Gawande on hospice

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I think this was the most interesting part of the article:
In late 2004, executives at Aetna, the insurance company, started an experiment. They knew that only a small percentage of the terminally ill ever halted efforts at curative treatment and enrolled in hospice, and that, when they did, it was usually not until the very end. So Aetna decided to let a group of policyholders with a life expectancy of less than a year receive hospice services without forgoing other treatments. A patient like Sara Monopoli could continue to try chemotherapy and radiation, and go to the hospital when she wished—but also have a hospice team at home focussing on what she needed for the best possible life now and for that morning when she might wake up unable to breathe. A two-year study of this "concurrent care" program found that enrolled patients were much more likely to use hospice: the figure leaped from twenty-six per cent to seventy per cent. That was no surprise, since they weren't forced to give up anything. The surprising result was that they did give up things. They visited the emergency room almost half as often as the control patients did. Their use of hospitals and I.C.U.s dropped by more than two-thirds. Over-all costs fell by almost a quarter.

I do believe in palliative care and hospice, but I also don't blame someone like the tragic young mom in that story for wanting to continue to try treatments even if they are fully aware that the chances of a cure are very low. I know the grim realities of metastatic cancer as well as anyone, but I'd probably choose to push for more treatment if I were stricken as a young person who was desperate to see my child grow up. For some, dying in peace means knowing you did everything you possibly could to "fight" (and some people choose this knowing that the treatment for terminal cancer can be worse than the disease itself - in fact my experience has been there are quite a few people out there who envision chemotherapy as being even worse than it really is because they recall how hard it was for older relatives who were treated years ago before effective anti-emetics and such).

For these reasons, I do think it would probably be most humane if we could move from "cure vs. hospice" as a dichotomy. Instead of making comfort a choice that people have to make only after they've exhausted all other options or have "given up" (in the perception of some), it would be nice to be able to converse about comfort from the get-go.
 
Top