I used to think that
palliative care was just for people who were dying. Then I found out—about a
dozen years ago—that palliative care had expanded its original focus on end-stage
cancer patients to include people with serious illness throughout the course of
their disease (or diseases). Palliative care, I realized, is far more than
hospice, a program that in the US is effectively restricted to patients
expected to die within 6 months.
With this shift in
perspective, I decided to move from an emphasis on the geriatric population,
principally the frailest and sickest of the elderly, to a concentration on
patients in the last stage of life, regardless of age, and regardless of how
long that stage might be expected to last. For some disease states, including
cancer, this effectively meant people in the last six or twelve months of life,
since it was only at that point that we could determine the seriousness of
their condition with reasonable reliability. For other disease states, such as
frailty or dementia, the relevant population included people who might live for
several years with a progressive, ultimately fatal condition. So I was
surprised and dismayed when I read the fine print in an otherwise important and
insightful article published this week about
palliative care—and discovered that the authors’ wise recommendations were
confined to people with a prognosis of one year or less.
The reason that it is so
important to move the conversation about goals “upstream,” to start the
discussion long before life’s last gasps, is that patients often shift their
perspective on what’s most important depending on their underlying health
status. People who have moderate dementia, who might expect to live several
more years, may well not want life-prolonging treatments that will simply allow
them to live long enough to develop advanced dementia, particularly when the
treatments are burdensome. People who are becoming progressively frail may not
want treatments that are apt to have as a side effect an even greater degree of
debility and dependence.
It may not be ideal to limit discussion of the goals of care to patients with a prognosis of one year or
less, but maybe it’s better than the current reality, which often involves no
discussion at all, or limiting such talk to patients who are moribund. The
problem with such an approach is both that it means subjecting the hundreds of
thousands of patients with dementia or frailty or progressive heart or kidney
disease to invasive tests, procedures, and medications that they may not want
and that it risks turning people away by, once again, equating palliative care
with dying. Palliative care is not just for imminently dying people. It is for
anyone with a serious, progressive, incurable illness. And since we can’t cure
diseases such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease or Alzheimer’s disease, and those are precisely the conditions that
tend to afflict people 80 and beyond (and some who are younger as well), we
need to think about palliative care for this entire population. Palliation is
not just for the dying.
No comments:
Post a Comment