3 ms·
What's the message here? That people shouldn't have chemotherapy? That we shouldn't do resuscitation? That all advanced cancers should just receive palliative c
by Gatsky 15y ago
What's the message here? That people shouldn't have chemotherapy? That we shouldn't do resuscitation? That all advanced cancers should just receive palliative care?
This seems to be a rant ie. the author has a strongly held notion that he has disguised as an argument devoid of any nuance. The support for his argument is that doctors secretly run a mile away from hospital whenever they get sick. This is not true and a gross generalisation.
Cause guess what, not everyone has a loving family or a house in the hills or a cousin with a big screen TV to go to when they are dying from a terminal illness. Some people want to try and fight their disease, and they are tenacious and brave and admirable and that's dignifying to them and to those that try and help them.
This article is an attempted justification from someone who has lost faith in what they do, nothing more.
- antoinehersen 15y agoThe message is that there is another choice. I read it as giving people a different perspective on end of life care. The system is heavily biased toward all out medical care. This article show the other side, using as examples people who have a better understanding of the tradeoff. This decision will always be a personal one, there is not right or wrong answer, just different possibilities.