Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Thursday January 05 2017, @04:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-fear-the-reaper dept.

The New York Times has a long form profile of a doctor who operates a hospice for dying patients. A fascinating look into a subject most people are afraid to even think about.

Now, at the morning meeting, [Dr. B. J.] Miller began describing the case of a young man named Randy Sloan, a patient at U.C.S.F. who died of an aggressive cancer a few weeks earlier at Zen Hospice. In a way, Sloan's case was typical. It passed through all the same medical decision points and existential themes the doctors knew from working with their own terminal patients. But here, the timeline was so compressed that those themes felt distilled and heightened.

And then there was the bracing idiosyncrasy of everything Miller's staff had been able to do for Sloan at Zen Hospice. Rabow told me that all palliative-care departments and home-hospice agencies believe patients' wishes should be honored, but Zen Hospice's small size allows it to "actualize" these ideals more fully. When Miller relayed one detail about Sloan's stay at the hospice — it was either the part about the sailing trip or the wedding — one doctor across the conference table expelled what seemed to be an involuntary, admiring, "What?"

Everything Miller was saying had a way of sharpening an essential set of questions: What is a good death? How do you judge? In the end, what matters? You got the sense that looking closely at Sloan's case might even get you close to some answers or, at least, less hopelessly far away.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:26PM (#449759)

    Your information is a little out of date. Overcoming the Hayflick limit is only one of several different things that must go wrong to cause a cancer, and while getting past it may increase the likelyhood of cancer, there are other targets to kill it/cure you. By the time we have developed the tech to cure ageing, cancer will be a doddle.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2