I continued to listen as he explained his feelings and fears. He didn’t appear significantly depressed, but I needed to check. “Larry, do you feel sad or hopeless?”
He replied, “No, just mad as hell that I can’t get better.”
I felt that Larry had very natural “situational depression” from his illness and I suggested a low dose antidepressant, but he refused—perhaps because of the medication’s unpleasant side effects, perhaps because he did not think he was particularly despondent.
So we discussed options for what would now be called aggressive palliative care. “Larry, look I’m not Dr. Kevorkian, but there are options. Other than the medications and oxygen you are using to help you breathe, the best drug at the end is morphine. This drug takes away the suffocating feeling, treats any pain, sedates you, and produces euphoria.”
“Well, Doc, that’s what I want.”
“Ok, but there’s a catch. Morphine would likely speed up your death by several hours — or even days. If your aim is to relieve suffering, drugs like morphine will work. But they can hasten death.”
Larry was resolute. “Look, I just want to die comfortably,” he said. “I know I’m dying so what’s a few less hours or days?”
Later, when recounting our discussion to a few of my colleagues, I got a mixed response. One said, “There are situations you just can’t jump into. This is too close to assisted suicide.”
But another felt patients should have the right to ask for relief from suffering. “After all, since you can’t cure him you are at least obligated to relieve his intolerable symptoms.”
A religious scholar friend had a broad view. “Your patient is suffering, and you have tools to help him. I don’t think it’s wise to abandon him in his time of need. He’ll be transitioning from this life to the next soon enough. Why extend his needless suffering?”
I tentatively agreed to comply with Larry’s wishes whenever his next inevitable flare-up occurred. But I insisted that he try to get buy-in from his two sons, one an attorney and the other a veterinarian. A week later I conferred with Larry and his sons who agreed with their dad’s plan. And then we waited.
Seattle gets dark very early during the Christmas season, and this is when my pulmonary practice always seemed busiest. Pneumonias were at a peak. New lung cancers were constantly showing up. The sad stories were relentless. Every day, my anger at tobacco companies flared hotter. But my spirits were buoyed by a significant skirmish we’d recently won. It was 1983, and smoking finally had been banned at my hospital. Prior to that, doctors puffed on cigarettes while making their rounds, and incredible as it sounds today, families smoked in patient rooms.
At dinner two days before Christmas, I got a phone call at home from the ER doctor. Larry had been admitted, and they were preparing to put him in the ICU. I said, “I’m not sure he wants to go there. Please hold him in the ER, and I’ll come see him.”
At his bedside shortly thereafter, I could see that Larry looked awful. “Remember what you promised,” he rasped, his piercing eyes intent as ever.
I reviewed our plan aloud, and Larry nodded. Normally he would have gone to intensive care, but we would bypass that and admit him directly to a medical unit with a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order.
I pulled the nurses aside and explained the situation. Fortunately, they were senior caregivers, models of caring and competence. They had seen too many cases of CPR used on terminal patients—a violent and jarring experience for all—and they were relieved to be free of that obligation. “Doctor, I’m glad you don’t view death as a failure in this situation,” one said. God bless nurses. They were looking after me!
The morphine drip was started with small supplements as needed. Larry’s sons were there. Larry himself seemed peaceful, and on my drive home I said a silent prayer. I slept well that night. Larry passed from this world at 3:14 AM.
I offer this story as a way into discussing the ethics of offering palliative treatments that likely hasten death. Key to this question is intent.[i] In 1983, when I was caring for Larry, there were no clear guidelines so I had to rely on my own training, intuition, and personal comfort zone. And though various groups have published guidelines in recent years,[ii] they are still not completely clear.
What we gave Larry is now called “palliative sedation,” a term aimed at emphasizing the physician’s intent to ease suffering, rather than intentionally cause a patient’s death. This kind of sedation differs from assisted suicide precisely because of that one word, intent. This is called the double effect. The intent is to relieve pain even if a secondary effect is to hasten death. Some people deride this distinction as splitting hairs. But in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court gave strong support for this principle in its deliberations about the constitutionality of medical aid in dying.[iii] The thinking in bioethics continues to evolve on this topic.[iv]
I was deeply touched by the letter of thanks from Larry’s two sons that came a few weeks after his death. “Dad would love to shake your hand if he could,” they wrote. “He died the way he wanted to. Thanks and God bless.”
Larry’s story is one of many that I share in this book. His dying went well, but all too often our wishes around end-of-life arrangements aren’t clear. Worse, sometimes they are disregarded. What if I had not been available? Would my colleagues have done the same? What if Larry’s sons had not agreed? What if Larry himself had not so bravely and directly helped to guide his own dying?
We only die once—hopefully. Modern medical technology can prolong death, maybe even reverse its tide temporarily. But when we’re talking about a person’s final breath, there is only one. Generally, dying isn’t something we can practice, and it’s not something we discuss much. Most people actively try to avoid any thought of it. But dying will happen. As noted by humorists at The Onion,[v] the world death rate is holding steady at 100%.
Today, we mostly understand death as something happening to others while we deal with the more immediate cares of our lives. But in eras past, death was a common companion, always lurking around the corner. It has touched the hearts of many writers: Kipling spoke to the horrors of war in A Death Bed; Walt Whitman expressed his grief over the death of President Lincoln in O Captain! My Captain!; and John Donne felt that “We wake eternally and death shall be no more” in Death, Be Not Proud. Indeed, disease and death often are central features in literature, opera, art, and religious thought. In the not too distant past, tuberculosis, a common cause of death, inspired great novels and operas—Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain and Puccini’s La Boehme, forexample. Unfortunately, TB continues to take more than one million lives annually in developing nations.
Until the COVID-19 pandemic, heart disease and cancer were the leading causes of death in developed countries. But in early 2020, the world was suddenly turned upside down. No one, of any age, was immune to a new strain of coronavirus that originated in China. It engendered a worldwide panic unknown since the influenza epidemic of 1918, and quickly became a leading cause of death in America. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many to confront death and its painful losses more suddenly than they had anticipated, particularly among Black and Latinx communities. However, most of us won’t die from the ravages of COVID-19. We are much more likely to die of a chronic illness in our old age.
Aging itself is loss. We experience it as a prelude to death. Our muscles weaken along with our bones, vision and hearing. We become forgetful. We lose balance, and we worry. We see friends pass away, attend memorials, and begin to wonder about our own. Medical appointments fill our schedules. Aging is supposed to bring wisdom. But in the age of social media—where attention spans are shorter and the pace of life exponentially faster—it feels more difficult than ever to cope with death creeping closer to our front door.
Shakespeare wrote eloquently about aging and loss in his 73rd sonnet.
That time of year thou mayst in me behold
When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang
Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,
Bare ruin’d choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.
In me thou seest the twilight of such day
As after sunset fadeth in the west,
Which by and by black night doth take away,
Death’s second self, that seals up all in rest.
In me thou see’st the glowing of such fire
That on the ashes of his youth doth lie,
As the death-bed whereon it must expire
Consumed with that which it was nourish’d by.
This thou perceivest, which makes thy love more strong,
To love that well which thou must leave ere long.
In grade school, as a class assignment, I chose this sonnet to memorize, but didn’t understand the metaphors until much later. “To love that well which thou must leave ere long.” This is the basis of pre-grief that affects us often as we face aspects of our aging, and often failing bodies.
Must approaching old age invariably be depressing? Not at all. Recent studies of aging and loss offer hope for a better quality of life, even as we age. Eric Larson’s book, Enlightened Aging: Building Resilience for a Long, Active Life, offers ways to enhance wellbeing as we age. Among them: proactively managing our health; focusing on relationships and ways to be useful; and building up our personal reservoirs of mental, physical, and social health.
But can we expand beyond Larson’s research on enlightened aging? What more can we say about death itself? Sherwin B. Nuland’s How We Die: Reflections on Life’s Final Chapter addresses dying from his vantage point as a surgeon and historian. Death may be dignified, he writes, but it often involves some degree of physical and emotional suffering. “The art of dying is the art of living,” he says. “The honesty and grace of the years of life that are ending is the real measure of how we die.”[vi]
In this book I present my own stories, lessons learned from patients like Larry and many others who taught me about dying. My medical career began in an era when little could be done for two of our greatest killers—heart disease and cancer. There were no ventilators. I often saw patients die without the benefit of hospice care. ICUs and CCUs had not yet evolved. But with amazing rapidity, medical science has brought us life-saving advances such as hemodialysis and organ transplants. This progress is both marvelous and problematic, as technology continually outpaces our ability to thoughtfully and ethically bring it to the bedside. When should life-prolonging advances be used? How do we decide to whom to allocate these tools when resources are scarce or prohibitively expensive?
My stories are about hopes and fears common to us all. They are about the ethical dilemmas I’ve encountered and moments that have humbled me. They address advance care planning, medical aid-in-dying, conflicts, medical mistakes, modern hospice, and palliative care. They can be read in the order presented or topically, as relevant to each person’s immediate questions and concerns. In the last section, I share my thoughts about resilience and leaving a legacy to our loved ones.
As I wrote about these patients and my experiences with them, memories surged to the surface of my thoughts, often bringing up deeply rooted feelings of sadness and joy, even fear. Did I do the right thing? Was I losing empathy? I hope as you read these stories that they encourage you to talk to your loved ones about your own hopes and fears. My greatest wish is to generate some much needed conversation about the inevitable and the choices we must consider. There is no easy way to put it: to ensure that our autonomy is respected, each of us must choose our path at the end.
[i] Krakauer E, Penson RT, Truog RD, et al. Sedation for intractable distress of a dying patient: acute palliative care and the principle of double effect. Oncologist. 2000; 5:53–62.
[ii] An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Policy Statement: Palliative Care for Patients with Respiratory Diseases and Critical Illnesses. AJRCCM. 2008; 8:912-927.
[iii] 13Vacco v Quill, 117 S. Ct 2293(1997).
[iv] Beauchamp TL, The Right to Die as the Triumph of Autonomy. J Med Philos. 2006; 31(6):643-654
[v] https://www.theonion.com/world-death-rate-holding-steady-at-100-percent-1819564171
[vi] Sherwin B. Nuland, How We Die: Reflections on Life’s Final Chapter (Random House, Inc.; New York, 1994)