More sermon prep.
Jun. 23rd, 2010 11:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaMy sermon draft is already 2000 words long and I'm just developing the religious theme now. I've decided to carry it through to the end and then make drastic cuts, instead of trying to shorten it as I go. There's a lot that I know and believe and think that doesn't need to make it into the sermon. I'm pretty sure I'll have to get all of it said before I can figure out which pieces are sermon-shaped.
I'm going to keep posting bits. Feel free to disagree or ask questions or, you know, flounder with the issue; it helps me formulate my thoughts. At this point it's probably not useful to tell me what you think I should leave out or to comment on matters of style. I'm not there yet. I'm just getting it all out.
2. David Kissane and therapy for the dying.
I’m going to admit straight up that I didn’t know what I was doing when I worked with Ray. I knew how to treat depression, but I didn’t know how to do it without the promise of a better life afterward. Ray lived much, much longer than the doctors predicted – perhaps because he willed himself to; I don’t know – but I couldn’t do all the things I knew how to do: entice him with visions of useful work, fun, social relationships, romance, once the shadow of depression was lifted. Even when he was better he was still dying. Ray and I had to grope our way through that without an instruction manual.
A year or so after Ray’s death I went to a conference about psychosocial aspects of cancer care and I heard a presentation by an Australian psychiatrist named David Kissane. Dr. Kissane identified a set of symptoms that are common among persons with terminal illness: hopelessness, the loss of a sense of meaning in life, a feeling of powerlessness, fear of loss of dignity, fear of burdening others. He called these symptoms "demoralization syndrome:" loss of morale on the profoundest level. These feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness, he said, inevitably resulted in a desire to die or to commit suicide.
These feelings of demoralization – hopelessness, powerlessness, fear of losing dignity – may seem to some to be intrinsic to the process of dying. Of course, if you’re dying, why wouldn’t you be demoralized? But in fact, not everyone is. And second: Dr. Kissane was able to develop a psychotherapy that successfully treated demoralization syndrome. It was specifically designed to help people reflect on the meaning of their life and on their legacy – and we’re not necessarily talking about anything huge; I remember that he said, "for some people, it’s that they have a really good borscht recipe, one they want to hand down to their family." He would help people craft a sense of their legacy, his assistants would write down what they came up with, and they’d make it into a beautiful little book and present it to the dying person, so they could share their legacy with their families and friends.
And the thing is: repeatedly, he found that this kind of psychotherapy cured people of the desire for assisted suicide.
3. So...
So it turns out that terminally ill or severely disabled people who want to commit suicide aren’t actually different from anyone else who wants to commit suicide. They are suffering. Their suffering is responsive to treatment. And when they receive appropriate treatment, they lose the desire for suicide.
What does this mean for the assisted suicide movement?
And why did it take so long – some thirty years after the assisted suicide movement began – for anyone to study ill people who wanted to die and figure out what was wrong with them, and what could help them want the time they had remaining? Why weren’t those obvious questions from the start?
4. Things I know about suicide.
I started talking around in my social circle about this sermon I was going to give, and someone said to me very earnestly: “Rebecca, what you may not realize is that I’ve talked to some of these people and they do genuinely want to die. They have logical reasons.”
I don’t think she knew what I do in my work life. I’m not a licensed psychologist – I do clinical research instead – but over the years I have talked to many, many suicidal people, and they always have reasons. Their reasons are always compelling to them, and sometimes they are persuasive enough that they sound pretty compelling to me too. It was for good cause that psychiatrist Aaron Beck said in his famous treatment manual for depression that if you ever find yourself agreeing that your client’s situation is hopeless, it’s a sign that you’ve gotten sucked into their irrational thinking.
I know some things about suicidal people. One of the things I know is that you will never meet a suicidal person who is completely unconflicted, completely lacking in ambivalence. That’s because people like that are already dead before you have a chance to meet them. Anyone who lets another person know that they are suicidal, however certain they may sound, is ambivalent. There’s a part of that person – perhaps just a small part, a weak part – that wants to live. There’s a part of that person that wants to be rescued.
My job, when I meet a suicidal person, is uncomplicated. It is my job to stand with the part of the person that wants to be rescued.
I say “uncomplicated” although of course sometimes actually carrying out that job can be enormously complicated. What is uncomplicated is the part about knowing where my allegiance should be. I don’t try to wade into the person’s situation and figure out whether their problems are in fact hopeless. I don’t try to figure out, from what they are able to tell me about their prospects, whether their life is really worth living or whether they would be better off dead. The law, my professional ethics, my experience, and my personal values all tell me that my allegiance must be with life. That part is uncomplicated.
5. Suicidal dying or disabled people are different.
When the issue of assisted suicide comes up, I talk about the suicidal people I have known. "How come no one says my patients should be allowed to kill themselves? People who are mentally ill, people who are overwhelmed by horrifying life events – where is the assisted suicide movement for them?" Then people get annoyed with me: "Terminally ill and disabled people are different."
How are they different? Why is it that there is literally no disaster, no tragedy, no collection of problems so severe that our society argues that a person ought to be allowed to die rather than suffer them – EXCEPT for physical disability, physical helplessness? What makes being seriously ill or disabled different from every other bad thing that a person could possibly experience?
I’m going to give you a minute here to struggle with that question.
I'm going to keep posting bits. Feel free to disagree or ask questions or, you know, flounder with the issue; it helps me formulate my thoughts. At this point it's probably not useful to tell me what you think I should leave out or to comment on matters of style. I'm not there yet. I'm just getting it all out.
2. David Kissane and therapy for the dying.
I’m going to admit straight up that I didn’t know what I was doing when I worked with Ray. I knew how to treat depression, but I didn’t know how to do it without the promise of a better life afterward. Ray lived much, much longer than the doctors predicted – perhaps because he willed himself to; I don’t know – but I couldn’t do all the things I knew how to do: entice him with visions of useful work, fun, social relationships, romance, once the shadow of depression was lifted. Even when he was better he was still dying. Ray and I had to grope our way through that without an instruction manual.
A year or so after Ray’s death I went to a conference about psychosocial aspects of cancer care and I heard a presentation by an Australian psychiatrist named David Kissane. Dr. Kissane identified a set of symptoms that are common among persons with terminal illness: hopelessness, the loss of a sense of meaning in life, a feeling of powerlessness, fear of loss of dignity, fear of burdening others. He called these symptoms "demoralization syndrome:" loss of morale on the profoundest level. These feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness, he said, inevitably resulted in a desire to die or to commit suicide.
These feelings of demoralization – hopelessness, powerlessness, fear of losing dignity – may seem to some to be intrinsic to the process of dying. Of course, if you’re dying, why wouldn’t you be demoralized? But in fact, not everyone is. And second: Dr. Kissane was able to develop a psychotherapy that successfully treated demoralization syndrome. It was specifically designed to help people reflect on the meaning of their life and on their legacy – and we’re not necessarily talking about anything huge; I remember that he said, "for some people, it’s that they have a really good borscht recipe, one they want to hand down to their family." He would help people craft a sense of their legacy, his assistants would write down what they came up with, and they’d make it into a beautiful little book and present it to the dying person, so they could share their legacy with their families and friends.
And the thing is: repeatedly, he found that this kind of psychotherapy cured people of the desire for assisted suicide.
3. So...
So it turns out that terminally ill or severely disabled people who want to commit suicide aren’t actually different from anyone else who wants to commit suicide. They are suffering. Their suffering is responsive to treatment. And when they receive appropriate treatment, they lose the desire for suicide.
What does this mean for the assisted suicide movement?
And why did it take so long – some thirty years after the assisted suicide movement began – for anyone to study ill people who wanted to die and figure out what was wrong with them, and what could help them want the time they had remaining? Why weren’t those obvious questions from the start?
4. Things I know about suicide.
I started talking around in my social circle about this sermon I was going to give, and someone said to me very earnestly: “Rebecca, what you may not realize is that I’ve talked to some of these people and they do genuinely want to die. They have logical reasons.”
I don’t think she knew what I do in my work life. I’m not a licensed psychologist – I do clinical research instead – but over the years I have talked to many, many suicidal people, and they always have reasons. Their reasons are always compelling to them, and sometimes they are persuasive enough that they sound pretty compelling to me too. It was for good cause that psychiatrist Aaron Beck said in his famous treatment manual for depression that if you ever find yourself agreeing that your client’s situation is hopeless, it’s a sign that you’ve gotten sucked into their irrational thinking.
I know some things about suicidal people. One of the things I know is that you will never meet a suicidal person who is completely unconflicted, completely lacking in ambivalence. That’s because people like that are already dead before you have a chance to meet them. Anyone who lets another person know that they are suicidal, however certain they may sound, is ambivalent. There’s a part of that person – perhaps just a small part, a weak part – that wants to live. There’s a part of that person that wants to be rescued.
My job, when I meet a suicidal person, is uncomplicated. It is my job to stand with the part of the person that wants to be rescued.
I say “uncomplicated” although of course sometimes actually carrying out that job can be enormously complicated. What is uncomplicated is the part about knowing where my allegiance should be. I don’t try to wade into the person’s situation and figure out whether their problems are in fact hopeless. I don’t try to figure out, from what they are able to tell me about their prospects, whether their life is really worth living or whether they would be better off dead. The law, my professional ethics, my experience, and my personal values all tell me that my allegiance must be with life. That part is uncomplicated.
5. Suicidal dying or disabled people are different.
When the issue of assisted suicide comes up, I talk about the suicidal people I have known. "How come no one says my patients should be allowed to kill themselves? People who are mentally ill, people who are overwhelmed by horrifying life events – where is the assisted suicide movement for them?" Then people get annoyed with me: "Terminally ill and disabled people are different."
How are they different? Why is it that there is literally no disaster, no tragedy, no collection of problems so severe that our society argues that a person ought to be allowed to die rather than suffer them – EXCEPT for physical disability, physical helplessness? What makes being seriously ill or disabled different from every other bad thing that a person could possibly experience?
I’m going to give you a minute here to struggle with that question.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Thanks..
Date: 2010-06-25 04:12 am (UTC)One question I still have after reading this is around the severe physical pain that folks are suffering at the end of life. You addressed the mental suffering, but I am wondering how you respond to folks who are in their last days of life and want to shorten that suffering (and for whom pain management is not effective)? I suppose I am thinking of the one person I know who used this act, so maybe that is too specific, but it seemed reasonable to me at the time.
Re: Thanks..
Date: 2010-06-25 11:26 am (UTC)I think that pain is often handled badly at the end of life, for a variety of reasons. I don't know if there are actually people for whom pain management cannot be effective, as opposed to people whose pain is not being managed effectively. Doctors are often afraid to prescribe narcotics in sufficient quantities, patients and their families are often afraid to use them because of concerns about dependency etc., palliative care specialists who are up on the best means of symptom and pain management may not be available, etc. etc. etc.
Sufficient quantities of narcotics to relieve pain can depress breathing, so I think in some cases doctors are unwilling to prescribe in those quantities and families are unwilling to administer them. Here in Maryland we have an option on our living will forms to specify that if we are terminally ill with no hope of recovery we want (or do not want) plenty of pain medicine even if it shortens our lives. That's a good start, but probably doesn't go far enough to protect the people involved legally.
I remember when Michael's mother was dying at home in hospice care, being shocked to find out that her pain was managed by a prescription for oral narcotics - large pills which it was difficult to help her to swallow, especially as the end approached, and which also lead to a cycle of pain-relief-pain-relief which can be quite distressing. At the time there were transdermal narcotic patches available, which would have released a constant stream of medication into her skin resulting in constant pain control and no problems with administration. Michael and his father hadn't ever heard of them. I don't know what her doctor's rationale for not using them was.
I would want to see changes in prescribing rules to make it easier for physicians to prescribe adequate pain relief at the end of life, and a huge expansion in the availability and use of palliative care. There is no excuse for not managing people's pain well.