5 ms·

Lots of people here are willing to let others die so as to not "overburden" the medical system - financially or otherwise. I for one would like be overtreated

Lots of people here are willing to let others die so as to not "overburden" the medical system - financially or otherwise. I for one would like be overtreated to the max, because then what's the point of having EOL care if not to prevent death. Also, I'm a religious person, and I don't think it's in any way conflicting with my beliefs.

wl 4y ago
You might want to talk with some of the healthcare workers that are performing these treatments. Most of them will say things along the lines of, "I don't want the last moments of my life to be someone breaking my ribs" or "there are fates worse than death."
- Animatronio 4y ago
  I don't think healtcare workers are more qualified than anyone to say there are fates worse than death, besides I don't think it's true.
  - sethammons 4y ago
    Was it bad for you before being born?
    - Animatronio 4y ago
      How would I know?! Might have been a terrible time for me, but I have no memory of it. So I'd rather err on the side of caution.
  - cpsns 4y ago
    It’s definitely true, though I’m glad you’ve not had to whiteness such fates. I’ve seen it first hand with family members and it’s traumatic for all involved.
throwaway6734 4y ago
Just don't expect others to pay for it
- Animatronio 4y ago
  Why not, after all I've been paying for subsidized healthcare for 20+ years without getting anything in return.
  - throwaway6734 4y ago
    The level of healthcare you're talking about will end up costing significantly more than any amount that you paid in
Someone 4y ago
> then what's the point of having EOL care if not to prevent death. Death can’t be prevented, only delayed. I would say EOL care is for making your last days as pleasant as possible for you and (a bit less so) those who care about you. As an example, “overtreated to the max” may mean replacing “a few days to talk with family, sitting in the sun” by “a few weeks being sedated undergoing various invasive procedures”. I think that, if the choice were that clear, few people would choose the latter.
- Animatronio 4y ago
  Obviously I meant delayed as much as possible. Honestly, I'd take any invasive procedure over death, no questions asked.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    While I do not wish this upon anyone, should it happen anyway, I’d encourage you to observe closely and reflect on the patient experience if anyone in your circle of friends/family has to face this before it’s your turn. Watching my grandparents’ experiences (and our dog’s) gave me great perspective on the topic. One of four grandparents “got it roughly right”; the other three suffered extensively.
refurb 4y ago
Of course, it's always easy to be cold and calculating when it's not your life or your love ones at stake. And sure, I think most people would argue it's not worth spending another $500,000 treating a terminally ill patient with a 0% chance of survival. But often the chance isn't 0%, it might be 15%. So if it's your loved one who has stage 4 cancer and the doctor says "it's going to cost a lot of money and only a 15% chance we'll cure the cancer", not many people will say "meh... those odds aren't good enough, so lets just put grandpa in a hospice and let him go"
- NoPie 4y ago
  15% is clearly too optimistic. It is closer to 0.15% and it is usually not only about chances but that the person is experiencing extreme suffering despite pain killers that any therapy only prolongs this suffering.
  - refurb 4y ago
    What do you mean? Here is an example: https://www.tecentriq-hcp.com/urothelial-carcinoma/clinical-data-efficacy/imvigor-210-efficacy.html https://www.tecentriq-hcp.com/urothelial-carcinoma/clinical-... For people with cisplatin (chemo) resistant metastatic (spread through the body) bladder cancer, if you treat with immunotherapy only 6% achieve complete response (cure). The other 94% has a partial response (which means they progressed) or no response at all. So they would likely die of their cancer relatively soon. Lots of cancer drugs are like that. Immunotherapy is expensive. Is it worth spending $250,000+ on cancer drugs for a 6% chance of a cure?
    - Animatronio 4y ago
      Then why bother with immunotherapy at all if it's so expensive. After all it's been available for 130 years if google serves me right, and it still hasn't come down in price besides being not very effective.
      - refurb 4y ago
denton-scratch 4y ago
> what's the point of having EOL care if not to prevent death. That remark sounds odd to me. "EOL care" is provided to people who are at end-of-life, by definition. And neither EOL care nor anything else can "prevent" death.

wl 4y ago

You might want to talk with some of the healthcare workers that are performing these treatments. Most of them will say things along the lines of, "I don't want the last moments of my life to be someone breaking my ribs" or "there are fates worse than death."

Animatronio 4y ago
I don't think healtcare workers are more qualified than anyone to say there are fates worse than death, besides I don't think it's true.
- sethammons 4y ago
  Was it bad for you before being born?
  - Animatronio 4y ago
    How would I know?! Might have been a terrible time for me, but I have no memory of it. So I'd rather err on the side of caution.
- cpsns 4y ago
  It’s definitely true, though I’m glad you’ve not had to whiteness such fates. I’ve seen it first hand with family members and it’s traumatic for all involved.

throwaway6734 4y ago

Just don't expect others to pay for it

Animatronio 4y ago
Why not, after all I've been paying for subsidized healthcare for 20+ years without getting anything in return.
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  The level of healthcare you're talking about will end up costing significantly more than any amount that you paid in

Someone 4y ago

> then what's the point of having EOL care if not to prevent death. Death can’t be prevented, only delayed. I would say EOL care is for making your last days as pleasant as possible for you and (a bit less so) those who care about you. As an example, “overtreated to the max” may mean replacing “a few days to talk with family, sitting in the sun” by “a few weeks being sedated undergoing various invasive procedures”. I think that, if the choice were that clear, few people would choose the latter.

Animatronio 4y ago
Obviously I meant delayed as much as possible. Honestly, I'd take any invasive procedure over death, no questions asked.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  While I do not wish this upon anyone, should it happen anyway, I’d encourage you to observe closely and reflect on the patient experience if anyone in your circle of friends/family has to face this before it’s your turn. Watching my grandparents’ experiences (and our dog’s) gave me great perspective on the topic. One of four grandparents “got it roughly right”; the other three suffered extensively.

refurb 4y ago

Of course, it's always easy to be cold and calculating when it's not your life or your love ones at stake. And sure, I think most people would argue it's not worth spending another $500,000 treating a terminally ill patient with a 0% chance of survival. But often the chance isn't 0%, it might be 15%. So if it's your loved one who has stage 4 cancer and the doctor says "it's going to cost a lot of money and only a 15% chance we'll cure the cancer", not many people will say "meh... those odds aren't good enough, so lets just put grandpa in a hospice and let him go"

NoPie 4y ago
15% is clearly too optimistic. It is closer to 0.15% and it is usually not only about chances but that the person is experiencing extreme suffering despite pain killers that any therapy only prolongs this suffering.
- refurb 4y ago
  What do you mean? Here is an example: https://www.tecentriq-hcp.com/urothelial-carcinoma/clinical-data-efficacy/imvigor-210-efficacy.html https://www.tecentriq-hcp.com/urothelial-carcinoma/clinical-... For people with cisplatin (chemo) resistant metastatic (spread through the body) bladder cancer, if you treat with immunotherapy only 6% achieve complete response (cure). The other 94% has a partial response (which means they progressed) or no response at all. So they would likely die of their cancer relatively soon. Lots of cancer drugs are like that. Immunotherapy is expensive. Is it worth spending $250,000+ on cancer drugs for a 6% chance of a cure?
  - Animatronio 4y ago
    Then why bother with immunotherapy at all if it's so expensive. After all it's been available for 130 years if google serves me right, and it still hasn't come down in price besides being not very effective.
    - refurb 4y ago

denton-scratch 4y ago

> what's the point of having EOL care if not to prevent death. That remark sounds odd to me. "EOL care" is provided to people who are at end-of-life, by definition. And neither EOL care nor anything else can "prevent" death.