The Right to Die

This is a follow-up to the previous post, Without a Sound:

There’s a lot that bothers me about the handling of the news about Brittany Maynard, the 29 year-old woman who chose to hasten the end of her life after she was diagnosed with Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM).  Probably the thing that disturbs me the most is the confident way that so many people have commented on her story and her decisions, as if they have any idea what has really been going on behind closed doors in her life.

As someone who was there on the scene for most of the 75 days between my dad’s diagnosis of GBM and his death, I feel like I have a fairly good idea what was going on, but I also know as a result of my experience that there are some things – even in highly publicized cases like hers – that anyone on the fringe or further out cannot know, and that’s the way it should be.  Health issues are private and personal.  The fact of the matter is that even with as healthy as Brittany looked when her image appeared in the news just days before her death we don’t know what the cancer inside her brain was doing to her, and we don’t know the intricacies of her diagnosis or prognosis.

Another thing that disturbs me is the way the media has portrayed Brittany as a hero, as if she was a crusader of sorts because of a personal choice she made to make another personal choice public.  To me, it seem like this implies that a person who does not make the same choices that she made is not as important or as courageous.  I'm glad that Brittany and her family had the opportunity to make the choices that they made, but I also think that people in other situations need an equal amount of respect and compassion. And my bet is that she neither viewed herself as a hero nor wanted to be viewed as one; like the rest of us, she was probably just doing the best she could to get through life and the hand that she was dealt in life.

The tricky thing about commenting on such an emotionally charged topic is that logic often takes a back seat in such a situation, as does respect for the views of others. I have had a hard time figuring out exactly what I want to say about Brittany’s story because I see the irony in producing commentary about the error I think others are making by commenting about the case.  The potential for expressing bias as fact, judgment, condemnation, shaming, and labeling is huge; this is what we tend to resort to when threatened or frightened -- and there's not much, if anything, in life that's scarier than facing pain and the end of life. When I think about the many comments that have been made about how Brittany chose to handle her medical condition, most of which have seemed judgmental and harsh to me, I can't quite get past the hypocrisy of saying "Shame on you for shaming someone else" or the irony of judging someone for being judgmental.

Here’s a confession: when I read about Brittany’s success in doing some of the things on her Bucket List, I felt jealous and even a little angry.  My dad had a Bucket List too, but he wasn’t able to get to any of the items on his agenda because of what GBM took from him from the moment the condition revealed itself.  I also felt jealous that Brittany’s medical team seemed to have communicated with her clearly about her options … or maybe she was just more able to figure out what her options were because the cancer in her brain hadn’t impaired that cognitive skill in her … yet.

My dad’s doctors, especially his oncologist, didn’t seem to have an accurate view of what was happening when he went into a downward spiral.  It seems like an oncologist would be much better attuned to medical facts so as not to succumb to the attraction of denial, but that was not the situation in my dad’s case.

I honestly don’t know what my dad would have done had we had all of the facts, had he been able to adequately process things, and had he had an opportunity to make a choice that would not put his family in jeopardy in any way.  I know that it would have been nice to have someone – anyone – ask him, or us, about his priorities.  The medical team was evidently too rushed, too uneducated, or too something to think to ask him, and we didn’t know to ask (or what to ask or how to ask it) or to speak up on his behalf until the very end.

As I've said and written about, the diagnosis of brain cancer, especially GBM, is particularly devastating for many reasons.  As a result of the attention brought to GBM by Brittany’s case, NBC news wrote an article about the unique challenges with brain cancer:

Why Brain Cancer is So Lethal

The neuro-oncologist who called me to announce that my dad’s case had been accepted by Duke University is quoted in the article:  “Brain tumors,” he says, “particularly but not exclusively the malignant ones … are in such an eloquent area of the body that surgical intervention may not be possible and other interventions such as radiation therapy may come with a fierce price.”  Yet another thing I wish I wasn’t in a position to have to know truth of.

Recurrence of GBM, the article says, is inevitable, at least as the treatment options now stand.  As I wrote about in the last post, this is especially true in certain variations of GBM. 

Another thing that bothers me about the coverage of Brittany’s story is the overuse of the phrase “death with dignity.”  Maybe it’s just a weird point of sensitivity of mine, but I don’t like the fact that that phrase seems to imply that there is no dignity in making a different choice – or in not having a choice – about the specifics of an impending death.  That feels like a really sick kind of competitiveness: who did death better???  Even the phrase “the right to die” seems muddled to me: I’m pretty sure that dying is a natural process rooted in science, not a “right.”  I think better terminology is “to hasten the end of one’s life” or something similar that better captures the fact that one's time on this earth is not going to be long with a diagnosis like this, no matter how things are handled.

We can’t know what the specifics of Brittany’s medical condition were, and we can’t know what she thought or felt when the news of the prognosis and the path she would likely have to travel were delivered.  In an instant, though, her choices - and life as she knew it - were stripped away.  I think, like a lot of people with terminal diagnoses who consider “physician-assisted suicide,” that she was desperately trying to gain some control in a situation that was horribly out of control, and I get that.  If you’ve ever seen someone have a seizure, if you’ve ever seen the terror and confusion in the eyes of someone who is aware that their own mental state is impaired, or if you’ve ever seen the look of humiliation and angst on the face of an adult who has wet his pants because he couldn’t make it to the bathroom in time, then you might have a little bit of an idea of what she and her family were feeling.  If you love a person who is having to endure things like this, plus a significant amount of often unrelenting physical and emotional pain - and who is being told that death is imminent, then there’s a chance that maybe you can relate to what it’s like to feel such a desperate need to try to establish order and control. 

I wish I could say that I can’t imagine what it took for Brittany’s family to support her decision; I’ve tried thinking about what it must have been like on their last night with her or in the last hour they had together before what they knew was going to happen happened; it’s a different kind of horror, I would imagine, than what my dad and my family experienced – but, I would guess, the same kind of love.

 This is a song that my dad loved, played by a musician named

Bernard Stanley"Acker" Bilk who died earlier this week. 

Room for Improvement

There are several things that have stuck with me from during the time that my dad was sick, things that I perceive as mistakes and missteps that were made in the care and treatment of my dad by others during his illness.

One of the main ones comes from what was done - or rather, what wasn't done - by his oncologist in the last couple of weeks of my dad's life.  

I sometimes read a blog called People I Want To Punch in the Throat.  It's usually entertaining and sometimes even thought-provoking.  Every time I look at the title of it, though, I am tempted to make up a list of my own of people whom I wouldn't mind punching.  Towards the top of that list would go the name of my dad's former oncologist.  

I recently read an article about the subject of doctors who desert patients who are in the end-stages of their disease.  This article made me think again about my dad's oncologist, whom, as I've said in the past, we really liked in the beginning.  So much so that our fondness for and our trust in him, along with the urgency of procuring treatment for the cancer which we understood from Day One to be very aggressive and the logistical challenges in getting Dad in to see other doctors, resulted in our not consulting with other oncologists in the area.  It was a one-and-done scenario.  Our second opinion came from the nationally recognized team of neuro-oncologists at Duke which stemmed from a referral from Dad's hometown oncologist.  Since my dad's death, I've wondered so many times whether I should have done something else to make it possible for other oncologists in the city where my parents lived to give their opinion on my dad's case - but that's fodder for discussion for another time.

We thought we were right in choosing the guy we chose to provide medical care for my dad.  What's really messed up is that, even in a critical situation like my dad's that should have been recognized and treated as such every step of the way, the inconsistent availability of even the nurse in the practice when we had questions or concerns, the slow call-backs, the wait-your-turn kind of attitude that was so clearly conveyed to us throughout the first eight weeks of Dad's illness was something we felt we just had to take.  Never did I question the service or the care being provided by anyone at the oncology group, even when I realized that they could have done some things better - more efficiently, more compassionately, and with more effort to help my dad.  I just took whatever they were giving out - even though it definitely affected my dad's quality of life.  My family and I were struggling more than I can even begin to explain with caring for my dad and dealing with the series of blows we were being dealt, and I guess I didn't have it in me to buck the system.  Still, though, from this vantage point, neither the way my dad was treated nor my reaction to the quality of the service provided to my dad sits right with me.  

Things were going ok as far as I could tell with our interactions with the oncologist, though, until a few days into my dad's second hospitalization.  As much of a warrior as I can be sometimes when people I love need my help, for some reason I didn't see how wrong it was for Dad's doctor to take several days off work for Christmas and then again a week later, as my dad was entering hospice, for New Year's.  I get that the man wanted to spend some quality time over the holidays with his family - but DAMMIT didn't he see that my family wanted some quality time too?  I have thought long and hard about it, but I still cannot understand how the guy just punched out for 85 hours (yep, I counted) TWICE less than a week apart, not even CALLING to check in on us at all.  I guess I thought that was ok - I didn't say anything about it then - but my thinking wasn't right then.  Now I know that it wasn't ok at all.

I understand that, as the article referenced above points out, sometimes an oncologist distances himself from a patient who is in the end stages of disease to protect himself emotionally. There is no doubt the job of an oncologist is likely to be depressing at times ... but that's what they have signed up for.  I consider a patient's relationship with his oncologist to be worth sticking out through the good times and the bad; I don't think there is any valid justification for an oncologist to let himself off the case (and off the hook) just because the treatment isn't working.  As Dr. Moynihan states in the article, “No physician should ever say there’s nothing more I can do. There’s always something more we can do for the patient — if only to be there and listen to their stories and deal with their pain and suffering.”

And to the point made in the article by Dr. Meier of Mount Sinai: Yes, it is failing a patient who has been under the care of a doctor when that doctor chooses to no longer be involved with the care of the patient at the end, especially when, as in the case with my dad, the oncologist plainly promises that he will continue to be involved and will call in a few days to check in and then doesn't.   

To be clear, I am not alleging any malpractice or a breach in the medical care provided to my dad by the oncologist or his practice; I am, however, saying that there was definite room for improvement, and the fact of the matter is that my dad and my family were hurt in other ways by the practices of and the choices made by the oncologist.

The oncologist in the article, who has written his own account of the difficulties of treating a dying patient, said he received no training at all in medical school about "how to interact with a patient" who had reached the end of oncological treatment. I believe this to be the case in most med school programs, and I think it's outrageous.  Here's what I know and what I think all medical people should know: some of the most impactful care that a physician or other health care professional can give to a patient and his family sometimes comes from something other than medicine.


I think I'm going to write a letter to my dad's former oncologist.  It obviously won't change what has happened, but maybe it will impact the way he treats other patients and their families in the future.

A Letter to the Director of Nursing

In honor of Nurses' Appreciation Week this week, I am posting a letter that I recently sent to the Director of Nursing at the hospital where my dad was treated in hopes that she is able to use the information I provided to recognize three nurses at that facility who provided truly extraordinary care during my dad's illness.

Dear [Director of Nursing],

I am writing to let you know about three nurses who provided outstanding care for my father, William L. Bullard, when he was a patient on the oncology floor in December of 2010.

My dad was initially hospitalized at Centennial just a few days short of his 67^th birthday on October 23, 2010, when he was transported there due to disorientation experienced on a ten-mile run.  An MRI showed a large mass in his brain that was later revealed to be Glioblastoma Multiforme, which as you know is Stage IV brain cancer. He had surgery and spent a few days in the Neuro-ICU and then a few more on the Neuro floor, and, although in both cases the nursing care was adequate, my family was glad when he was discharged after a total of ten days there. 

A few weeks later, on December 21, 2010, my dad was re-admitted to Centennial, and again in the ER the nursing care was fair, in most cases competent but not outstanding by any stretch.  When he was moved up to the Oncology floor, though, we were lucky enough to have our case assigned that night to a nurse named Meredith who provided exceptional care for Dad and who took both Dad and my family under her wing, even requesting to have Dad as her patient on other shifts she worked while we were on her floor over the next several days.  She provided highly commendable care for Dad and for us; she seemed to see not just Dad but those of us caring for him as her patients, and she gave us not only the physical support we needed but some much-needed emotional support as well.  As my sister later said, Meredith appeared to see Dad through our eyes, and that is something that was so significant to us and that we will always remember. To us, Dad wasn’t a terminally-ill cancer patient; he our champion, an Ironman athlete, brilliant in thinking and indomitable in physical presence.  Very unfortunately, though, during the course of his illness, the majority of the health care workers with whom we came into contact appeared to see him just as a patient, and honestly it seemed like some of them didn’t really see him at all.

My dad was very sick and as a result was intermittently confused and distressed while we were in the hospital that second time, but he took an instant liking to Meredith, as did we.  She bore a resemblance to one of my sister’s best friends from high school, a girl named Angie.  Despite the fact that Dad hadn’t seen Angie in many years, he too noticed the similarity in Meredith’s appearance and started calling her Angie, which Meredith said she took as a compliment.  “I feel like I’ve known you for a long time, too!” she told Dad, which made him smile and warmed our hearts.

Nurse Meredith, aka “Angie”, was with us again for the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. night shift that second night we were on the Oncology floor (12/22/10).  My sister and I stayed overnight with Dad and were impressed by not just Meredith’s competence but also by her compassion and her coolness under pressure, particularly when things started spiraling out of control for my dad late that night.  For no apparent reason, his heart rate shot up and he started having trouble breathing; we called for Meredith, who sprinted down the hall to check on Dad but couldn’t figure out what was going on.  Dad’s heart rate continued to climb, and then he started saying he was freezing and then making comments that we didn’t quite understand, with lots of talk about death which shook my sister and me to the very core.  Despite the temperature of the room being warm and several blankets being placed over Dad in the bed, his teeth were chattering so much that we had to strain to understand him. 

My sister and I were terrified; we agreed later that it was the first time we thought Dad was actually going to die right in front of us, and we felt completely helpless.  Meredith stayed right with us and was such a calming force for Dad and for us.  At one point, the three of us were almost lying on top of him trying to warm him up and to calm him down.  After more than an hour, we realized that neither verbal nor physical comfort measures were going to be effective in battling the panic and the terror Dad was experiencing, and Meredith raced to get a sedative for Dad, which, five minutes later, had him resting soundly.  

Looking back, I’m not sure that my dad would have made it through that night without Meredith, and certainly my sister and I would have been much more at a loss without her expertise and, more importantly, without her kindness, which is something that stays with us to this day.

Although Dad ended up being stabilized for the night, unfortunately his condition continued to deteriorate, and, on Christmas Eve, he was transferred to the ICU – actually, due to hospital staffing shortages during the holidays, to the CCU.  There we dealt with many challenging issues, some involving nursing and some not, but suffice to say our stay there was a terrible experience overall, and we were very glad when Dad was moved back to the Oncology floor two days after Christmas – and even happier when we realized that we had once again been lucky enough to be assigned to an exceptional nurse, this time in the form of an RN named Dave.  Again due to staffing problems that we didn't really undersand, my dad was placed on a unit that didn't really fit with his diagnosis; this time it was the Bone Marrow Transplant unit on the Oncology floor.  

My dad had been struggling to take in enough calories for quite some time; he often reported feeling “zero hungry” or, even worse, feeling nauseous at just the idea of food. When we clued Dave into the fact that we were very concerned about Dad’s caloric intake, Dave offered lots of “extras,” some of which Dad said “yes” to and then ate (including a Snickers bar).  Without even being asked, he brought extra blankets because Dad continued to say he was cold, and he provided extra pillows to prop Dad up so that he felt warmer and more secure.  Unlike our days in the CCU, with Dave it felt like we were no longer having to beg for what Dad needed; in fact, it seemed like Dave somehow anticipated not just Dad’s physical needs but also many of his emotional ones as well.

Throughout his stay in the hospital this second time around, including the four days in the ICU, pain from a bed sore on his lower back had continued to plague Dad.  Dave was excellent at gently re-positioning Dad in different ways in the bed so that the pressure was taken off that area; he made an effort each time he came into the room to explain what he was doing and why to Dad and to us and even had me demonstrate my understanding of skills like propping Dad up with lots of pillows and rolled blankets.  He wasn’t just acting as a nurse; he was also a teacher and a friend.

Tag-teaming with Day Shift Dave, as we called him, was Night Shift Jim, another nurse in whose care we were grateful to have Dad placed.  Like Dave, Jim was very patient in teaching us about how to address Dad’s medical needs.  Both of them somehow balanced empathetically caring for Dad with providing us with a listening ear and a shoulder to cry on in the hallway.  They seemed to be available whenever we needed them, but we didn’t feel like they were hovering or intruding.  Looking back, I see that, whether it was because they saw up close how very sick Dad was or because they took the time to listen to him and to us, they somehow “got” the seriousness of Dad’s condition and even the rhythm of his illness and of our grief.  

After almost two weeks of seeing Dad in a downward spiral, one morning I stood in the hallway outside of Dad’s room crying, and Dave came over and put his hand on my shoulder.  He said he had heard my conversation with the oncologist during which I had asked how we would know when it was time to consider hospice – and the oncologist had essentially said “Not yet,” which I felt like was not an answer to my question.  “He doesn’t see what we see,” Dave said.  “I know!” I wailed.  “Sometimes that is the case with oncologists,” he said gently. “It’s like their only goal is a cure, and sometimes that just isn’t going to happen.  Sometimes treatment doesn’t work.  Sometimes treatment isn’t what a patient really needs or wants.  Sometimes the oncologists don’t know when to say when.” He paused, and then he added, “You can ask for more information on Hospice without making any kind of commitment.”   As my sobbing subsided, I considered his words carefully.  I knew we needed help and more information before making any kind of decision.  I knew we had to figure something out and that we needed to do it quickly. 

Later that day, my sister and I approached Dave to talked more about hospice.  We had seen a flyer for one hospice provider in the waiting room (not the most uplifting thing to see in an oncology-ward waiting room, I must say, but we ended up being glad to have the info), and we were familiar with two other providers in the area – one was the agency already providing hospice care for my dad’s mom, and the other had helped care for my mom’s mom in the end stages of her battle with cancer almost 18 years before.  Dave suggested that we make an appointment with a representative from all three agencies to learn about each one.  “I think you should sit each of the reps down and ask them specifically, ‘What makes your agency the best choice for us?’”  

We took his advice to heart, and we did just what he had suggested.  

In what came to mirror the way I desperately wanted to shield Dad from the knowledge that he had cancer around the time of his surgery, I pulled out all the stops to avoid having him know that we were signing on with hospice. This seems incredibly short-sighted now, but at the time I wanted the focus to be on living, not dying, even then.  When I talked to Jim about my plan, he let me tape a sign to the outside of the door to Dad’s room that said, “DO NOT MENTION HOSPICE! PATIENT KNOWS HE IS GOING HOME TOMORROW BUT IS NOT AWARE OF HOSPICE SERVICES.”  I'm sure he realized the ridiculousness of my request - as if shielding Dad from knowing about hospice could save him from what I really wanted to protect him from - but he respected my grief process and also, I guess, my need to try to control the very few things that I possibly could at that point, and I was very grateful for that.

While Dad slept that night, my sisters and I talked to Jim again about how worried we were that we wouldn’t be able to take good enough care of Dad at home.  Jim was very reassuring and even helped us to make a list of supplies that we would need to have on hand at home, again honoring our desire to feel that we had some kind of command over an out-of-control situation.  He sang the praises of hospice care and of the support they had to offer, which we soon learned to be the absolute truth. 

Looking back at my dad’s last few days in the hospital, which turned out to be just about a week before he died, I am not sure my family would have decided to take Dad home on hospice there at the end without the input and the support we received from both Jim and Dave.  For my family and certainly for my dad, as my mom and my sisters and I have discussed many times over the past couple of years, while changing the setting in which Dad spend his last few days probably wouldn’t have lengthened his life any, having him at the hospital instead of in the comfort of my parents' home certainly would have changed the quality of that time for him – and for us, and that is why we will forever be grateful for the way things happened there at the end of Dad's hospital stay.

I can’t count how many times over the past couple of years I have intended to try to get a message to these three nurses to thank them.  I hope they are still with Centennial and that the details I have provided will help you to identify them so that they can be recognized, although appreciation in any form seems inadequate given the gift with which they left my family through the truly exceptional care they provided during the most difficult time of our lives. 

In case this does make it to Meredith, to Jim, and to Dave, though, here’s my message: thank you, and may your kindness and your skill be recognized and rewarded; my family will never forget you.

Very sincerely,

Stephanie Bullard Lancaster

No Answers - Part 4: In The End

Continued from No Answers - Part 3: Doctors and Death

Another thing that I find disturbing from during the time that my dad was sick is that we never found out what really caused his rapid decline or his death, as I touched on in this post as well.  The medical record from his second and final hospital stay - and his death certificate - list his primary diagnosis as brain cancer ("GBM"), which is of course accurate, but here's the confusing part: his death certificate lists a secondary cause of death as "pancytopenia," or low blood count, while the records kept by the hospice nurses during the final days of his life list only GBM.  Although a low blood count is an expected side effect of some types of chemotherapy, it is not one that is typically seen from the type Dad was getting.

However, for an undermined reason, Dad's blood count was low when he was admitted to the hospital the second time, but that was aggressively treated with transfusions, platelets, and medications and had resolved over the time he was in the hospital.  Still, though, his condition continued to decline, and the host of physicians on the case said over and over that they didn't understand why he wasn't getting better.  Several times towards the end of that last hospital stay, the oncologist said, "On paper, he should be getting better."  Not better from the cancer - although the scan did show that there was less of a blood supply going to (or "feeding") the tumor which was the goal of the treatment with Avastin - but better from the horrible infection which we can only assume he got from a compromised immune system.  The oncologist expressed lots of confusion about why Dad's immunity was so low, too.  I didn't think about it then, but I have many times since: what does lower immunity is steroids, and Dad was on a HUGE dose of them, for an extended period of time.  That was never mentioned by the team of doctors as a possible reason for the infection or the problems he was having; in fact, a severely compromised immune system wasn't ever mentioned to us as a possible side effect of that medication.  We were given reams of paperwork about the possible risks and side effects of the Avastin and the chemo, but nothing on the side effects or the risks of the steroids (or the seizure medication he was on).  Dad hated the steroids, and we did too, because of the side effects they caused that we knew about, like insomnia and blood-sugar level spikes; the oncologist insisted that Dad needed to stay on a very high dose of steroids throughout the course of his illness though because he continued to suffer from severe headaches.  Someone later asked me why the doctors never considered whether or not placing a shunt could have helped with the headaches.  I don't know, and, unfortunately, that's just one of many things that was never discussed with us and that we will never know.

I guess second-guessing like that probably happens a lot when a patient doesn't make it, at least on the part of the family.  I wonder if it happens on the part of the oncologist too, though, or if he just crosses that patient's name off on his list and moves on.  I hope there is a review of some kind, perhaps so that something could be learned that could help the next patient.

I would venture to guess that it's not uncommon that not knowing the actual cause of death is unsettling to those left behind.  

I don't understand why no one was able to explain to my family what was going on medically with my dad; I'm not sure if they didn't care to figure it out because they didn't think it mattered since they felt he was obviously terminal anyway, if they couldn't figure it out due to their inadequacies or problems with the medical testing [one doctor told us that scans like CT's and MRI's "just can't really be trusted," whatever the HELL that means], or if they couldn't figure it out because it was truly a medical mystery.  I realize that all of the problems stemmed from the unpredictable nature of neurological disease, but all of the unknown just exacerbates my emotions - anger, sadness, frustration, all of it - even more because it feels like someone, somewhere, failed - failed to figure things out, failed to fix things, failed my dad and my family.

I've always been a right-brain thinker. I like logic and consistency. I don't mind following rules that make sense.  I like sticky notes (like my dad) and flow charts (unlike my dad - he didn't feel the obsession need to visualize the steps or the details like that).  On the flip side and to the point of this post, I have trouble tolerating things that don't make sense, that don't seem fair or logical, and that haven't been explained.

I know that knowing wouldn't change anything and that it probably wouldn't make me feel one iota better if I knew the answers to the questions with which we've been left, but still somehow not knowing disturbs me.  I guess having it remain a mystery just further adds to the shock of the whole thing having happened in such a relatively sudden manner - the diagnosis in an otherwise very healthy person, the lack of improvement despite following the prescribed course of treatment including surgery, rehab, and participation in a clinical trial, and then the rapid decline from which he could not recover.  I think I will always be stuck questioning why the things that weren't supposed to happen happened and why the things that were supposed to happen didn't.  

Cancer Sucks

Reports came out today about former TV star Valerie Harper having been diagnosed with terminal brain cancer.  

Harper, 73,  played Rhoda on the Mary Tyler Moore Show from 1970 until 1974, after which she had her own spin-off show called "Rhoda" until 1978.  She wrote a tell-all book called "I, Rhoda" that came out in January this year.

She went through treatment for lung cancer in 2009; her diagnosis at this time is Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis, or LC, which occurs when cancer cells, usually as a relapse from cancer originally in another part of the body, invade the subarachnoid space, enter the cerebrospinal fluid, and are transported throughout the central nervous system.  LC occurs in up to 8% of patients with cancer, most often in cases of lung cancers, breast cancers, GI tract cancers, and melanomas.  

I didn't know all of that about LC until recently.  I follow a blog - Family Bonding Time - about a husband and wife who were both diagnosed with cancer almost simultaneously, and the wife, who has breast cancer, was diagnosed in January with LC as well.  

In reading about it, I was shocked to learn that LC can come from the spread of GBM, the type of primary brain cancer that my dad had.  We had been told by the team of oncologists and neuro-oncologists that GBM almost never spreads and that we shouldn't be concerned about that for Dad.  (Looking back, I wonder if the reason they said that is because they suspected that he wouldn't last long enough for any spreading to occur.) Apparently in cases of LC, often nothing new shows up on scans because the cancer has spread into the spinal fluid rather than through an increase in the number or tumors or in tumor size.  Symptoms of LC, of course, are very similar to those of other types of brain cancer, including GBM, but a couple of the markers for LC listed in the information I read caught my eye: extreme lethargy and severe pain reported diffusely in the top of the head, both of which cannot be explained otherwise, as in they do not seem to be coming from other sources like a side-effect of medication or the location of a tumor.  Both of these things were true for my dad, especially during the last month of his life, when he was so tired he could hardly keep his eyes open (but oddly and torturously for him he couldn't sleep because of the massive doses of steroids he was on - because he kept reporting severe pain on the top of his head!).

I guess it doesn't matter, does it?  I guess they could have done a spinal tap to check for the presence of cancer cells in the spinal fluid - and actually they did consider doing that to check for meningitis at one point, but then they decided just to treat him with antibiotics that would treat any type of infection instead.  If they had found LC, in theory they could possibly have treated it with chemo administered through a catheter into that part of his brain, but honestly I doubt he could have tolerated or withstood that treatment, and I guess I'm glad we didn't have to make the decision of whether or not to put him through such a drastic intervention when it was not very likely to buy him much more time, if any, in his condition.  I will never get over the fact, though, that no one on the team of specialists who were assigned to Dad's case towards the end, could even venture to guess why he was going downhill so rapidly, especially after he had been given transfusions and heavy doses of medications to restore his blood counts to within normal limits.  "On paper, he should be better," his oncologist said, but he wasn't, and I will never forget those words.  

No Answers - Part 2: Informed Consent

Continued from No Answers - Part 1: The Oncologist

Besides the unresolved issues on my mind from when my dad
was sick that relate to the oncologist on Dad's case, another
thing that concerns me is the way that informed consent was 
handled when Dad was in the hospital.

Informed consent is the process by which a fully informed patient participates in making decisions about his own health care. It originates from the legal and ethical right the patient has to direct what happens to his body and from the ethical duty of the physician to involve the patient in the management of the patient's own health care through educating him about his condition and any proposed treatments as well as reasonable alternatives and the reasoning behind the physician's recommendation.  It also includes informing the patient of the risks and benefits of the suggested course of action and any other possible decisions after which the patient can use that information to either accept or decline the treatment.  

In cases when the patient is deemed unable to participate in this process, another person can be appointed to serve as proxy through a medical power of attorney or other legal process.  

When it became clear that my dad was not consistently oriented (i.e. he was confused about certain things) upon hospital admission, informed consent fell to my mom on his behalf.  According to the definition of informed consent, this meant that she was to be educated about Dad's condition and of the options for treatment and the advantages and disadvantages of each.  This is basic Medical Ethics 101, a process of which any physician - and certainly any surgeon - should be extremely aware.

This is where my question comes in:  Why was that process not followed?  

At admission, a neurosurgeon was assigned to my dad's case, and right away he started saying that a specific type of surgery called "debulking" needed to occur just as soon as Dad was stabilized seizure-wise.  We were never given any choice of neurosurgeon, and no alternatives to this procedure were ever presented to us.

Prior to the surgery, my mom, serving as Dad's medical power of attorney, was directed to sign the consent form that listed all the risks, but really she didn't have a choice in the matter - what was she going to do: not give the consent when we'd been told he needed the surgery to save his life??  We were 100% given the impression that the neurosurgeon on the case was the only option we had for whatever reason and that, without that surgery at that time, he would die, right then.

Later I learned that was not necessarily true.  The surgery 

could possibly have been delayed or maybe even avoided 

with no change in prognosis.  [When we met with the team of top neuro-oncologists at Duke later, we learned that the aggressive growth pattern of GBM meant that it doubled in size every three weeks and that, because of the time required for recovery after surgery before treatment could be started, since the surgery the remaining portion of the tumor had grown to almost half of what the size of the tumor was originally.  In fact, the Duke doctors said they felt there had been "very little surgical benefit" for Dad.] 

I know now that there were other surgical and non-surgical options that should have at least been discussed with us, if only to explain why they might not have been recommended by that particular neurosurgeon in my dad's case.  Because they weren't even mentioned, though, I don't know if they were viable options or not.  At that point, though, we didn't know there were any other choices and we weren't told any differently, and so we just went with what was presented to us as the only course of action.  And so I am left to wonder - why didn't the surgeon even consider trying other techniques that are frequently discussed as a treatment for brain cancer, those that are showing evidence as giving a better surgical and prognostic outcome - things like intraoperative stimulation mapping and Gamma Knife radiation?  Why didn't he bring up the option of delaying surgery to investigate the use of gliadel wafers (which are implanted to deliver medicine right at the tumor site) or to look at the possibility of taking a sample of the tumor for use either for testing to see if the cells were chemo-resistant or for an dendritic cell tumor vaccine?  

Back then, though, we didn't even know what questions to ask, or even that we should be asking questions.  We didn't think about getting a second opinion or doing a background check of any kind on the neurosurgeon, at least partially because we were told that time was of the essence.  I think we assumed that particular neurosurgeon was the best at that hospital or at least that he was the neurosurgeon with the first opening in his surgical schedule.  It seems crazy to me now when I think that I never asked how many of that type of surgery that neurosurgeon had done or how many patients with that same diagnosis were treated in that hospital per year.  [I later asked a nurse on the oncology floor how often they saw GBM patients there, and she said once or twice a year.]  I remember all too well that we were in such a state of shock and panic and so frantic to try to take care of and to protect Dad that we didn't have time to research things.  We just trusted the advice we were given and forged ahead.

These days, I have a note in my cell phone that lists things I want to remember if I am ever in a similar situation (Is that doomsday thinking or preparedness??  I'm not sure.).  It includes these statements:

*When a doctor (or other medical staff member) makes a recommendation, ask what else they considered or could have considered and WHY they came to the conclusion that they should recommend that specific thing.
*When making a decision as to whom (or to where) to turn for care, directly ask WHAT MAKES YOU DIFFERENT FROM OTHER DOCTORS (or what sets this facility or service apart?)? 
*ALWAYS ask what that person's (or that facility's) experience with that diagnosis, that surgical procedure, etc. is SPECIFICALLY, termed in frequencies and outcomes.

In my dad's case, though, without a doubt, we did what we knew to do.  The rest just wasn't something a person would know in everyday life.  Was the right choice made?  Yes, based on the options we were given at the time.  What would we have done, if we knew then what we know now??  Of course I will never know, nor would I if we had been presented with all of the possible choices and then given the opportunity to select one.  But at least in the "fully informed" scenario, we would not feel as if there were facts we weren't told or options that weren't considered.  Today, in the midst of my grief, I certainly don't feel that there was any effort at all by the medical team to try to individualize Dad's treatment, and I am left to wonder why we were only given certain information.  Did the medical team actually feel as if it were our responsibility to do the research and then to ask questions about the other possible treatments?  Did they have such as strong opinion about what the best course of action was that they didn't tell us what else could have been done?  Did they think we were somehow incapable of understanding the more complex information about other options?  Did they think we (or Dad) weren't deserving of knowing about those alternatives?  Did they themselves not know what else was available?  Did they lack the training in performing the other techniques?  Chalk that up to the list of things we will never really know.