(Dr. Creagan is a cancer specialist who practiced at the Mayo Clinic for more than 41 years. He is the first Mayo Clinic consultant to be board certified in hospice and palliative medicine, and is Professor Emeritus of Medical Oncology at the Mayo Clinic Medical School, Emeritus Professor of Humanism in Medicine, and Emeritus Consultant in Palliative Medicine. Dr. Creagan is the author of two award-winning books: “How Not to Be My Patient: A Physician’s Secrets for Staying Healthy and Surviving Any Diagnosis” and “Farewell: Vital End-of-Life Questions with Candid Answers from a Leading Palliative and Hospice Physician“. This article first appeared on Ask Dr. Ed and is used with permission.)
==============================================================
First, some numbers.
- In 1962, 71% of women ages 15 to 44 married. By 2019 this number was down to 42%.
- In 1962, 5% of women ages 30 to 34 had never been married. By 2019, this is 35%.
- The percentage of births to unmarried women has risen from 5% in 1960 to 40% in 2018.
- In 1970, 85% of children lived with two parents. By 2019, this was down to 70%.
- Why should you be concerned about these numbers? From a typical biblical perspective, this is not a healthy sign about what happened to our culture. People aren’t marrying. Unmarried women are having children, and children are growing up with one parent, not two. I make no judgment here. For those from a more secular background the practical results are not good.
For you—and from my perspective as an end-of-life specialist board-certified in hospice medicine and palliative care—who will be at your bedside? Who will make your final decisions?
Until several decades ago if a patient were dying with a terminal illness, there would be quite often an informal gathering of the spouse and first-degree relatives around the bedside. Children, grandchildren, spouses, siblings. And there would be a heartfelt discussion typically with the primary care physician about the pros and the cons and the alternatives of continuing the patient on life support. In general, the primary care physician knew the patient, knew the family, and was a trusted member of the community.
The overarching theme was to do the right thing for the patient. If the physician and the spouse and the relatives agreed, treatment would be continued if there was even a remote chance of benefit. On the other hand, most individuals recognized the issue of “futility” and rarely was there a knockdown, drag-out dissertation about what should be done.
But now let us fast-forward the tape to an all-too-common scenario.
End-of-Life Discussion 101
The patient is a fifty-five-year-old homemaker from Tucson. She had struggled with alcoholism and was now enduring liver failure complicated by pneumonia and overwhelming infection. There is no reasonable or realistic probability of survival. The patient is on a respirator.
Around the bedside in the intensive care unit sits the patient’s long-time male partner, her adult children, stepchildren, and their partners, and there is the late arrival of the patient’s husband. The patient and this man separated years ago but were never formally divorced.
A family conference is held in a quiet room with the head of the patient’s primary intensive care unit service, nurses, chaplain, social workers, and resident physician, interns, and fellows (this is a teaching hospital).
The attending physician sets the stage of “where we are” and meticulously outlines the pros and the cons and the risks and the benefits of continuing the current management or deescalating the care. On some occasions pertinent aspects of the medical records are copied and shared with the family. There is total transparency of the patient’s care.
There is a clear consensus among the family that the patient would not want to be maintained in this state and would not want to have artificial means to sustain her (the respirator). Nevertheless, the patient’s spouse (who holds legal standing) vehemently protests that life should be maintained at all costs and that care should be continued.
No one in the room knows about any living wills, which designate who speaks for the patient, and no one can recall a conversation with the patient about what she might want done should she be in this dire situation.
Many of the individuals around the bedside barely know each other, and this becomes an environment of misinformation, mistrust, and hidden agendas about substantial financial and estate issues. This bitterness and contentious demeanor would’ve been unthinkable a generation ago. But today, such scenes have become increasingly common as ex-wives and ex-husbands, half siblings who never knew each other, long-time same-sex partners (surprise, who knew?), in-laws, out-laws show up at the bedside.
The “solution” can be elusive, complicated, but one step in a reasonable direction is to bring on board representatives of the hospice and palliative care community. That’s where I would often be called in.
We are trained specialists who understand the nuances and the dynamics of complex family relationships and can provide a GPS, a map to guide the family through difficult decisions like this. There is no shortcut, there is no second chance to get it right, but this is one reasonable approach in a volatile environment.
Every patient (if they can verbalize) and every family has the right to request the input of the end-of-life specialist. These individuals act as a translator to reframe and clarify the technical details of care so that the patient if they are conscious and the family members can make an informed decision about care.
These conversations can be exhausting, and to prolong the family meeting more than approximately forty-five minutes at one sitting becomes counterproductive. The hospice and palliative medicine team sets the stage, honors the questions and concerns of multiple family members, and helps them on a very difficult journey.
Of course, smart patients have dotted all the i’s and executed a living will spelling out their end-of-life wishes, and designated a healthcare surrogate to carry out those wishes well in advance of any bedside melodrama.
(Please scroll down to comment.)
Final Exit Network (FEN) is a network of dedicated professionals and caring, trained volunteers who support mentally competent adults as they navigate their end-of-life journey. Established in 2004, FEN seeks to educate qualified individuals in practical, peaceful ways to end their lives, offer a compassionate bedside presence and defend a person’s right to choose. For more information, go to www.finalexitnetwork.org.
Payments and donations are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Final Exit Network is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization.
That is all well and glib and pretty passive aggressive. Put it on the patient. The roots of this woman’s situation are in the culture which let it be her choice to be a life long alcoholic. PERIOD! How many medical facilities have an end of life professional on staff, or for that matter a palliative care department for patients in advanced old age without family to direct decision making choices. The system is broken and resists even acknowledging there is a problem. PHOOEY!
I agree with you: Phooey on this judgmental, antediluvian, moralistic screed. Even a person on a respirator can be given a “say” in what (s)he wants, or doesn’t want, by answering simple yes/no questions with hand squeezes or blinks, thus obviating any “dissertation” by the onlookers. The patient is the ONLY one with a right to decide.
Your case story is all too true and resonates with me. Asking for a Hospice/Palliative Medicine Team consult as an actual directive in one’s healthcare directive is a great first step in the beginning of one’s loss of capacity. I advocate for a clear statement early in one’s healthcare directive to get the HPM team at the bedside as soon as possible when serious illness or loss of agency occurs. Thank you for an excellent blog and an all too true story.
Yes, one layer of concern is when healthy individuals see no need for, make no time for and do not appoint someone as a proxy. Another–as in the case of a brother-in-law of mine–is to not make the time to update such document with consequences at his death. Yet another layer of concern–given the figures you cite and from questions directed to me–is the number of persons who say they have no living relatives or close enough friends to know whom to appoint as a health care proxy (which is what it is called in my state).
An excellent online interview of the importance of having a representative at the end of life is “Who will speak for you?” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyN_sCW6oZM
I was intrigued by the title of this article and encouraged by the title’s promise—a forthright conversation about death being the end of an individual’s ability to influence actions related to end-of-life planning. I expected the author to discuss the importance for every adult to think about, talk about, and act on putting in place the necessary legal and personal framework to ensure their final wishes for healthcare, medical intervention, distribution of assets, etc. are carried out when they can no longer speak for themselves, whether in illness, incapacity, or death.
But the author chose instead to interpret population statistics about married/unmarried women and childbirth rates from 1970 and 2020 to illustrate a single scenario: the idyllic 1970s family around the bedside of a 55-year-old “homemaker” (again, assumed to be female) vs. the complex blended family of today.
(I wrote this originally on May 20, saved it, but never posted it!)