A family member in the hospital with a terminal illness brings more conflicting emotion, IMO, than being the patient. I can only hope that the pain for everyone was as short and "easy" as possible.
Thanks. My older sister went through a 19-hour brain surgery in September and she can still outwalk me. My father died young at 88, and my mom and her cousins are all in the 90s -- and fiesty as ever. I come from a tough family.
Open heart surgery is no big deal today. Twenty years ago -- well, it was pretty dicey. Same for renal failure. Dialysis was unheard of then for someone in his or her 60s. Now there are dialysis centers on every corner. In February I'll start dialysis at home. Modern medicine is incredible. I love chewing the medical fat with surgeons and nurses. My biggest complaint is that my chest rip is scarcely noticeable -- certainly nothing to show off.:grin:
How so? They still crack your chest open right? I know someone who had it in '97 and it was no joyride.
You do realize that 1997 (14/15 years ago) -- is closer to 20 years ago (1991/92) than it is to 2012.
I was so ready to super-rep you until you added the 'sound mind' caveat. Most of the people that need this service, which should be a right for every single human being - no questions asked, are the mentally ill. It is a failure of our species' progress thus far that mental illness is not only not treated as seriously as physical illness (when there is virtually no separation between the mind and body) but is considered a disqualifier for virtually everything, both in life and death. A person with a painful, degenerative disease has a painful, degenerative disease. Whether that disease has its origin in the brain or, for example, the liver or kidneys or heart, does not in any way diminish the fact that both are painful and degenerative.
Still crack your chest open, still run you on bypass for 90 minutes, still takes 1+ day in the ICU post operatively, and the complications are unchanged. Open heart surgery sucks.
Yes I realize this. I was just pointing this out That doesn't sound like my kinda way to spend a Tuesday. Azadre didn't even mention having a tube shoved down your throat and waking up with your hands tied down because that goes along with being on bypass. I think I just changed my New Years resolution.
Thanks Bob. I know I sort-of brought it upon myself by adding my original comments...I guess for me it was less about the modus operandi of medical benefit rationing and more about the terminology and the crux of what really defines "good treatment". I don't think these procedures and this obsession with "doing all you can" really is good treatment, and I don't think we should misconstrue a doctor, as in the article, giving "reasonable options" with "limiting care". A similar mindset should be followed for insurance - although I think this idea does make me uncomfortable inasmuch as we still stupidly have for-profit healthcare in this country.
My father had bypass surgery back in the early/mid 1970's, when it was still a relatively new procedure. It was pure hell. He had the old Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance through his university that paid for any doctor you could get, with an annual cap on expenses, so his surgeon was Dr. Denton Cooley, a very famous heart surgeon who studied under Michael DeBakey and worked with him creating the early artificial hearts and many other innovations. It got him another ten years. This was before the statins that revolutionized the treatment of high lipid levels, and why I am still around. I inherited his genetic disorder that essentially didn't process fat in the blood like your body is supposed to. My cholesterol was over 600, and my triglycerides were over 1200. Anyone familiar with normal lipid numbers would know that my numbers before taking statins were astonishingly bad. Lipitor and some supplements have both at normal levels. Medical science can't cure everything we'd like, but they've made great strides. I have known people pushing 80 years old who have had successful bypass surgery. That's remarkable.
That article had me start thinking what "do no harm" really could mean if we think about human health more comprehensively than numeric vital signs. As in, okay, they've stabilized my blood pressure and breathing rate, but I have a tube down my throat, am in and out of consciousness, am surrounded by strangers, and would scream, if I could "get me the hell out of here!" So there is harm done to someone's life and their sense of well-being even as you fight for certain numeric vital signs and the ever-diminishing chances that a person can recover to normal activity. Not easy territory but I hope we can all talk about it separate from our completely broken politics. (I know, when pigs fly.)
One issue Ron Paul is right about. Being a HR supporter, it amazes me how many people don't realize they're going to die. I started a thread on what is actually worth it back then.
