Skip to main content

Man Dies after Cowardly Battle with Cancer



Full credit to the Onion for the title idea for this post, and thanks to James Mittelberger for the tip.  This is the second post to be loosely inspired by our recent trip to the Coalition for Compassionate Care of California annual meeting.

We've ranted before about the terminology used by medical professionals and the media to describe patients' struggle with serious illness: Senator Kennedy loses the battle with cancer,  war on cancer, fighting the disease, etc.

The reason the Onion story is so funny is that it reduces the war metaphor to the absurd.  If the normative approach is to fight the disease, then what does that say about those who accept the seriousness of their condition?  It's ridiculous to call someone who has come to terms with a poor prognosis, and chooses to focus on comfort rather than cure, a coward.  But that's what our societies normative standards for approaching serious illness would imply.

I'll conclude by quoting from Patrice Villars original post on this topic:
How many times have we all heard that someone is “a fighter”, “a survivor”? The rest of us must be wusses. How often do we hear of use terminology that is (inadvertently) offensive to an individual or others? If we see advance illness as a ‘battle’, then there IS necessarily a loser. The implication is that we have full control over our disease process and even our survival if we just have the right attitude. This is a dangerous concept and one we shouldn’t perpetuate. There is so much out in the world telling us what we are supposed to do so we don’t get sick, let alone die. And when we do get sick, we are subtlely shunned as having self-created our own suffering. (“Well, she had a type A personality, you know.” “She never ate properly. I told her to eat only organic macrobiotic foods.” Or, one of my personal favorites, “I guess he just gave up.”)
'Nuf said.

by: Alex Smith

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'm an incurable cancer patient and I do call anyone who does not try to know his enemy, the cancer, and use that knowledge to fight, someone who has no guts to live. Your article misassumes that such patients do not fight, because they want to have 'comfort' in the remaining life. What really happens is that most do not want to think. They truly believe the cancer will go away or not hurt, not cause pain, if they simply ignore it. No such luck. It actually is tougher to cope with if one ignores it or goes into placebo stuff like 'alternative medicine' or 'praying'. Reality does not let oen get away with such evasions. Of course I understand well that usually most are just living true to their character, so few suddebly change with cancer, but it happens. Those are teh true heroes. They beat their own weaknesses and became strong. I salute them.
Cancer is curable if it diagnosed in 1st and 2nd stage.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

Does “compassionate deception” have a place in palliative care?

by: Olivia Gamboa (@Liv_g_g)

There is broad consensus in the medical community that lying to patients is unethical.  However, in the care of patients with dementia, the moral clarity of this approach blurs.  In her recent New Yorker article, “The Memory House,”  Larissa MacFarquhar provides an excellent portrait of the common devices of artifice, omission and outright deception that are frequently deployed in the care of patients with dementia.  She furthermore explores the historical and ethical underpinnings of the various approaches used in disclosing (or not) information to patients living with dementia.

Ms. MacFarquhar introduces the idea of “compassionate deception,” or the concept that withholding truths, or even promoting outright falsehoods, is a reasonable and even ethical choice for those caring for patients with dementia.  To the extent that it helps a person with dementia feel happier and calmer, allowing them to believe in a gentler reality (one in which, say, their spo…