End-of-Life Choice, Palliative Care and Counseling

All News

Apr 30, 2013Physicians debate whether patients need to know they’re dying

By Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times
April 25, 2013

In the days when American physicians dispensed oracular commands and their judgments were rarely questioned, a doctor could take it upon himself with few ethical qualms to keep from a patient the bad news of a terminal diagnosis.

For better or worse, those days may be well behind us. But physicians have not ceased debating one of the stickiest and most universal ethical quandaries of medical practice: How, when and why does one inform a patient that he or she is dying? The latest evidence of that ongoing discussion was published Wednesday in the British Medical Journal.

The latest question in the journal’s “Head to Head” feature, “Do patients need to know they are terminally ill?,” essentially pits one side’s reasonable arguments that “we’re all dying” and “you never really know when and of what a patient will die” against another side’s equally compelling assertions that “knowledge allows better decisions” and “a patient can still have hope — to live to see a daughter married or achieve a cherished goal or to die a peaceful death at home.”

Either way, the two sides in BMJ’s debate appear to converge on one key rule: Patients whose lives will probably be limited or ended by a disease deserve a forthright explanation of what treatment is available and what it probably would, and would not, accomplish if undertaken. Given that this is a matter of consensus, the difference seems to come down to how forcefully a doctor should press the point when a patient seems unwilling to face the realities of his or her diagnosis.

The debate is a sign of the times. The authors on both sides of the BMJ debate — yes, a patient needs to know he is terminally ill, and, no, she does not — are palliative care specialists: Often flanked by social workers and nurses and pastoral caregivers, these physicians work to maximize the “quality of life” of seriously ill patients. As this new medical specialty gains a foothold in hospitals throughout the United States, it has brought a new focus on the value of caring for, not curing, patients with life-limiting chronic illnesses (including diagnoses such as cancer, emphysema, heart failure and complicated diabetes).

Because many in palliative care come from the hospice movement or are affiliated with hospice as well, these specialists tend to be on good terms with the reality that all patients eventually die. But they also know that many patients may have a good deal of life left to live. Hence, the debate over telling patients they are terminally ill.

Many palliative care doctors are firmly convinced that when patients know that cure is no longer possible, they will generally choose to forgo costly and invasive tests and procedures, make the best of the time they have left and eventually die in the peace and comfort of their homes, which is what most Americans at least say they want. By this logic, ensuring the patient knows she has a terminal illness is the first step in seeing that her wishes will be honored and the quality of her life remaining will be maximized.

“Knowledge is power,” write Drs. Emily Collis and Katherine E. Sleeman, both palliative care specialists in Britain’s National Health System.

But other palliative care physicians focus on the surprising finding that “terminal” patients actually live longer, on average, when they get palliative care, possibly because they get off the risky and intensive “curative treatment” treadmill and focus on comfort and quality of life. By this logic, it may be more important to tend to a patient’s comfort than to jam down her throat false certainties about the time or cause of her eventual death.

“Does telling someone that they are terminally ill mean telling the how long they have to live? (hard to know for any individual),” writes Dr. Leslie J. Blackhall, a palliative care specialist at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. “Does it mean telling them that they will eventually die (true for all of us)? Does it mean telling them there is ‘nothing we can do’ (never true)?” Blackhall writes. And at exactly what point in a protracted illness for which there is little prospect of a cure does a physician declare a patient “terminal,” she wonders.

It may surprise readers to know that in Britain’s healthcare system, the physicians’ regulatory body tells doctors that “information should be withheld from terminally ill patients only if it is thought that giving information will cause serious harm, specified as ‘more than becoming upset.’”

To read more about palliative care, check out “The Promise and Pitfalls of Palliative Care.” And to read a recent Times article about how Americans die, check out “Quiet Deaths Don’t Come Easy.”

Apr 29, 2013Taking on the TEDMED Challenge

During the 2013 TEDMED conference, Compassion & Choices President Barbara Coombs Lee shared her insights on 20 Great Challenges of Health and Medicine with five other multidisciplinary thought leaders to discuss “Coming to Grips with End-of-Life Care.” The program’s mission was to approach from diverse perspectives the challenge: How should we help people manage end-of-life care choices to maximize individual well-being and minimize social cost? The team explored how the narrative framework of storytelling could help provide a deeper understanding of the issue. Barbara shared the following personal story:

While I did not understand its importance at the time, a lesson from one of my first patients greatly influenced my relationship to the mystery. My first job after nursing school was as charge nurse on a ward of a busy New York hospital. There I met Richard, two years younger than I, and dying of leukemia. His parents were heartbroken and estranged from their son. They rarely entered his hospital room, instead spending days and nights in the solarium at the end of the hall. More

Apr 29, 2013Game Changer

Dr. Eric Kress vividly remembers the two patients who changed his mind. Kress is a family physician in Missoula, Montana, and for many years medical director at Hospice of Missoula. He was the one patients looked to for advice at the end of life. Most of the time, quality hospice care would guide them through their dying process in a comfortable fashion. But hospice care is not the answer for every patient.

Shortly after the Montana Supreme Court’s Baxter decision clarified state public policy did not prohibit aid in dying, Kress got a visit from the first patient, a man terminally ill with advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. This patient — a “rugged individualist,” Kress says — asked for an aid-in-dying prescription, but the court decision was new, and Kress was hesitant. The memory of this man’s reaction haunted Kress.

“He scolded me and told me I was a coward. He couldn’t pound the table,” Kress says. “But emotionally, with his eyes, he was pounding the table.”

Kress remembers the sleepless nights he spent pondering the questions the man provoked: “What kind of man or doctor am I? Am I just going to sit idly by watching a proud man suffer and die, or am I going to be brave and do what it takes to help people at the end of life?” More

Apr 29, 2013Big Win in the Big Sky State

After an intense legislative session battling House Bill 505, otherwise known as “The Doctor Imprisonment Act,” the Montana Senate struck down this dangerous measure, which would have obliterated citizens’ right to access aid in dying and criminalized doctors who provide it. HB 505 fizzled 27-23 on April 15 after its proponents used procedural maneuvers to bring it to the full Senate.

The 2009 state Supreme Court ruling in Compassion & Choices’ landmark Baxter v. Montana case effectively made Montana the third state to affirmatively allow aid in dying. Immediately following the court’s ruling, opponents of aid in dying began working to undo the landmark decision and unravel the right of terminally ill Montanans to die with dignity on their own terms.

Compassion & Choices Montana launched an aggressive campaign to preserve the Baxter ruling and thwart HB505. Our outstanding Montana team rallied dedicated local activists to bombard newspapers with letters to the editor, call their legislators and travel through miles of snow to testify at crucial hearings. This led legislators from both sides of the aisle to stand up for what the majority of their constituents want. A poll that Compassion & Choices commissioned indicated 69% of Montanans support aid in dying and 73% opposed imprisoning doctors for providing it. More

Apr 24, 2013New Poll: New Jersey Voters Overwhelmingly Support Death With Dignity

by Compassion & Choices staff
April 24, 2013

Contact: Timothy White, (201) 465-8038, twhite@beckermanpr.com

Support strong among divergent interest groups; issue transcends party lines and religion

(Trenton, NJ) – A recent public opinion survey conducted by Momentum Analysis, a public opinion research firm based in Washington, D.C., shows strong support among New Jersey voters for death with dignity both as a personal option and as legislation.

Nearly two-thirds (63%) support allowing mentally competent, terminally ill adults with six months or less to live to receive a prescription for medication to end their suffering. Support is very deep, with nearly half (49%) strongly in favor of supporting death with dignity. Majorities across party lines and religions support death with dignity.

“This poll shows that opinions about death with dignity among New Jersey voters are for the most part consistent with public opinions in other states throughout the country,” said Mark Dann, New Jersey Campaign Manager for Compassion & Choices. “Regardless of race, religion, political affiliations or socio-economic conditions, people in New Jersey value their right to have end-of-life choices and to preserve their dignity in the instances of terminal illness,” Dann added.

Nearly two-thirds of New Jersey voters (65%) want the legal option for a peaceful death if they are terminally ill; far fewer report they would not want this option (25%). Majorities across party, racial, regional, gender, socio-economic status and other groupings report they want to have this option for a measure of control in their own life.

“It’s not everyday you see an issue with such widespread support across demographic groups,” said Margie Omero, President of Momentum Analysis, the firm that conducted the survey. “Voters don’t just support death with dignity legislation, but as an option for themselves personally. That’s very powerful.”

“A good death is not a failure of medical care.  It is a goal that probably most of us will strive to achieve when the time comes,” said Dr. Stacey Bachrach of Flemington, NJ. “Legislative measures offering comprehensive end-of-life options will help make this goal a reality for more New Jerseyans.”

Support for death with dignity is favorable among New Jersey voters who also support Pope Francis (51%), among those who support the Right to Life Movement (46%) and among those who support Governor Christie (67%).

The Death with Dignity Act (Assembly Bill No. 3328 and Senate Bill No. 2259) was introduced in New Jersey in the fall of 2012. In February 2013, the Assembly Health Committee released the bill with a favorable 7-2-2 vote.

This poll results are based on a survey of 601 likely November 2013 voters in New Jersey. The survey, commissioned by the national non-profit Compassion & Choices, was conducted by telephone during March 20-24, 2013. Voters from the state voter file with a history of voting in odd-year elections were contacted and further screened to include only likely voters. The margin of error for the sample overall is +/-4.1 percentage points.