Goodbye to an Old Friend

Just recently, a friend of mine, Randy Gulledge, told me about another friend who had recently passed away.  I say passed away, but in truth he faced a difficult quality of life decision and opted out.  It’s a difficult subject, and usually leaves more questions than answers, and for me, it poses a moral question.  This column is focused on that question.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was an active advocate for assisted suicide who spent some time in prison because of it.  What we miss about his case isn’t that he ended up in prison, but the question about whether a human being has the right to determine when “to shuffle off this mortal coil.”  Especially today, that is a huge question.  There are really only two schools for it:  hang in there and suffer or take the early exit.

There’s a lot to be said for both points of view.  How I feel about it personally is my own opinion and I can see myself in either camp depending on the situation.  Still, it’s not my right to instill my opinion, good or bad, on anyone.

Several years ago, my wife and I had a friend who opted for the alternative route.  She decided to fight her cancer-death-sentence, and while she still lost in the long run, it was a long run.  It’s a matter of the tradeoffs, the quality of life, and what things are undone that you hope to see done, before the ravages of years and the hundreds of chemo bouts gets the best of you.

From my own life, I have seen people who suffered beyond comparison.  A very old friend who was diagnosed with stage four stomach cancer, who was here one day and gone six months later.  And who had been in horrible pain for the last six months of his life.

What quality is there in a life like that?

Spare me the whole thing about it not being personal.  There is nothing more personal and no time when a person shouldn’t be thinking about “me first.”  Sure, there are times when the ones left behind are left wondering about what happened, but that is just selfishness.

Does the person do such things to hurt the family, or their loved ones?  I argue by that time they are way beyond the idea of affecting anyone else. 

No question, it’s a matter of personal choice.  Take a look at how the medical profession reacts to such diagnoses.  Many doctors don’t bother trying to get “healed.”  No, they face the reality of the dilemma and make the choice of not fighting it back with pills or shots or radiation.

Don’t take my word for it.  Stephanie O'Neill, on Southern California Public Radio, presented an article entitled “How Doctors Want to Die is Different than Most People.” In it, she sites two points:

• A Stanford University study shows almost 90 percent of doctors would forgo resuscitation if facing a terminal illness.
• Doctors are more likely to die at home with less aggressive care than most people get at the end of their lives.

If that’s so, then why is it that we have these huge cancer clinics?  Why do we put ourselves through months and months or worse yet, years of less than what one might consider a high, or even just a moderate, quality of life?  Why not do what the doctors do?  If the medicine was good, why wouldn’t the doctors follow the same course of treatment?

It is the ages old argument about quality of life verses length of life.  Everyday people are faced with having to make this decision.  It’s a difficult thing to decide, or maybe not.  But there are tradeoffs.  In some circumstances I can see myself battling through, providing the value is worth the price.  But just as easily, I can see myself deciding that no value is worth the price.