Skip to main content

Q&A with Jeff Gordon - Author of "A Death Prolonged"



Many terminal patients linger through their final months with a miserable quality of life and too often with extreme levels of suffering. Today’s high-tech medical care can sustain technical life – the beating heart – but utterly fails to restore real quality of life for many. The result: Death Prolonged. 
This is the introduction from Dr. Jeff Gordon’s new book, A Death Prolonged.  Dr. Gordon's agenda is pretty clear in this book - to get people to talk about end-of-life prefereneces. He uses a fictional account of a young physician who learns that high cost end-of-life care may not be synonymous with high quality care.  She also learns that in a system with limited resoureces, high cost interventions in terminally ill patients are likely to shift resources away from cheaper preventive care. 

After reading this book I thought it would be a good idea to ask Dr. Gordon a couple questions about how he decided to approach this subject in his novel.  Here are four of the answers he gave me: 

Q. What motivated you to write this book? 

A. As a hopitalist, I witness two related tragedies every day: people suffer needlessly at the end of their lives and we waste precious health care dollars on futile care. Unfortunately, the problem is growing, as America ages. We could prevent both tragedies if physicians and patients would discuss matters in advance. People need the truth about EOL care because most are misinformed. That’s because most people get their information from television, and the TV fantasy world has created a level of ignorance that is hard to exaggerate. The dollar and human costs of this gross misinformation are astronomical. This book brings the public into the hospital to learn the facts and empower them to make informed decisions about EOL care. In the end, I hope they will have intelligent and productive discussions with their family and physicians.

Q. One lesson I learned during this last summer’s healthcare reform debate is that one should be very careful mentioning improving end-of-life care anywhere near the words cost savings, otherwise it will be labeled as rationing or worse, “pulling the plug on granny”. Your books central premise is that simple interventions, like advance directive discussions, have the potential to both save money and relieve suffering. Are you concerned that you are too closely connecting these issues?

A. My greater concern is that we will try to sugar-coat the truth. Most Americans don’t make informed end-of-life decisions and end up receiving care that prolongs their suffering and consumes valuable resources. We must assert this truth frequently and to many audiences. I found that the “death panel” talks from last summer opened doors for meaningful discussions and allowed me to enlighten more people with the facts. We should attack ignorance with facts and thoughtful dialogue. “Spin doctors” underestimate the intellect of the American people. Let’s just tell the truth in a clear, sensitive, and unapologetic way, and frame end-of-life discussion in terms of informed consent: the risks, benefits, and alternatives. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams"

Q. You use a fictional story to lay out your arguments against costly care that only prolongs dying and suffering in terminally ill patients. Why not just describe real events that you have seen in the hospital?

A.  Fiction is powerful and has been extremely influential in many social and ideological struggles. George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm shaped American understanding of communism. Ayn Rand effectively conveyed her influential existentialist views through Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. When Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, he said, “So you’re the little woman who started this great war.” We need to attack EOL issues from every possible angle and some people will embrace and feel the truth through fiction, like this, in ways that they can’t through non-fiction.

Q. You recommend several ways to improve documentation for end-of-life decisions by patients and families? One notable exception is the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Paradigm program. What role do you think POLST forms have in improving end-of-life care?

A. Unfortunately, we do not use POLST forms in Ohio. The forms are simple, unlike the DNR forms we use. With POLST, patients can make their wishes explicit and clear. I wish I’d included a discussion on the POLST paradigm in the book.

Comments

Brad Stuart said…
Nice interview, and refreshing commentary on the need to have an open public discussion about the costs (emotional as well as financial) of aggressive, expensive treatment near the end of life. Hospitalists like Jeff Gordon are on the front lines of this struggle. In our system, hospitalists and PC docs are linking arms (and information systems) to reduce unwanted "care" and costs. Fiction like this can indeed make life easier for everyone as they struggle to "embrace and feel the truth." Real-life stories, on the other hand, can be useful too, even if (or just because) they sometimes make a few people squirm.
Patrice Villars said…
Thanks for the heads up on what sounds like an important book. I love the idea of using fiction to help the general public think differently about health care issues. I imagine non-fiction on this subject tends to be read mostly by the choir. My fantasy - that this fictional account and/or others could have as much impact on the revaluing of health care costs/interventions v. human costs in this country as Uncle Tom's Cabin did for the rethinking of slavery.
Dan Matlock said…
I really like the use of the blog for short interviews like this. I love his answer on the value of fiction.

The potential cost savings from better end-of-life care is such a difficult discussion to have. Even if you mean it well, people will assume you are "trying to kill granny." I think the best way to talk about it is to promote high quality end-of-life care and let the cost savings happen on their own as a side effect of good patient-centered end-of-life care. It should always be an afterthought.
Anonymous said…
The discussion on end of life care needs to start in the physicians office before a crisis is reached. Then the discussion needs to carry over into the hospital and the bottom line is that we have to stop providing and spending money on care that is futile and helps no one.

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of Palliative Care: A Podcast with Diane Meier

There are few names more closely associated with palliative care than Diane Meier.  She is an international leader of palliative care, a MacArthur "genius" awardee, and amongst many other leadership roles, the CEO of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC).  We were lucky enough to snag Diane for our podcast to talk about everything we always wanted to ask her, including:
What keeps her up at night?Does palliative care need a national strategy and if so why and what would it look like?The history of CAPC and the leadership centersAdvice that she has for graduating fellows who want to continue to move palliative care forward as they start their new careersWhat she imagines palliative care will look like in 10 or 15 years?What is the biggest threat facing palliative care? So take a listen and if you want to dive a little deeper, here are two articles that we discussed during the podcast:
A National Strategy For Palliative Care. Health Affairs 2017Palliative Care Leadership…

Elderhood: Podcast with Louise Aronson

In this week's podcast we talk with Louise Aronson MD, MFA, Professor of Geriatrics at UCSF about her new book Elderhood, available for purchase now for delivery on the release date June 11th.

We are one of the first to interview Louise, as she has interviews scheduled with other lesser media outlets to follow (CBS This Morning and Fresh Air with Terry...somebody).

This book is tremendously rich, covering a history of aging/geriatrics, Louise's own journey as a geriatrician facing burnout, aging and death of family of Louise's members, insightful stories of patients, and more.

We focus therefore on the 3 main things we think our listeners and readers will be interested in.

First - why the word "Elder" and "Elderhood" when JAGS/AGS and others recently decided that the preferred terminology was "older adult"?

Second - Robert Butler coined the term ageism in 1969 - where do we see ageism in contemporary writing/thinking?  We focus on Louise's…

Psychedelics: Podcast with Ira Byock

In this week's podcast, we talk with Dr. Ira Byock, a leading palliative care physician, author, and public advocate for improving care through the end of life.

Ira Byock wrote a provocative and compelling paper in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management titled, "Taking Psychedelics Seriously."

In this podcast we challenge Ira Byock about the use of psychedelics for patients with serious and life-limiting illness.   Guest host Josh Biddle (UCSF Palliative care fellow) asks, "Should clinicians who prescribe psychedelics try them first to understand what their patient's are going through?" The answer is "yes" -- read or listen on for more!

While you're reading, I'll just go over and lick this toad.

-@AlexSmithMD





You can also find us on Youtube!



Listen to GeriPal Podcasts on:
iTunes Google Play MusicSoundcloudStitcher
Transcript
Eric: Welcome to the GeriPal Podcast. This is Eric Widera.

Alex: This is Alex Smith.

Eric: Alex, I spy someone in our …