End-of-Life Care and the Theology of the Cross: Letting Go

A recent article by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker titled “Letting Go” discusses the […]

Todd Brewer / 8.9.10

A recent article by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker titled “Letting Go” discusses the benefits of end of life care. It is a fascinating intersection between modern medicine and we what we sometimes call a “Theology of the Cross”. [below emphasis mine]…. (ht PZ’s Podcast, episode one. If you haven’t yet already, subscribe to it – it is truly one-of-a-kind).

Like many people, I had believed that hospice care hastens death, because patients forgo hospital treatments and are allowed high-dose narcotics to combat pain. But studies suggest otherwise. In one, researchers followed 4,493 Medicare patients with either terminal cancer or congestive heart failure. They found no difference in survival time between hospice and non-hospice patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer. Curiously, hospice care seemed to extend survival for some patients; those with pancreatic cancer gained an average of three weeks, those with lung cancer gained six weeks, and those with congestive heart failure gained three months. The lesson seems almost Zen: you live longer only when you stop trying to live longer.

…Two-thirds of the terminal-cancer patients in the Coping with Cancer study reported having had no discussion with their doctors about their goals for end-of-life care, despite being, on average, just four months from death. But the third who did were far less likely to undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation or be put on a ventilator or end up in an intensive-care unit. Two-thirds enrolled in hospice. These patients suffered less, were physically more capable, and were better able, for a longer period, to interact with others. Moreover, six months after the patients died their family members were much less likely to experience persistent major depression. In other words, people who had substantive discussions with their doctor about their end-of-life preferences were far more likely to die at peace and in control of their situation, and to spare their family anguish.

…The simple view is that medicine exists to fight death and disease, and that is, of course, its most basic task. Death is the enemy. But the enemy has superior forces. Eventually, it wins. And, in a war that you cannot win, you don’t want a general who fights to the point of total annihilation. You don’t want Custer. You want Robert E. Lee, someone who knew how to fight for territory when he could and how to surrender when he couldn’t, someone who understood that the damage is greatest if all you do is fight to the bitter end.

subscribe to the Mockingbird newsletter

COMMENTS


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Letting Go – Paul F.M. Zahl

Paul Zahl / 2.2.03
subscribe to the Mockingbird newsletter

COMMENTS


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *