June 28, 2010 2:28 PM

End-of-Life Treatments May Cause More Suffering

(AP)  The doctors finally let Rosaria Vandenberg go home.

For the first time in months, she was able to touch her 2-year-old daughter who had been afraid of the tubes and machines in the hospital. The little girl climbed up onto her mother's bed, surrounded by family photos, toys and the comfort of home. They shared one last tender moment together before Vandenberg slipped back into unconsciousness.

Vandenberg, 32, died the next day.

That precious time at home could have come sooner if the family had known how to talk about alternatives to aggressive treatment, said Vandenberg's sister-in-law, Alexandra Drane.

Instead, Vandenberg, a pharmacist in Franklin, Mass., had endured two surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation for an incurable brain tumor before she died in July 2004.

"We would have had a very different discussion about that second surgery and chemotherapy. We might have just taken her home and stuck her in a beautiful chair outside under the sun and let her gorgeous little daughter play around her - not just torture her" in the hospital, Drane said.

Americans increasingly are treated to death, spending more time in hospitals in their final days, trying last-ditch treatments that often buy only weeks of time, and racking up bills that have made medical care a leading cause of bankruptcies.

More than 80 percent of people who die in the United States have a long, progressive illness such as cancer, heart failure or Alzheimer's disease.

More than 80 percent of such patients say they want to avoid hospitalization and intensive care when they are dying, according to the Dartmouth Atlas Project, which tracks health care trends.

Yet the numbers show that's not what is happening:

-The average time spent in hospice and palliative care, which stresses comfort and quality of life once an illness is incurable, is falling because people are starting it too late. In 2008, one-third of people who received hospice care had it for a week or less, says the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

-Hospitalizations during the last six months of life are rising: from 1,302 per 1,000 Medicare recipients in 1996 to 1,441 in 2005, Dartmouth reports. Treating chronic illness in the last two years of life gobbles up nearly one-third of all Medicare dollars.

"People are actually now sicker as they die," and some find that treatments become a greater burden than the illness was, said Dr. Ira Byock, director of palliative care at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. Families may push for treatment, but "there are worse things than having someone you love die," he said.

Gail Sheehy, author of the "Passages" books, learned that as her husband, New York magazine founder Clay Felker, spent 17 years fighting various cancers. On New Year's Day 2007, they waited eight hours in an emergency room for yet another CT scan until Felker looked at her and said, "No more hospitals."

"I just put a cover over him and wheeled him out of there with needles still in his arms," Sheehy said.

Then she called Dr. R. Sean Morrison, president of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine and a doctor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

"Nobody had really sat down with them about what his choices are and what the options were," said Morrison, who became his doctor.

About a year later, Felker withdrew his own feeding tube, and "it enabled us to go out and have a wonderful evening at a jazz club two nights before he died" in July 2008, Sheehy said.

Doctors can't predict how soon a patient will die, but they usually know when an illness has become incurable. Even then, many of them practice "exhaustion medicine" - treating until there are no more options left to try, said Dr. Martha Twaddle, chief medical officer of Midwest Palliative & Hospice Care Center in suburban Chicago.

A stunning number of cancer patients get aggressive care in the last days of their lives, she noted. One large study of Medicare records found that nearly 12 percent of cancer patients who died in 1999 received chemo in the last two weeks of life, up from nearly 10 percent in 1993.

Guidelines from an alliance of leading cancer centers say patients whose cancer has spread should stop getting anti-cancer medicine if sequential attempts with three different drugs fail to shrink their tumors. Yet according to IntrinsiQ, a cancer data analysis company, almost 20 percent of patients with colorectal cancer that has spread are on at least their fourth chemotherapy drug. The same goes for roughly 12 percent of patients with metastatic breast cancer, and for 12 percent of those with lung cancer. The analysis is based on more than 60,000 cancer patients.

Often, overtreating fatal illnesses happens because patients don't want to give up.

Saideh Browne said her mother, Khadija Akmal-Lamb, wanted to fight her advanced ovarian cancer even after learning it had spread to her liver. The 55-year-old Kansas City, Mo., woman had chemo until two weeks before she died last August.

"She kept throwing up, she couldn't go to the bathroom," and her body ached, Browne said. The doctors urged hospice care and said, "your mom was stubborn," Browne recalled. "She wanted her chemo and she wanted to live."

Browne, who lives in New York, formed a women's cancer foundation in her mother's honor. She said she would encourage dying cancer patients to choose comfort care over needless medicine that prolongs suffering.

It's easier said than done.

The American way is "never giving up, hoping for a miracle," said Dr. Porter Storey, a former hospice medical director who is executive vice president of the hospice group that Morrison heads.

"We use sports metaphors and war metaphors all the time. We talk about never giving up and it's not over till the fat lady sings .... glorifying people who fought to their very last breath," when instead we should be helping them accept death as an inevitable part of life, he said.

This is especially true when deciding whether to try one of the newer, extremely expensive cancer drugs such as Avastin, Erbitux and Tarceva. Some are touted as "improving survival by 30 or 50 percent" when that actually might mean living three weeks or months longer instead of two.

"It's amazing how little benefit those studies show," Storey said, referring to research on the new drugs.

Dan Waeger tried just about all of them. A nonsmoker, he was diagnosed with lung cancer at age 22, and pursued treatment after treatment before dying nearly four years later, in March 2009.

"He decided if there were odds to be beat, he was going to beat the odds," said his boss, Ellen Stovall, then-president of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, where Waeger worked as a fundraiser and development manager.

"He received just about every experimental new drug for lung cancer that I'm aware of in his last two years of life. He would get a treatment on a Friday afternoon, be sick all weekend and come to work on Monday," she recalled.

"He had these horrific rashes. He would get these horrible coughs that were not just the lung cancer. The treatments were making him cough up blood, just horrific side effects - vertigo, numbness, tingling in his hands and feet. He suffered."

Waeger's fiancee, Meg Rodgers, said they worried about exceeding the lifetime limits on his insurance, since the care was so expensive.

"I think every time he got a treatment, it was $10,000," though he paid only a $10 copay, she said.

Yet it was clearly worth any price to him - he died a week before they were to be married, after receiving home hospice care for only two weeks.

"I honestly believe he would have done anything he could to live one more day," Rodgers said.

Some health policy groups say cancer patients, as well as people with failing hearts or terminal dementia, should get better end-of-life counseling. Last year, a plan that would have let Medicare pay for doctors to talk about things like living wills was labeled "death panels" and was dropped.

Ultimately, how patients and their families make the journey is a matter of personal choice - and there are resources to help them, Stovall said.

"I've heard a lot of people over the years say what they would do if they had cancer until it is them. And then they will cling to even the smallest glimmer that something will help," she said.

"Cancer that can't be cured is often called daunting but not hopeless. So that's what patients hear. Hope is the last thing to go. People don't give that up easily."

© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 14 Comments
by rf35 June 29, 2010 11:38 AM EDT
"Dan Waeger...was diagnosed with lung cancer at age 22..."
"...the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, where Waeger worked"

How ironic is that?


Another thing: why do people insist in using the term "lost" to mean someone died? You didn't lose them! They're in the morgue/boneyard/urn on the fireplace; wherever. They're not a set of keys for crying out lod!
Reply to this comment
by newmark3 June 29, 2010 10:53 AM EDT
I agree it is an individualized choice. I am glad that we havemore options, I have read some of these stories and it is heartbreaking that the families left behind had to endure the loss both family members and finances.
Reply to this comment
by Clouseau2 June 28, 2010 11:31 PM EDT
A terminal patient with lots of afflictions to treat is a goldmine for a hospital. There is almost no downside, as it's hard to argue malpractice if the patient is close to death. In the meantime, the patient requires 24/7 care, endless tests and treatments ... translation: $$$$ for the hospital and the doctors treating the patient.
Reply to this comment
by jschmidt27 June 28, 2010 8:56 PM EDT
I'm sure politicians are big fans of shortening life due to costs. And I do think at times we go to far, and a life extended is often not enjoyable. But I hope it is the medical community that makes these decisions not the politicians.
Reply to this comment
by rf35 June 29, 2010 11:33 AM EDT
If I'M not making the decisions, then they are both wrong.
by armyoftwelve June 28, 2010 7:37 PM EDT
No one should feel compelled to endure "treatments" that prolong life unnecessarily. When you have elderly parents or sick parents, your whole family needs to have a discussion so that everyone is on the same page with regtards to end-of-life decisions. You'll save a lot of heartache now compared to what you will go through later....
Reply to this comment
by ffrecster June 28, 2010 6:29 PM EDT
Having recently lost my mother I understand exactly what this article is saying. Those who try to politicize this issue must have never faced the impending death of someone close to you. My mother had the strength, courage, faith and conviction to just say "Take me home, I want to die." Hospice was invaluable in helping our family make her comfortable. Having been through that I know better how do deal should the next situation arise. And even for my own inevitable death.
Reply to this comment
by Ron-in-Siberia June 28, 2010 6:17 PM EDT
Thanks to the likes of Sarah Palin, doctors don't get to talk to their patients about alternatives to the miserable end that people embark on when they have terminal illnesses. Shame on the Republicans and their backward thinking for depriving seriously ill people of quality of life in their final days.
Reply to this comment
by velma179 June 28, 2010 7:05 PM EDT
Doctors are still allowed to have the end-of-life (pallitive) care talk with folks... the issue is that insurance companies won't be paying for their time --- ergo, the doctors/health care organizations won't promote or initiate the discussions.

Hopefully, this is one area that will be re-visited and corrected as time goes by.
by either1or June 28, 2010 6:02 PM EDT
For some the words "death with dignity" means suicide. To doctors and hospitals it means a "loss of money". To me it means "freedom of suffering".
Reply to this comment
by dmtreat June 28, 2010 5:31 PM EDT
I have a perspective from the medical side, working as a nurse for a lot of sick people at the end of life and also from a family perspective with my dad who passed away in January of cancer. It is more complicated than it sounds. When someone gets the news that they have something like cancer they initially want to try something to help. Then it just seems like it is one thing after another that you just have to get through. Before you know it weakness sets in and then it is a matter of not being able to manage at home without 24 hour care and that is extremely hard to get. Typical home care is very limited to only a few hours per week. I think if insurance companies paid for more home care instead of the aggressive hospital treatment, more people would go home and be more comfortable. The reality is that people just can't manage at home without the help they need so they stay at the hospital and then go through all the treatments, etc they they otherwise wouldn't have had if they were home. In any case I don't think it is fair to judge people for whatever they choose. It is so individualized on so many levels.
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 June 28, 2010 4:23 PM EDT
Why would someone want to prolong the agony to live just one more week or one more month? If you're gonna die, you're gonna die. Give it up. Why would you put yourself through that, as well as your family?

And when you live in America, why would you want to bankrupt your family to gain a few months?

You can say no to that last minute chemo and you can say no to all those tubes. You have the choice to die in peace.

If I had cancer, and my chances were REAL GOOD with chemo, I MIGHT do it. But the chances are I wouldn't do it. I do not want poison running through my body. It isn't the thought of pain, because I have a very high pain threshold. My thing is that I couldn't handle the THOUGHT of poison going through my body.

I know of many people that went through the agony of chemo, only to have the cancer return in a few months anyways. I would prefer my family not to have to go through that and my death too.

And the thing with chemo is that it may cure THIS cancer, but the chances are it WILL cause a new cancer down the road.

Plus it can cause all sorts of other things to happen. I know someone that because of the chemo, he is now living his life in misery anyways. He suffers with major allergies to things and has no saliva. He now wishes he would die.

When it's time to go, it's time to go.
Reply to this comment
See all 14 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
Better Information. Better Health.
CBS News on Facebook