Last year, my 89-year old mother surprised me. For most of the time I’d reported on health care news, she’d urged me to pursue/embrace just about anything she read about in Prevention magazine or on talk radio regarding breakthroughs. But, in the face of a diagnosis with an aggressive stomach cancer, she turned down all intervention and died at home with 15 of us around her on and off over her final days. When it came to her own final days, she demonstrated a calm, rational acceptance; none of the pursue-everything mentality that she’d shown so much interest in from decades of media messages.
Journalist Katy Butler had an essay in the Wall Street Journal the other day, “The Ultimate End-of-Life Plan: How one woman fought the medical establishment and avoided what most Americans fear: prolonged, plugged-in suffering.” The article is adapted from her book, “Knocking on Heaven’s Door: The Path to a Better Way of Death.” Just one excerpt:
“Why don’t we die the way we say we want to die? In part because we say we want good deaths but act as if we won’t die at all. In part because advanced lifesaving technologies have erased the once-bright line between saving a life and prolonging a dying. In part because saying “Just shoot me” is not a plan. Above all, we’ve forgotten what our ancestors knew: that preparing for a “good death” is not a quickie process to save for the panicked ambulance ride to the emergency room. The decisions we make and refuse to make long before we die help determine our pathway to the final reckoning. In the movie “Little Big Man,” the Indian chief Old Lodge Skins says, as he goes into battle, “Today is a good day to die.” My mother lived the last six months of her life that way, and it allowed her to claim a version of the good death our ancestors prized.”
I haven’t read the book yet, but based on what we saw this week in the Wall Street Journal and, earlier, in the New York Times – “What Broke My Father’s Heart” – focusing mostly on her father’s stroke, this will be a good one to add to the Fall reading list.
————————
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Many of the principles that we promoted to journalists and to the general public from 2006-18 are embodied in this terrific project based in Oslo. https://t.co/KO1o9JTYK7
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like