A NYTimes article in December, 2009 discussed lessons learned in end-of-life care. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/health/23ucla.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
I read the article, and below I pasted some of its evocative statements:
“It can be hard, sometimes impossible, to know which critically ill patients will benefit and which will not.”
“Many acknowledge that the current payment system encourages more care, because it rewards doctors for providing additional tests and procedures”
“But the bigger challenge may be changing the “we’re not going to let you die” culture at places like U.C.L.A.”
The article noted competing studies. Once concluded that intense spending at the end of life improved outcomes, and the other concluded otherwise. Which one are we to believe?
Some experts will tell us that decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. That statement is true, but it doesn’t give us any guidelines. And it ignores the different approaches that exist within different hospitals. There are competing sub-cultures of care.
There are two conclusions I can draw without hesitation. One is that there are no easy answers in end-of-life decision making. The second is that we as a culture of Americans must change our approach to end-of-life care, and we must couch it within a Judeo-Christian model.
That ethos tells us that is that human life is precious because we are made in God’s image. And, that death is not to be seen as the ultimate enemy, because our Savior has defeated death. Within the tension formed between those two universals we can find our guidance.
