4 ms·

I was looking in the article for a followup to that statement, but there was none. The reason I raise an eyebrow is simply that even in the absence of a commun

I was looking in the article for a followup to that statement, but there was none. The reason I raise an eyebrow is simply that even in the absence of a communication gap, talking+swallowing as top concerns seems like a reasonable response. What matters more to you, being alive, or having a tolerable quality of life? Are we sure that there's a misunderstanding that death is a likely outcome (I could believe it; but I would also be slightly surprised, since "cancer==death sooner or later" exists even as a trope in mainstream media) as opposed to just a prioritization over things that matter so long as you're alive? Anyway, this was quite a tangent from the original article content, just something I was mulling over given your comment.

masklinn 11y ago
> Are we sure that there's a misunderstanding that death is a likely outcome There isn't a misunderstanding that death is a likely outcome, there commonly is a misunderstanding of survival time. Gawande's book covers the subject of differing expectation between doctors and patients when discussing harsh treatment, patients think it'll give them months or years, doctors think weeks. If that isn't explicitly put on the table — and it usually isn't — you can get drawn-out "medical fights" where the patient's quality of life is more or less negative. See also: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-technology/being-mortal/dr-atul-gawande-hope-is-not-a-plan-when-doctors-patients-talk-death/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-techn...