When patients and family members say. "We want everything possible done."?

Question

When patients and family members say. "We want everything possible done."?

Answer 1

I would just like to respond to your question from a parent's perspective and a granddaughter's. Although it is always a huge factor, I don't believe money should be the issue where health care is concerned. However, I don't feel that everything should be done in a situation where there is nothing that can be done, regardless of age. A family should be told the whole truth and should be advised of all possible treatments and there consequences good or bad. Also, they should be told what the out come may be as far as can be determined. Only then can a family make an informed decision about their loved ones life. At the same time the family should take into consideration that "quality of life" is the decision maker. If you don't know the outcome, then everything should be done, In the case of a a 93 year old granny or a 16 year old baby girl, I don't believe anyone other than the family has the right to make such decisions. I am speaking from experience in both cases and I feel very strongly that if nothing can be done then nothing should be done. On the other hand, I also feel the only ones to make that decision is the family, Not doctors and not the government and not insurance companies. It is an emotional situation, but when given all the facts the family has the responsibility to make the right decision. Some families would not make an unselfish decision based on the facts, but doctor's don't always make the right call either. I don't believe that age should be the factor that makes one try or not try to save a life. As I said before, the fact that a person will be subjected to unnecessary treatments when there is no chance for survival or no quality of life should make the choice between treatment or letting them go in peace no matter how hard that may be. Naturally the doctor should be involved in the decision to the extent of giving the family their professional and personal opinion. I believe that most people can put their own feelings aside when given all the facts and do the right thing, as the family you wrote about did when you talked to them in a way that made them understand the futility of their circumstance even though they were so distraught. Communication between doctors and patients or family is very important.

Answer 2

I understand what you are saying. There has to be a better way of doing things and this has been a long time coming. I do not like the idea of the government making these decisions though. I think there are too many people dictating how doctors practice medicine as it is and the government has a way of screwing things up beyond belief. In the past few months I know a few oncologists who are rarely giving chemo in their offices anymore due to the cuts in reimbursement. So where is the savings when it is cheaper to treat the patient in the office than it is to admit them? How long can this go on before the hospitals can’t afford it either?



There has got to be a better way to spend money. It is upsetting to see someone with an early stage cancer have a worse prognosis just because they have poor insurance or no insurance. It is also upsetting to see the amount of money spent on healthcare for illegal aliens when our own people are doing with less. Living in Los Angeles I see a lot of this.



Maybe in a scenario like you mentioned there could be a scale that increases the amount paid by the patient and/or their family depending on the patient’s age, cancer, stage, comorbidities, etc. Sometimes people become a little more realistic when it is their money being spent. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems elderly patients are pretty realistic in these situations it is the family that is usually the problem. At the same time you also want to leave room for the patient who wants to live long enough to see their grandchild for the first time or some other important milestone.



It’s a good question. There is no doubt something is going to happen and whatever it is people will not be happy.

Answer 3

Giving doctors a malpractice payout caps is like giving truck drivers a payout cap when they choose to drive recklessly or under the influence. Once a person is seriously injured by their wrongdoing the cost of modifying their life is very high. So should someone that is left unable to work and required long-term medical care until they die only be paid out half the amount they need to live? The harm was done. Who should pay for the expenses that have been incurred onto this person who has been wrongfully and recklessly harmed? Should they just go on welfare then and let the government pay for what some reckless doctor decided to do?



It is difficult enough to sue and a court of law won't find someone guilty unless there is proof. I have a friend that was overdosed with painkillers while she was at the hospital. She kept telling the nurses and the doctors she could simply not handle that many painkillers. They never listened. If it wasn't because her daughter was sitting right next to her and found her at the middle of the night not breathing, she would be dead.



It was finally confirmed that the dosage prescribed by the doctor was excessively high for her little 100 lb body. But since she seems to have not suffered any serious consequences or lasting ailments from her near death experience, lawyers told her that there was little or nothing she could gain by suing the doctor. The doctor still has his license and for all we know he is still overdosing little old ladies with painkillers.



I bet the engineers that built that bridge in Minnesota agree that there should also be a cap on Engineering malpractice. Hell, why don't we put caps on every kind of malpractice? Are doctors all of a sudden above the law? If there is a cap placed on one kind of malpractice, it should be applied to all fields of work then. Or is everyone else second-class citizens in relation to doctors? Why laws to protect them and not us?

Answer 4

As advised pray and speak your concerns with your spiritually strong brothers and sisters, 1 Peter 3:21 has always given me the answer to why being baptize is so important where it says: 21 That which corresponds to this is also now saving YOU, namely, baptism, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the request made to God for a good conscience,) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:4 explains why your family objects to your baptism and since they are close family members ask them if they will let you explain why you are getting baptized & if they will prepare a statement like preparing a talk and during that statement express your firm resolve & reason for getting baptized. By doing this you will see if their concern is for you or if they are trying to manipulate you into their views and they are not concerned about your views. I would have the sister who studies with you there for support. Anything you do will not make it an easy task & the most simple way is to say this is your choice and if they want to know why you are doing this you would be more than happy to explain your reasons. Paul said opposition would come from our own family's and we should always put Jehovah first & this can be very difficult when it comes to family members that you love and know they love you, there is no easy answers. Our prayers will be with you! Agape fixerken

Answer 5

Hi there, As I live in Canada, yes the Health Care system is a bit different. I personally think that to put a 96 year old person through Chemo, Radiation etc. is not even humane. At that age, as you know better than I do the human body could probably not even take that kind of treatment.



I really feel that the decision sometimes has to be taken out of the families hands. Often their decisions are not even rational. Sometimes they make the decision out of sympathy, not wanting to let a loved one go, or sometimes even guilt.



I realize that there is only a limited amount of dollars to be spent on health care and I am glad that I am not in the position to have to make the decisions that you doctors have to make. Also sometimes health care is available to people who are more financially stable as they can pay for extra treatments where the ordinary working person who counts on Government Health Care do not get the same treatment.



But...I would not like to see the government make any decisions. My family knows that when my time comes, they are to do nothing in regards to having machinery keep me alive, or as in the case of the 96 year old lady you mentioned, keep me comfortable as much as pain medication drugs can and let me go. I know where I am going and I know my family will respect my wishes. I also have that stated in my will, as should everyone. If more people would not be afraid to have a will, and make their choices known, I think that a lot of people would choose not to go through the effects of chemo when there is little to no hope.



I know people who will not make a will because they are afraid that if they do they will die. I know that makes no sense, but then it puts the family in a position to make choices that they themselves would not actually want made.



When there are only so many dollars available I truly think that the money should be spent, on yes children but also on young adults who contribute financially to the health care. The money has to come from somewhere, and the largest source is from unfortunately taxes.



A couple of years ago here in Canada there was a case where an older gentleman was unconscious (coma?) and only machinery was keeping him alive (breathing). The family insisted on keeping him on the life support for religious reasons even tho doctors recommended that he be taken off as he really was dead and only the machines were keeping him alive. The family was adamant and took the case to court and actually won. There has been nothing lately and I have no idea if the man is alive or dead, or still on machinery keeping him breathing.. After a few weeks of the publicity, no more was widely published about it, at least to my knowledge.



Since that case or because of that case, the government is in the process of changing the law to give the doctor's more say. The law may have been passed already. This is not a subject that our government is really publicizing.



I know that some doctors will abuse the privilege and want to continue to perform treatments or surgery that will not do the patient much good, as you stated, some will do it for the money which is very sad. One thing that I am thankful for is that from reading your question I am sure that you are a caring, compassionate doctor who has the best interests of the patient and not your pocketbook.



I really thank God for doctors like you, because I see here in Ontario where I live there are many unnecessary operations done in place of therapy, or just living with a bit of discomfort and get on with it.



I have seen friends die after suffering from cancer, after the painful treatments and have also seen a few of them who have survived, and thankfully their quality of life is much improved.



I don't think there will ever be an easy answer, but I do pray that the decision makers in both our countries, make wise decisions, based on experience and for the good of all concerned and not just a money making business.

Answer 6

I believe that at 96 she has lived a long and fulfilling life. i think it is greedy of the family to want to subject her to that. We recently went through this with my 88 year old Great Aunt. She had the same cancer. We were told that there were some more procedures they could try for her. The family all had a very long talk. It was I who said she is 88 years old. She has fought a long time. (10 years) and has had varying treatments. All of which left her horribly ill and unable to care for herself. It would be selfish of us to subject her to more treatments just because we wanted her around. in the end we all agreed to let her go peacefully. Aunt Elsie died 3 days later in her sleep. RIP Aunty.





There are many many young children who suffer from cancers and have not even begun to fully live their lives yet. Why use up resources on a patient that has no chance when these children have a chance? My son is awaiting a bone marrow transplant. He was diagnosed with leukemia at only 6 years old. The first transplant he was supposed to get ended up going to an elderly patient who passed away during the transplant. There are no matches in the family for my son. So his adoptive parents and I were relying on that transplant. A bone marrow transplant is the only thing that could save his life at this point.



Just my opinion and my experience.

Answer 7

I'm really not quite sure where you are going with this . . are you talking about wasting money on untreatable cancer patients or only elderly people with cancer?



My son was 17 years old at diagnosis and filled with inoperable tumors, some the size of volley balls . .are you suggesting that we should have let him die to save money? Our insurance company even told us he was going to die anyway . . so why pay for his surgery? I know that you are more compassionate than that . . too . . my son probably would have died had he not started chemotherapy immediately .. which he did. Despite his doctors giving us a grim scenario . .my son responded to high dose chemo and all his tumor shrunk. He than underwent experimental treatment which put him into remission . .it did not last unfortunately . . but he was no evidence of disease . . it is true that with his type of cancer most young people die. We knew that but we asked (my son too) the doctors to at least give him a fighting chance. And that is what they did. His doctors were outstanding in their care for him and the ability to juggle treatment with his quality of life. Because of their excellent care he enjoyed his very shortened life . . and other than when he was in treatment . . he was mostly healthy . . and I mean going out with friends, doing school work, enjoying sports . .everything he had done before being ill . . and he stayed that way until one month before he died.



What you may consider a waste of money . . to him and to our family was the precious gift of time . . there is no monetary value to this. We had him an extra three years . . and who knows during that period of time perhaps a 'cure' would have been found. We do not regret the decision. I cannot speak for others . .but that time we enjoyed together . . is precious beyond your wildest imagination.

Answer 8

Wow....Dr. Spreedog, there are quite lengthy responses here, you have stirred quite a hornets' nest and I do not want to add to it.

Suffice it to say that in 2003, one of my Aunts was diagnosed with Oesophageal cancer and we were adviced not to go in for treatment....it is only subjecting the patient to endless torture. The disease ran the course as predicted....she died at the end of 2 and half months....due to failure of liver. Though some guilt remains....whether we could have done something....anything....in the end remaining quiet seems to have been okay....except for keeping her (thankfully) pain free. When one is old and the 'other side' beckons, I suppose it is time to let one go, in whatever humane way is possible, ofcourse.

But all those two and half months were acute times of awareness. This is not the first time we have lost a near loved one to cancer. I mean your sense of living becomes heightened, rather than the other mundane life times we lead...but we do feel relieved once it is over.

God makes us go through such times for a reason. But I do not admit I comprehend it fully even now. Perhaps when I reach 'the other side' I may appreciate it fully.

Answer 9

I have been thinking about how to answer this since it was first posted. Its a very hard question. Your first answer says that no one else should be making the decision other than the family. But the fact is when it is you and your family, you arent thinking about the bigger picture. I certainly wasnt thinking about starving children in Africa, or even in my own town when I was getting treatment and going through tons of money to be treated. I was thinking that I need to be treated regardless of the cost.... Of course I was, especially when Im not even the one who has paid for it.



But financially, things are and have been changing, and are going to continue to change. What happens when you have to make a choice between feeding homeless people with the money, or treating a patient that statistically cant be helped?? How do you decide who is more important?



Have you ever been so poor that you have to rationalize with yourself about where you spend your money? Is the electric bill more important, or are the groceries more important? Is it more important to pay the water bill, or is it more important to put gas in the car? They are impossible decisions that many people are faced with. Deciding how to allocate medical funds is kind of the same thing but on a larger scale. Is it more important to spend tons of money treating those who statistically dont have a chance, or is it more important to treat the people who actually do have a chance of living?



I think? in the UK people still have the option to go to private doctors, and I figure that is the only way to make this work here. There will have to be choices made about who is treated and who is not, and let the ones who arent seek private care if they wish. As it is today, many cancer patients are ALREADY left out in the cold because they have no insurance. People ALREADY make decisions about who is worth treating and who isnt, only now its based on who has insurance and who doesnt. I lucked out and qualified for medicaid when I was diagnosed. But the hospital made it clear they would not treat me without a means of insurance or payment upfront. They DID help me get set up with medicaid, but had I not qualified, where would I have gotten the money?????? I was 21 and working retail, barely able to pay my rent. Atleast if you base the decision on the medical case and statistical prognosis, its somewhat more fair.



The way I see it, there would have to be some sort of person or group playing triage. Only, instead of doing it with a small group of people, they will be doing it for the entire nation. And its going to be very hard, there are going to be accusations of unfairness. But it has to start somewhere.

Answer 10

Yes. It is best to let people die because pharma companies need their patents paid for!



Heaven forbid we change the laws regarding that. It is best to come up with all other kinds of possibilities first (like the ones you suggested, such as letting people die because--its just too expensive to let them live??).



The idea of pharma companies or any medical service being for-profit leads to very bad things. I have worked consulting in pharma facilities testing as well as medical device testing. I no longer work in the field, but I can tell you that--from working there and seeing many things we could do or say little about--most of us who worked in the field took little or no medications because we knew what was behind it all. Some people who worked in one particular facility came down with diseases that are not listed as a reaction even when the drug is injected. Nevertheless, it is known by word of mouth and seen that the technicians at the facility got sick when handling the drug. In that same facility, the president of the company had committed suicide because he had knowingly ran the facility below acceptable operating standards (resulting in an unknown number of patients with injuries or death) in order to increase profits. When he realized that his crimes had been uncovered and that he would likely be punished, he committed suicide. I looked it up, this story did not hit the papers (nor the suicide nor the crime). I have only seen the legal papers that prove what happened along with the people who told me about it.



In medical device facilities, I had a lot of technicians complain that they were asked to work at a rate where it is simply not physically possible to do all the testing that was necessary to certify that the equipment was in proper operating condition. But if they didn't 'rush' through then they would lose their jobs. Technicians that were known to skip steps were promoted, those who did their work properly and carefully were often 'laid off'. (They did have people double checking to see if the company logo sticker was centered properly, but no one cared if the testing was done properly!)



You might ask why I didn't go out and tell the whole world about it? The laws in place would have done nothing but get me a lawsuit for bad mouthing those companies. The drug that was causing those reactions on the technicians had already been approved and undergone clinical trials. Is my word going to be worth anything against that? As far as the medical devices, that is very difficult to prove. The company had already had many lawsuits regarding faulty devices, but statistically I am sure they found it would be cheaper to pay for the lawsuits than to slow down work.



People think their medical devices and their drugs are safe because there are laws to protect them. My experience has taught me the law does help, but profits are so important that companies will find each and every way they can to get around the law. They are solely driven by profits.



In the end it is about making money and it is not about saving the patient. As long as the medical field is for profit, I do not consider it will ever do anything useful.



No I would not recommend the chemo for the 96 year old lady, but I would not have recommended she see a doctor either (or anyone else that is out to make money from her tragedy).

Answer 11

Your question goes to the core of the American health care debate.



While Medicare will pay $200,000 for pointless treatment on an 80-year-old patient, many people die in the prime of life because they have no medical insurance. How many 20, 30, and 40-year-olds skip medication and routine exams because of cost issues? I recently read a government finding that estimates 18,000 Americans die annually from preventable causes as a direct result of lack of insurance.



The government estimates that 500,000 families enter bankruptcy every year as a direct result of a medical crisis. Whether from lack of insurance, under-insurance, or the inability to pay ordinary household bills while sick. . . it is an ongoing national catastrophe.



What amazes me most are the sanctimonious know-it-alls who blame patients for illness-related financial troubles. I have actually read responses in this very forum saying, "If you don't have insurance then you deserve to die." Is that the type of America we want? Is this how we should treat our fellow citizens?



Every other developed country has longer life expectancies than the US. Those countries also have government-managed health care. France, Britain, Canada, and all the rest have generally better health outcomes than the US. Why is that?



The litigation environment is a big part of the problem for health costs. Juries award huge settlements for questionable claims. I am always reminded of the woman who spilled hot coffee on her lap from a McDonald's drive-thru. She said McDonald's didn't warn her that the coffee was hot, so the jury gave her $1,400,000. If spilled coffee gets you $1.4 million, then medical malpractice should get a lot more, right?



I believe that America needs to learn from Europe and Asia regarding health care. Frankly, our country has the most expensive and ineffective health system in the developed world. Just check World Health Organization statistics if you don't believe me.

Answer 12

Distraught families would be the hardest to deal with and when it comes to "We want everything done." I feel that, at 96 years of age you have probably live a fruitful life and would be pleased to slip away as painlessly as possibly. Treatment is very expensive and I for 1 would expect it to be told to my family how much and if it would cure me or any one close to me.

In most cases I think "We want everything done." should mean within reason and you must consider the age and could this patient really recover to live a normal life once again.

To be honest this 96 year olds family are not thinking realistically.

Answer 13

When someone we love is diagnosed as being terminally ill, our initial reaction is to do anything to save them.



My personal belief system is that we should do everything possible to make them comfortable.



Where there is a good chance that treatment will cause at least remission, then I believe we should give it.



When all we are doing is giving the family more time to prepare for the inevitable, while putting someone through the harrowing experience that is cancer treatment, then no, I believe only palliative care should be given.

Answer 14

Wow Spreedog, that's a difficult question. Thinking back to personal experience, very recently I might add, my dr gave me 3 choices. He said, we can send you home with anti seizure med, we can biopsy or we can remove the tumor from your brain. I, even in my drug induced state, said get it out of my head. I've told my onco that if it ever regrows, I want it cut on till there's nothing left to cut on. Now, when I'm older...much older, I may see things differently. I don't even want to consider what my pending death will be like for my family or for me, right now. Had I been the 96 year old, I probably would have done nothing but chosen to remain comfortable in my old age. Probably doesn't answer your question, but I am concerned if the healthcare bill passes, the gov't will always be looking for the cheap way out of some very bad diseases and more of us will die waiting to be approved for the correct treatment.



The crust of a great doctor is giving options like Dr. Ewend gave me at the most critical time in my life. He's also given me after treatment options and more options if my cancer returns. He once stated, don't worry about the insurance nor the cost, your life is more important.



I believe that cost is a major factor in the medical decisions made in Britain and Canada, which is sometimes to the detriment of the patient. Also a study of Australia's healthcare showed more elderly died for lack of treatment in a "free" medical society.

Answer 15

Mr. Spreedog,I know Doctors face a lot of emmotional turmoil in their proffession that they somehow fight with their inner self regarding some very serious decisions they encounter.However I also believe the medical proffession is a calling of some kind following Florence Nightingale who sacrificed herself to the British soldiers against all odds during the Crimean war in 1854.

When you say there is no need to waste tonnes of money to 96 years old woman fighting cancer does not justify that she is old enough to die that assisting her die is necessary.We have records of very old people even living up to 150 years.As an oncologist I know you have gone through terrible experiences but always fight to the end in trying to assist a patient live despite age.Here in Africa we value Old people as well as Young people and thus the saying goes,"Children are holy and blameless as the Old".You are lucky that in your country there is medical insurance to cater for medical expenses.My son has undergone 4 chemo phases and he is yet to complete four phases but I have exhausted my insurance cover before the end of the year that Im forced to buy medicines and take the boy to goverment hospitals for infusion.Goverment Hospitals are in dilapidated conditions and i think they are the ones which can assist a patient die before time.Its my faith and prayer that my son will heal,I will fight to the end and with assistance from medical practitioners all will be well.

You have a good heart Doc.a life of a patient is at the mercy of a Doctor though family members can deter your efforts.Doctors treat but God heals.Have a blessed day.

Answer 16

I don’t believe that this is the type of question for which there is a singular answer. If I have understood the context of your question correctly, you seem to be assuming a centralized health system, that is, “ . . . Where do we draw the lines? Can we spend the entire federal budget doing everything possible for everyone? . . . “ Personally I don’t believe that we should spend any federal budget for health care. Such is not a part of the delegated powers of the Constitution.



Certainly a centralized government health system is one in which the resources of health care can be viewed (sort of a bad analogy) as a pie that has limits and therefore cannot fill all needs desired or required. It does appear that we (as a nation) are traveling down the road to such a system, but we aren’t there yet and we can hope that we do not become constrained by one. However, if we do, then rationing of health care procedures will occur and that will include exclusion of the aged and those without a prognosis of cure and such decisions will be made by governmentally defined and controlled health care procedures, not families or doctors. In such a case, logic will be replaced by the political world dependant on ever increasing taxes and special privileges for the powerful.



However, in a health care system based on free enterprise (without governmental intrusion) competition will provide wide differing solutions which will be selected based on decisions between doctors and patient families. Contributing to such decision making will be a number of elements. For example, those of the medical field will have to make decisions as to what they will offer based on ethics. If a doctor believes that offering some type of care is meaningless (or unethical), then that doctor has a responsibility to ensure that the patient family understands such a reality and why it is not available. To do less is fraud.



Of course some other doctor may be willing to offer such health care or offer a completely different type of care. The patient family will have to chose what is best for the patient and the patient family. That family decision will include the ability to pay for those services. That ability to pay will be comprised of a number of elements. Personal financial capability, insurance support, other organization’s grants. If they do not have the financial wherewithal the health care system has no obligation to perform the health care.



Here too, competition (if government intrusion is missing) can assist offering more options. There was a time when insurance used actuarial tables based on community and not limited to the narrow confines of members of a contract for a singular business. This lowers actuarially defined risk and insurance cost and with competition more things will be covered thereby lessening rationing.



Underlying all of this should be a greater cultural acceptance of the death period in our lives. A cultural understanding that, while death should be fought, it should not be feared but rather be accepted as a ‘normal’ part of life.



Some will find what I say next to be distasteful at best. I have worked with animals for nearly 50 years and they too have health care needs which also include a period of death. In that context I have made the decision many times about when it is time to let them go. This decision is made along with our family, the veterinary we use and attitude of the animal in question. As long as their quality of life is positive we worked to keep them alive and healthy but when it became obvious that they no longer were enjoying their life we assisted them to pass on.



We should be at least equally respectful of the people we live with.

Answer 17

As a doctor I am sure you know that miracles do happen. I have had one myself and it is not up to YOU to decide what is and should be the end of life for someone. It is up to the family and individual !



I realize some doctors think they are GODS and have all the answers..but you do not. My son should be dead after a car accident and in a coma for 10 weeks and when half his brain hemmoraged and was damaged. I had a rare cancer that should not have let me live..and I am one of few who have. I am in the medical books with Dr. Geller from Ohio.



As much as everyone says give up and not try ..it is too expensive..you have to admit that you get knowledge to help others by treatments and trying different things. It should be THEIR call and not the government or yours. Just saving ONE person may be help for many...and one miracle could save millions. Look at the miracle of polio vacs etc....how many flukes are these ? It takes one opened mind and heart to find a cure...and they are out there. WE just have to find them.



Giving up doesn't allow for those miracles and cures does it? How do you determine who to let try treatments and what and who they will work on? What is good for one is not good for another ...and how do you find out what is going to work on who if you give up?



You are talking ONE cancer....there are many and I am sure you know that. I am just here to tell you that 7 doctors told me my son would not live and if he did he would be brain dead.



My son lives by himself in his own home..has gone to college and drives a car with hand controls. He is paralyzed...and four years ago he lost his leg due to a staph infection...but my son is alive and well. And so am I. How do YOU explain that when many experts and doctors here cannot not? How do you explain you have to give up on the hopes and dreams of someone when they CAN pull through...even if the odds are against them.



I do believe in the power of prayer and I do believe God has his hand in our destiny and it is up to him to decide when and how we exit this world. God saved my son....through the hands and eyes of physicians who didn't give up either. God Bless them and I am grateful forever for the doctors that cared enough to know that life is in their hands..but not all of it. Thank God there are doctors out there that when my granddaughter died also knew when it was time so she would not suffer....It is through those gentle hands and loving hearts and expertise that we could let go of Lily and let her go home to God.



There isn't always an answer to everything...nor is there always an explanation for why things happen. It is life.



I am sure you have seen miracles in your lifetime that you could not explain too. How could you NOT being a doctor that tries to save lives.????



When someone is 96 and is in the situation you said...it was only right to let her go. It was time. God wanted her home. If she was 50 or 60..it might have been too soon....there might have been a chance...with some miracle. You cannot say with 100 percent certainty it would have ended with a miracle. Even if you say zero chance of cure...there will be the ONE that starts that road to curing that type of cancer. SOMEDAY!



Thank you for your senstivity and generosity towards that family and knowing that 96 is time to say goodbye. It is always hard to let go...we are going through that with my dad now and we have agreed that when the time comes we won't make him suffer. His life would never be the same. I know at 84 his life is very limited at this point and even miracles and prayers wont' save him as we all have to die someday. It is hard to let go.



I have seen many children die ....37 of them...seen four of them take their last breaths..was with my grandfather when he took his last breath too....and was there for my granddaughter Lily when she took her last breath. It is never easy knowing death is forever and you have to let go! It is US who suffer....not them. I am sure you know what it is like to watch the last breath of life go out of someone.....you never get used to it. NEVER.



I am not sure what you are asking here....if we agree with it or not..or just finding a voice to say what you are feeling. You carry a huge burden and choices I would not want to make. I am sure God helps you with those choices and it is not easy to make them.



God be with you when you help families make those choices...and God Bless you for being there to help those you can.