & Choices, which pushed for the law.

After the media focused on the case, the manufacturer of the drug prescribed by Wagner’s doctor offered her the pills free of charge. She died soon thereafter.

Oregon health officials subsequently halted the practice of listing lethal drugs as an alternative treatment offered to terminally ill patients who were denied other treatments under their coverage.

“I think the state Medicaid system learned to be a little more tactful,” Coombs Lee said.

Apparently learning from Oregon’s experience in Wagner’s case, California lawmakers included in the new legislation that insurance plans are prohibited from including in a treatment denial letter information on the availability of aid-in-dying drugs.

Christian Burkin, a spokesman for Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton), who wrote the bill, said that “no one should be subjected to even the appearance or suggestion of being influenced to choose the end-of-life option.”

Some fear the pressures to choose assisted death could be more subtle.

Daniel Sulmasy, a physician and medical ethics professor at the University of Chicago, concluded in a 1998 research study that physicians inclined to conserve resources were more likely to write lethal prescriptions for terminally ill patients than those not concerned about keeping costs down.

That’s particularly worrisome, Sulmasy said in an interview, as California tries to manage the growing costs of Medi-Cal.

Under Obamacare, about a third of all Californians are now covered by the program, and its costs have climbed 74% since 2013 to more than $91 billion a year.

The federal government covers most of the costs but will begin shifting the expenses to the state after next year. California is already struggling with an $18-billion annual contribution, and that will rise in coming years.

Sulmasy also argues that as lethal treatments for the dying become more common, patients could face societal pressures from friends and relatives to unburden their caregivers or avoid racking up medical bills that drain family wealth.

But Oregon patient data have shown little evidence of that, says Coombs Lee, who was a nurse before she cowrote Oregon’s Death With Dignity Law. Of the roughly 860 people who have died in this way in Oregon since the law was enacted in 1997, 98% had state or private health insurance — and private plans tend to cover more end-of-life medical treatments.

Coombs Lee pointed to a new study that shows Oregon has some of the nation’s highest rates of hospice usage — and lowest levels of potentially concerning hospice care. She said that indicates, overall, that the state’s death with dignity law is improving end-of-life care.

“There’s no red flags,” Coombs Lee said.

Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, said that doctor-aided death for the terminally ill doesn’t offer insurers much opportunity to cut expenses.

“It’ll have an almost undetectable impact on healthcare costs,” said Emanuel, who helped draft the federal Affordable Care Act.

A 1998 study he conducted estimated legalization of lethal prescriptions nationwide would save less than 0.1% of total healthcare spending, chiefly because very few people would want them.

“It’s a law for the 0.1%,” he said.
Complete Article HERE!

To Die At Home, It Helps To Have Someone Who Can Take Time Off Work

dying-at-home
Having a loved one take at least two weeks off work increased the likelihood that terminally ill cancer patients could die at home.

By Lynne Shallcross

When a family member of mine was dying of cancer, her husband’s boss told him to take all the time he needed to care for her. She was granted her wish of being at home when she left this earth, surrounded by those she loved most.

But a wide base of support is needed in order for a patient’s wish to die at home to be made real — including, in some cases, whether someone can take time off work to be with their loved one in their final days, a study finds.

Terminally ill cancer patients whose relatives took at least two weeks off work in the three months preceding their death had a greater likelihood of dying at home, compared with patients whose relatives took no more than three days off.

The study, which was published in BMC Medicine on Thursday, looked at the deaths of more than 350 cancer patients in London. Using feedback from those patients’ loved ones, researchers found that four factors could explain 91 percent of deaths that occurred at home: patient’s preference, relative’s preference, home palliative care or district/community nursing.

Having a comprehensive home-care plan in place is crucial, says lead author Barbara Gomes, a research fellow at the Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation at King’s College London. That should include specialist palliative care services and the availability of around-the-clock nursing. The number of home doctor visits also increased a patient’s chances of dying at home.

But researchers also identified three factors that had been previously overlooked yet still weighed into whether a patient died at home: the length of time in which the family knew the patient’s illness was incurable; discussion of the patient’s preference with family; and the number of days family members took off work in the three months before the patient’s death.

There are a variety of possible explanations for the connection between relatives’ days off work and a loved one’s at-home death, but Gomes is careful to point out that this retrospective, observational study can’t draw a cause and effect on this point.

Some governments have recognized the importance of being with a loved one who is dying and have set up support programs to better facilitate family caregiving. Gomes points to a compassionate care benefit in Canada, which offers employees a paid employment insurance program if they need to care for a gravely ill loved one.

Only three states have paid family leave policies: California, New Jersey and Rhode Island. Both Washington, D.C., and the state of New York are considering paid family leave legislation, and the FAMILY Act was introduced in Congress this year with the goal of providing a national paid family and medical leave insurance program.

David Bolotsky, founder and CEO of the online marketplace and retailer UncommonGoods, provides his employees at the Brooklyn-based company with paid leave. Not all American workers are so lucky: Every company has a different policy and different leave benefits. Although many workers are eligible for the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to care for a child, parent or spouse with a serious health condition, that leave is unpaid, which can make it financially impossible.

Bolotsky argues for providing paid family leave to all employees, as he did recently in an op-ed in support of the New York bill. “For most of us, nothing is more important than our families,” he says. “The folks who raised us ought to be able to have a dignified passing, and being able to be there with your loved ones is really important.”

The British study also found that dying at home was more peaceful for the patient and led to less grief among their loved ones. And the people who died at home didn’t experience more pain than those who were in a hospital.

Though health care should ideally be patient-centered, Gomes says remembering the crucial role that relatives play in the decision-making process and in the actual caregiving is important.

She recommends that health care providers encourage the patient and loved ones to discuss preferences for where the terminally ill patient will die, as well as acknowledge that preferences may change as time goes on.

Providers should also help the patient and relatives become aware of the medical supports and services available to them, along with explaining that staying at home to die may not be medically feasible.

Complete Article HERE!