3 ms·

I'm sorry for your loss. Edit: I feel a bit dumb now, I hadn't actually read the article yet, went straight for the comments. Seems like I'm just reiterating w

by spurgu 2y ago

I'm sorry for your loss. Edit: I feel a bit dumb now, I hadn't actually read the article yet, went straight for the comments. Seems like I'm just reiterating what it says. When I'm in that shape I just wanna go in peace. Preferably at home, in my own bed, surrounded by loved ones. No tubes down my throat, no shots to keep me alive at any cost, with no end in sight. Here's some good discussion on the topic between two doctors that I watched recently: https://youtu.be/O0YIGAUDlzQ?t=242 https://youtu.be/O0YIGAUDlzQ?t=242

lurking_swe 2y ago
The problem with this perspective in my opinion is that many times, especially for an elderly person, a small emergency can very quickly escalate into a life and death situation, and the outcome is not clear until it’s too late. you may enter the hospital thinking you have a decent outcome, but you end up with a bad outcome. for example, nobody plans to go on a ventilator. But if you need one (like severe pneumonia), you’re already pretty messed up and you’re going to have a painful death with or without the tubes.
- tremon 2y ago
  you’re going to have a painful death with or without the tubes But I feel that was the main point at the start of the thread: if death is certain and going to be painful, why must we drag it out? Why is that additional lifespan (measured in days) so much more important than comfort?
  - kqr 2y ago
    The point is that it's not certain. With the medical assistance you might recover fine and live another five happy years. Is it really worth trading away that opportunity just to not accidentally die on a ventilator? I'm not sure.
    - AlexandrB 2y ago
      There's a good article[1] on this topic that talks about how older doctors generally choose to forego lifesaving measures. I think about it a lot because it seems like when a professional who's in the best position to know the tradeoffs makes this kind of decision for themselves they probably understand the risk/reward better than you or me. [1] https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/03/how-doctors-die/ https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/03/how-doctors-die/
      - criddell 2y ago
        I think that's the article that made me change my opinion on CPR. When the hospital asks me to sign the form indicating if I want to be resuscitated, I answer no without hesitation. It's harder when my vet asks before operating on my dog, but in the end I made the same call for my dog that I would make for myself - do not resuscitate.
      - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
        Plenty of people who make the sausage don't want to eat it. I never wanted to go into medicine. Thus I do not believe the preferences of a typical older doctor represent my preferences in this respect. I read an article once of a nurse who kept CPR going on her husband for somewhere around 2 hours until they could get him to a hospital that was able to restart his heart. I believe he ended up okay. CPR obviously isn't invasive tubing, but it's still kind of hard on the body.
    - LorenPechtel 2y ago
      It depends on the situation. If it's part of a long decay I would categorically refuse anything like that. If it's due to an abrupt and fixable thing give it a try.
- anonymouskimmer 2y ago
  https://www.sciencealert.com/study-more-patients-could-survive-brain-injuries-if-life-support-not-switched-off https://www.sciencealert.com/study-more-patients-could-survi... > Yet families are often asked to make the call within 72 hours of someone sustaining a severe brain injury. Unless patients make a rapid recovery in the first few days, it's thought they are unlikely to survive or recover much at all. > The data Sanders and colleagues analyzed tentatively suggest otherwise. > The data revealed that 31 of the 56 brain trauma patients who stayed on life support died within six months; and 45 percent survived. Of the 25 patients who survived, more than 30 percent recovered enough in that same six-month period to have at least some independence in daily activities. > Just four patients recovered 'fully' to how they functioned before their injury.
  - dralley 2y ago
    > some independence in daily activities "some" is doing a lot of work in this sentence. Recovering enough to have "at least some" independence after several months is not a great outcome. That very likely means lifelong daily care is required.
    - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
      I know. That objection was brought up in the first article I read on this issue. Still, depending on the care required, it's pretty bad to imply that someone is better off dead. And 7% of the study subjects recovered completely.
      - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        The idea of living long term, near death, while medical expenses slowly eat away the savings I would prefer to leave to my loved ones makes me very unhappy.
        anonymouskimmer 2y ago
        The general idea here is to wait longer than 72 hours before making the decision.
nottorp 2y ago
> I just wanna go in peace I wonder what 'go in peace' means if you explain it medically. Possibly abrupt heart failure? From the deaths of older relatives that I've (sort of) witnessed, if any other part of your body fails it's going to be slower and a lot more unpleasant.

by spurgu 2y ago

lurking_swe 2y ago

The problem with this perspective in my opinion is that many times, especially for an elderly person, a small emergency can very quickly escalate into a life and death situation, and the outcome is not clear until it’s too late. you may enter the hospital thinking you have a decent outcome, but you end up with a bad outcome. for example, nobody plans to go on a ventilator. But if you need one (like severe pneumonia), you’re already pretty messed up and you’re going to have a painful death with or without the tubes.

tremon 2y ago
you’re going to have a painful death with or without the tubes But I feel that was the main point at the start of the thread: if death is certain and going to be painful, why must we drag it out? Why is that additional lifespan (measured in days) so much more important than comfort?
- kqr 2y ago
  The point is that it's not certain. With the medical assistance you might recover fine and live another five happy years. Is it really worth trading away that opportunity just to not accidentally die on a ventilator? I'm not sure.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    There's a good article[1] on this topic that talks about how older doctors generally choose to forego lifesaving measures. I think about it a lot because it seems like when a professional who's in the best position to know the tradeoffs makes this kind of decision for themselves they probably understand the risk/reward better than you or me. [1] https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/03/how-doctors-die/ https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/03/how-doctors-die/
    - criddell 2y ago
      I think that's the article that made me change my opinion on CPR. When the hospital asks me to sign the form indicating if I want to be resuscitated, I answer no without hesitation. It's harder when my vet asks before operating on my dog, but in the end I made the same call for my dog that I would make for myself - do not resuscitate.
    - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
      Plenty of people who make the sausage don't want to eat it. I never wanted to go into medicine. Thus I do not believe the preferences of a typical older doctor represent my preferences in this respect. I read an article once of a nurse who kept CPR going on her husband for somewhere around 2 hours until they could get him to a hospital that was able to restart his heart. I believe he ended up okay. CPR obviously isn't invasive tubing, but it's still kind of hard on the body.
  - LorenPechtel 2y ago
    It depends on the situation. If it's part of a long decay I would categorically refuse anything like that. If it's due to an abrupt and fixable thing give it a try.
anonymouskimmer 2y ago
https://www.sciencealert.com/study-more-patients-could-survive-brain-injuries-if-life-support-not-switched-off https://www.sciencealert.com/study-more-patients-could-survi... > Yet families are often asked to make the call within 72 hours of someone sustaining a severe brain injury. Unless patients make a rapid recovery in the first few days, it's thought they are unlikely to survive or recover much at all. > The data Sanders and colleagues analyzed tentatively suggest otherwise. > The data revealed that 31 of the 56 brain trauma patients who stayed on life support died within six months; and 45 percent survived. Of the 25 patients who survived, more than 30 percent recovered enough in that same six-month period to have at least some independence in daily activities. > Just four patients recovered 'fully' to how they functioned before their injury.
- dralley 2y ago
  > some independence in daily activities "some" is doing a lot of work in this sentence. Recovering enough to have "at least some" independence after several months is not a great outcome. That very likely means lifelong daily care is required.
  - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
    I know. That objection was brought up in the first article I read on this issue. Still, depending on the care required, it's pretty bad to imply that someone is better off dead. And 7% of the study subjects recovered completely.
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      The idea of living long term, near death, while medical expenses slowly eat away the savings I would prefer to leave to my loved ones makes me very unhappy.
      - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
        The general idea here is to wait longer than 72 hours before making the decision.

nottorp 2y ago

> I just wanna go in peace I wonder what 'go in peace' means if you explain it medically. Possibly abrupt heart failure? From the deaths of older relatives that I've (sort of) witnessed, if any other part of your body fails it's going to be slower and a lot more unpleasant.