Full Text
Chapter 3. Patient and Family Decisions about Life-Extension and Death
Felicia Nimue Ackerman
Subject
Medicine
Philosophy
»
Ethics
Key-Topics
death, family
DOI: 10.1111/b.9781405125840.2006.00004.x
Extract
“Well,” said the good man, “thou were better to be counselled.” ( Malory, 1969 , 2, p. 309) This is for my grandmother, Carolyn Colby. “Terminal cancer,” the doctor said. His eyes filled with tears. “I'll get you the best hospice care in Boston.” He put his arm around her. My grandmother's eyes were cloudy but dry. She said, “I'm 84, I've had a good life, so I don't want to die. I want experimental treatment.” “That would ruin the time you've got left,” the doctor said. My grandmother said, “I'll risk it,” and she did And died of a stroke On her 93rd birthday. ( Ackerman, 2006 ) Death is said to be a taboo subject in America, but if this claim were true, it could hardly be so hackneyed in the American popular media. Such media offer the following conventional wisdom about death and dying. Terminal patients are kept alive far too long through last-ditch, high-tech procedures. This serves only to prolong dying. It harms patients, who die in needless pain, with no quality of life and robbed of their dignity. It harms patients' families both emotionally and financially. It harms society by squandering resources on futile treatment. The solution is to recognize that “[h]umane care costs less than high-tech care and is what patients want and need” ( Spiegel, 1994 ) and that hospice is “the most effective and least expensive route to a dignified death” ( Shavelson, 1996 ). After all, “few ... log in or subscribe to read full text
Log In
You are not currently logged-in to Blackwell Reference Online
If your institution has a subscription, you can log in here: