Showing posts with label quality of life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quality of life. Show all posts

Monday, January 16, 2012

Give a kid a chance, will ya?


"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."  - Martin Luther King, Jr.

There is a girl named Amelia who lives near Philadelphia and will need a kidney transplant later this year. But she may not get it. This is not a story about the difficulty of finding a match. Her family will donate the needed kidney. This story is different and more upsetting. She is being denied the transplant surgery she needs simply because she has intellectual disabilities. Doctors are denying her the transplant because of her “quality of life.”  

If you have not figured it out before from reading this blog, take note: There is a very strong bias against the disabled in the medical world. This bias is generally found hiding behind the phrase “quality of life.” As soon as I hear a doctor mention Maggie’s quality of life, I start looking for the door.

 Western medicine wants to “cure” illness and disease, but disability cannot be “fixed” by the curative model and it is therefore problematic to many doctors. (Not all doctors, of course.) Disability is not an illness or a disease, though. It is a reality; it comes in all shapes and sizes and it affects people without regard to race, gender, or socioeconomic status. It is true, some people with disabilities lead terrible painful lives; but others lead wonderful full lives and have adapted to the disability. The quality of their lives is quite good, despite or even because of  thedisability.  This is difficult for doctors who have the bias to understand and yet these very individuals are often in the position of deciding who lives and who dies.

The story about Amelia is a difficult story for me because it triggered so many things that happened with Maggie last year. Maggie, of course, is a different story because she is so very medically complicated in addition to her disabilities.  Doctors have legitimate medical reasons for declining some treatments on her. Sometimes, though, legitimate reasons are used as smoke screens to cover the underlying bias and I have to delve a little deeper to find out.

Last year Maggie needed a very complex surgery, which she might not survive. Neither Steve nor I were interested in putting Maggie through that and looked for a less invasive alternative. The surgeon refused to do the complex surgery, which we understood, and told us there was no less invasive alternative available. I had already spoken with other doctors and knew the possibilities. I simply did not believe him.

I asked a hypothetical and said, Ok, what if Maggie had a less complicated issue and needed a simpler surgery. (I used a specific example – one that I knew would present no problem for Maggie.) He said NO. “She is no longer a candidate for any surgery because she is too compromised.” The smoke screen cleared. I knew then that this was not about Maggie’s medical issues at all, but about her “quality of life.” Then, just to underscore the reality, he said, “You didn’t expect her to live forever, did you?

Well, no doctor, I suppose I did not. But I do expect her to get the same chance as other people.  Oh and by the way, you are talking about my daughter.

Lest you think I am delusional, let me assure you I fully understand how compromised Maggie is. I understand the dangers and live with them every minute of every day. I also understand when someone is writing off my daughter because he does not think she is “worth” saving. We went to other surgeons who did the less invasive alternative. It was simple, but we cannot be sure it worked. We are back to waiting and hoping, but at least we know Maggie got the chance she deserved.

I hope Amelia in Philadelphia gets her chance.

You can read her story here and if you are interested sign the petition at change.org to get the hospital to reverse its decision.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Quantifying Quality


This is something I've wanted to address for a long time, it is an important issue and I'm not trying to solve it, just to address it. 

(image grabbed from http://www.utoronto.ca/qol/)



People come in all shapes, sizes and colors. They have many different religious beliefs, political beliefs, socio-economic situations, education levels, talents and abilities. They live in cities, suburbs, small towns and rural areas.  I am an overweight middle-aged middle class white woman with a graduate degree living in the middle of a big City. Do I have the same interests as a slender young Asian male with a high school diploma living in the suburbs? Probably not. Is my life better than his? I might say yes. He might say no. We would both be right because neither of us is in a position to judge the quality of the other person’s life.

The quality of an individual’s life is subjective. It is unique to that person. Nevertheless, quality of life is measured all the time. These measurements use objective criteria and apply it generally to make a determination. We hear Magazines and surveys rate places on their “quality of life” score. For places that seems to be a combination of the weather and the number of universities and opera houses in the vicinity. The objective criteria, the weather and the arts – are predictors of the quality of life, because presumably most people want nice weather and access to the arts. However, if you like rain and hate opera that measurement does not mean much to you. Maybe you choose to live in a place because you ran out of gas in that town and found a job there. Turns out the people were nice and you made a life there. You still decide what brings quality to your life.  

Applying the objective criteria in a magazine survey is harmless and fun to read – especially if your area makes the “best” or “worst” lists. There are other areas, though, where it can be dangerous. When individuals or institutions decide from an objective standard that your quality of life is not good, and they have the power to affect your life, the results can be disastrous. I am talking, of course about healthcare.

 There are legitimate “quality of life” issues in health care. Healthcare providers and patients will address quality of life issues in making healthcare decisions. If a treatment will take pain away a patient’s quality of life may improve. It is an important factor for patients to consider in deciding whether to undergo treatment. It is the patient’s unique life. Only the patient knows what the quality is and what will improve it.

Yes. Some things are obvious. Less pain will increase almost everyone’s quality of life and it is safe to make that assumption. Many things are not so obvious. Other circumstances will have an impact.  Taking the drivers license away may have less of an impact on the quality of life of a person who lives in the city with easy access to public transportation than it will to a person who lives alone on a farm.   It depends on the individual. It depends on the life they are living.

I can safely say that most people would not want to be in Maggie’s situation. She is totally dependent on others for every need. For most of us that would be a devastating and unacceptable change in our quality of life. For Maggie, though, THIS IS HER LIFE.  It is the only life she has ever known; and I can tell you first hand, the quality of her life is different from yours and mine, but it is great. She is happy, loved, comfortable, pain free, smart, educated, engaging and entertaining. Often times I envy her for the joy in her heart.

People do not know that to look at her. They do not see the joy (unless they wait 30 seconds). They see the wheelchair. They see the trach. They do not see Maggie. If they did, they would know. Maggie is joyfully living the life she was given. She is living it to its greatest potential. If that is not quality, I do not know what is.

 There have been several instances where doctors do not want to treat her based on her quality of life. They measure her life by their own subjective criteria and find it unacceptable. It is snobbery. It is bias. It is discrimination. Then Maggie does something to surprise them. She smiles or makes a crack on her dynavox and they look at her from a different angle.  Generally, it takes them about 10 minutes to realize the mistake they have made. (The braying mother in the background may help or hurt – never sure which)

Recently and for the first time one doctor did not change his mind. Maggie needs surgery to address a life-threatening problem and he refused, requiring us to change doctors. He decided Maggie’s quality of life was too low to try to save. He made a decision that Maggie is not worth it.  

He is wrong.  

Monday, March 21, 2011

Is that a pigeon in that hole?


No one likes to be pigeonholed. It feels demeaning and dehumanizing. If we are categorized we lose our individuality. If the categorization happens to be  right, it feels creepy. If it’s wrong it’s  downright offensive. Reaching subjective conclusions  based on objective criteria omits real life and personal circumstances. It’s profiling and doing it to people strips them of the parts of them that are unique. It omits humanity.

We all do it in a general way. Advertisers target an entire demographic because percentage wise there is sufficient accuracy in these categories. Applying general conclusions to general groups of people is fine.  Applying general  conclusions to a specific person is not.It just does not work for everyone. You are a white, middle aged, professional female; hence you love Volvos and sushi. What? No I don’t? (OK, I do like Volvos, but it’s very difficult to get a wheelchair in one.) You are teenage African American male, hence you are into hip hop and sagging pants (are those still in?). The dapper African American high school student who plays classical piano might take exception to that. 

The more unusual the objective criteria, the more likely you are to be wrong.  It is one thing to be wrong about the type of car I might like and quite another to express conclusions about someone’s life. It happens to Maggie all the time. People see her disabilities and assume she has a miserable life.  They impose their own value judgments on her and decide what her life is like. Perhaps, they think if that were me I would be miserable, hence she must be miserable.   Newsflash – she’s not.  If you’ve ever read anything in this blog or ever spent more than 30 seconds with Maggie you know that.

Doctors – who dedicate their lives to curing others - cannot cure her disabilities. They can cure her illnesses but not her disabilities.  Perhaps because they can’t “fix” her, some (not all) assume her life is  terrible.  Some refer to her poor quality of life.  They are wrong, but they are powerful and in a position to apply those judgments in dangerous ways.  I quickly remind them that her life is different, and we think the quality is quite good. I ask them to give me the medical information and let us decide the quality of life issues. That tends to stop them cold. They may think I’m crazy. I really don’t care. My job is to protect her, even from those who will help her.

Don’t misunderstand or think me naive. I completely understand that Maggie got a raw deal in life. I know that better than anyone. But Maggie is almost constantly happy. Things you wouldn’t even notice absolutely delight her. She is smiling or laughing more often than not, because she finds her life just delightful. That to me demonstrates a pretty good quality of life.

I pity the fool who tries pigeonhole Maggie. If they can get past their own bias, she will surprise them every time.

And her crazy mother will throw sushi at them from her Volvo.