Monday, September 8, 2008

A first look at end of life issues

We have to die eventually, a fact of which we are all sufficiently aware; yet we rarely, if ever, think about how it might unfold and we certainly don’t talk about it. The lack of discussion as individuals and as a society about end of life issues adds to emotional distress and to increasing health care costs.


Imagine Grandpa of one hundred years of age whose heart has stopped. Miraculously the event is witnessed, he is resuscitated, pacemaker pads are quickly placed on his chest to keep him alive, and he is rushed to the hospital. On arrival he is in critical condition and sedated on a mechanical ventilator, and he is transferred to the intensive care unit. Grandpa can’t communicate his wishes, but if he is to survive long-term he will need an implantable pacemaker. Do we place the pacemaker?


You, as the next of kin, are now in charge of the decisions regarding Grandpa’s care. Unfortunately, Grandpa never discussed his wishes with you about what he would want done in these circumstances and never drafted a living will. Faced with the life and death decision, determining the fate of Grandpa, the decision seems clear: uphold life above all else and place the pacemaker. However, is that the best decision?


For the last five years he has suffered from worsening Alzheimer’s dementia. He no longer knows who he is or where he is. He spends his days confused, and someone feeds him, changes his diapers, and turns him so he doesn’t develop bedsores. Do we still place the pacemaker?


Are we doing Grandpa a service by placing it? He has lived a good number of years, more than many of us can dream of, and at one hundred years of age one day in the near future, whether a pacemaker is placed or not, he will likely pass on. What if he believed that he had had a great life, that his wife, friends, and neighbors had already passed and that he would one day pass from something?


Remember Grandpa already died once. His heart stopped. Modern technology merely brought him back to life, and only for this reason are we faced with these questions. His mental function and lifestyle prior to the cardiac arrest were poor, but as a result of the cardiac arrest and resuscitation efforts his mental function will likely be even worse, if he is not already neurologically devastated.


You finally decide to not place a pacemaker and, in so doing, believe that you are fulfilling what Grandpa would’ve wanted. You then discover that your younger brother Jimmy, who only now has arrived at the hospital, disagrees with you and the rest of the family and believes Grandpa would’ve wanted the pacemaker. A family debate ensues. Without truly knowing Grandpa’s wishes there is no right or wrong answer. How does the family resolve this issue? How do the doctors resolve this issue? You as the next of kin are legally empowered with making the decision, but for obvious reasons doctors, like families, prefer unanimity in these situations.


Meanwhile days pass with Grandpa still in the intensive care unit lying in bed, staring at the ceiling unresponsive, and awaiting a decision. The doctors pepper you with other questions. What would you like done if Grandpa were to go into cardiac arrest in the hospital? Would you want him to receive an electrical shock in attempts to disrupt an abnormal rhythm and rescue him? Would you want for him to again undergo chest compressions (in which, yes, if done properly ribs are cracked) in attempts to maintain circulation as he is resuscitated? Would you want a tube placed in his stomach to feed him as he is no longer able to eat on his own? Would you want to continue drawing daily blood tests?


Is this how Grandpa imagined passing away? What if instead for the last five years rather than dementia he merely suffered from severe arthritic pain that confined him to a wheelchair and about which he complained incessantly? What if instead he had been a healthy one hundred year old man? Lots of questions arise.


The lack of discussion as a society of end of life issues (hoping instead for others to address or for the issues to go away) negatively impacts us and (to be addressed further) also leads to higher health care costs and to a skewed distribution of society’s health care expenditures.

4 comments:

rorschach said...

Your post reminded me of Sherwin Nuland's book How We Die. Have you read it? What did you think?

Truly, this issue is something the relatively young, healthy and alert mind simply recoils from. I certainly don't want to play God and decide when Grandpa's lived long enough, or has enough of a quality of life, to make his life worth continuing. I've never had Alzheimer's. I don't know if that life has value to the person living it, even if it would not appear to, to me.

Dr. Nuland's conclusion was that death is part of life, and that aggressive medical intervention, particularly in the extremely aged, often worsens the quality of life without measurably prolonging it, and that the kinder choice is hospice care in many cases. I did wonder if his being a doctor and being surrounded by life and death colored that opinion -- making each individual life worth less than it would have been to the person leaving it, or those that loved them.

Odysseas Kostas, MD said...

I haven't read the book.. Thanks for the rec!

For those interested in expressing their end of life wishes, one source is Aging with Dignity - Five Wishes.

(http://www.agingwithdignity.org/5wishes.html)

Doctors do have the perspective of having watched numerous people die. I don't think it devalues life but it might modify the emotional response to dying, which in many ways is also cultural (compare Americans to Europeans to Asians to Eskimos for example).

Anonymous said...

This is an issue I am presently facing. My spouse is 83 years old with Alzheimers. Recognizes spouse but generally confused about most other issues. Has a pace maker inserted in February of 2000 working at 80% to 90% of the time. The battery is running down and they are recommending it be replaced as soon as it gets to the point necessary to be covered by insurance. The patient has requested that no feeding tube or liquids be administered made out back in 1997. There is also a DNR order. The medical field is for replacement but I'm not sure that is the best route to go.

Odysseas Kostas, MD said...

Difficult.. The details and scenarios we often unfortunately don't think to discuss with our families, such as pacemakers, antibiotics, blood transfusions, dialysis, etc.

The best advice I've heard: to ask ourselves what we think the relative, knowing the current situation, would have wanted. To base the decisions on our best understanding of their wishes..