PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9347706

Reflections on death and dying.

Abstract

Americans simultaneously worry about dying and about being tethered to machines that keep them alive beyond a point when life has any meaning. People living with terminal illness often feel isolated from life around them and a burden on those they love; they feel uncertain that their deaths will be relatively free of pain and suffering and that their dignity will be compromised as little as possible. These failings can be remedied. Traditional hospice care and integrating palliative care into the general medical setting are important, but they cannot alone occasion a better dying. The medical community must re-imagine dying and reflect about ways to transform image into reality in practice and in training colleagues and successors. Physicians and others know how to provide care and even improve living when cure is unlikely; the harder task is to respect such care as profoundly as curing. The exigencies of modern medicine, where time is a budgetable commodity, makes caring well for dying patients difficult. Medicine cannot have hegemony over dying and cannot singularly offer people a better death, but it cannot absent itself either. The almost single-minded focus on decision making that has infused conversations about dying and death may divert attention from the attentiveness and loving relationships that are as vital as life's end as at its beginning. Medicine has "colonized" death: It has transformed it into a place where progress in staving it off may appear to be unlimited, and thus it encourages forgetting that death is part of the human condition. The task before medicine, and academic medicine in particular, is to transform death back into a human scale. With all that is available to delay death--but not to make it optional--the most important task is to recover humbleness before an awesome moment and be with the patient, one human being to another, knowing that dying is not always open to solutions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Holstein. 1997. Reflections on death and dying.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9347706/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

"Not-for-resuscitation" orders in Australian public hospitals: policies, standardised order forms and patient information leaflets.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and content of policies, standardised order forms (SOFs) and patient information leaflets (PILs) pertaining to "not-for-resuscitation" (NFR) orders in Australian public hospitals. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional postal survey conducted across Australia from August to December 2005, using a one-page questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Directors of Medical, Nursing or Clinical Services of all public hospitals in Australia with 60 or more beds, excluding psychiatric, military and private hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of documented NFR policies, by hospital characteristics, and content of these policies, SOFs and PILs. RESULTS: 222 hospitals were surveyed, and 157 responded (71%). Of these, 85 (54%) had NFR policies, 62 (39%) had SOFs, and four (3%) had PILs. Hospitals with more than 200 beds were more likely to have NFR policies than those with 60-200 beds (P = 0.04). More metropolitan than rural hospitals had NFR policies (P = 0.01). More hospitals with 60-100 beds had SOFs than hospitals with 101-200 beds (P = 0.03). "NFR" was defined in 53% of policies, while 97% of policies explicitly stated where NFR orders were to be documented, 89% stated who was allowed to make them, 37% stated that advanced care directives ("living wills") were to be respected, and 89% stated that competent patients should be involved in discussions regarding their NFR status. The most common items noted in SOFs were the name and signature of the issuing medical practitioner (92%) and documentation of the discussion with the patient (81%). CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in the content of hospital policies, SOFs and PILs pertaining to NFR orders. Aspects of current policies show room for improvement.

Advance Directives↗

Modifications to advanced life support in renal failure.

The outcome of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been reported to be worse in patients with renal failure compared with those with normal renal function. It is likely that this increased mortality may be at least partly attributable to sub-optimal and highly variable treatment strategies used in cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure, but this issue has not previously been explored. Such patients undoubtedly pose a challenge to advanced life support (ALS) providers, and renal unit staff are not trained to provide specialist advice after a patient has sustained a cardiac arrest. There are few studies investigating the epidemiology, safety or outcome of cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure and there are no generally accepted resuscitation guidelines for this special circumstance. In this article we discuss the unique problems of resuscitating patients with renal failure and propose a suitable management strategy.

Advance Directives↗