Tag: cancer

Brittany Maynard’s Widower Continues Fight for Her Legacy.

Posted on

  Medical aid-in-dying, just as with VSED (Voluntary Stopping and Drinking), is a choice made by those who want to live but instead, after understanding they have no curative options, then choose between two different types of death.  

It was heartwarming to personally talk on the phone with Dan Diaz not too long ago. Both of us are working to uphold the legacy of our loved one who died. Dan’s wife, Brittany, died by taking advantage of the Death With Dignity law. She had to move to Oregon to do this. My husband, chose to VSED (Voluntarily Stop Eating and Drinking) so he did not have to live into the late stages of Alzheimer’s.

Read this article to learn more about Brittany Maynard and Dan Diaz. Brittany was 29 when she was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor. She had exhausted all of her options for treatment, including an eight8 hour brain surgery. The tumor would not stop growing and she was determined to have six months to live. Brittany and her husband made the choice to move to Oregon where it was legal to experience gentle, medical aid-in-dying. She chose to die on November 1, 2014. Since that day, her husband Dan continues to share his personal story and tirelessly pursues politicians in every state, imploring them to vote in favor of medical aid-in-dying legislation like Death with Dignity. He carries on his late wife’s story so that others may benefit from the same gentle death she experienced.

Dan Diaz makes a point of distinguishing the importance of terminology. This is not “suicide”. Medical aid-in-dying, just as with VSED (Voluntary Stopping and Drinking), is a choice made by those who want to live but instead, after understanding they have no curative options, then choose between two different types of death. Diaz continues his fight to legalize medical aid-in-dying because he wants others to legally have that choice in the face of impossibly difficult decisions.

When New Cancer Treatments Do More Harm Than Good

Posted on

 Like many people in his shoes, my father opted to try the new drug because he thought it might help. It was expensive, but his insurance would cover it, and the high price seemed to suggest it was special. It was also better than doing nothing.  

Cary Gross, professor and cancer researcher at Yale University School of Medicine,  writes a personal opinion piece for the Washington Post. Gross’ life work is to study whether new cancer treatments that are successful in small trials will be therapeutic in routine clinical practice. His 80-year-old father, diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Disease, was offered and took the opportunity to try a new cancer treatment drug, despite the limited research data available and the high cost.

“Like many people in his shoes, my father opted to try the new drug because he thought it might help. It was expensive, but his insurance would cover it, and the high price seemed to suggest it was special. It was also better than doing nothing.”

Gross’ continues to explain the nuances of cancer treatment drug trials. The Food and Drug Administration approved of this specific treatment with only 100 patients studied. More often than not, these drug trials are also performed on younger, healthier adults whose bodies simply respond differently than one of an 80-year-old. In fact, his father experience further debilitation as a result of the side effects of the new cancer treatment. Unable to walk and bedbound, he was in a rougher shape than when he has started.

Cary Gross explains that the government regulations are about to be loosened by President Trump in order to support pharmaceutical companies.

“The 21st Century Cures Act has already created a pathway for companies to obtain FDA approvals with less rigorous evidence. At the same time, large funders of research that study the safety and effectiveness of drugs, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, face uncertain futures in the current Congress.”

Cary Gross ends by strongly stating that people deserve more treatment options and focus should be placed on creating more possible, available cure for diseases. However, prioritizing research and the effectiveness of such drugs is necessary. Evidence-based treatments must become available so that they no longer do more harm than good.

Posted on

As a reminder I’ll be interviewed tomorrow at 2:00 P.M. PST (5:00 P.M. EST) by Cheryl Jones on “Good Grief”. Here is a description of the episode. A link you can use tomorrow is below. I hope everyone is able to listen to it live. Thank you!

https://www.voiceamerica.com/show/2264

Phyllis Shacter’s husband made a series of radical choices about how his life would end. When he received two life limiting diagnoses within six weeks of each other, Alzheimers and cancer, he refused cancer treatment and employed natural methods instead. He planned and participated in his own funeral and followed what he believed was best for him, choosing to stop eating and drinking before he was unable to consciously decide how his life would end. Throughout all of these experiences and decisions, he had a supporter and advocate in his wife Phyllis. Understanding the choices he was making, she stood as a pillar to his right to end life in the way that was right for him. He left her with a mission; by sharing his story, she would contribute to the conversation on end of life options. Powered by her love of him and the peace and beauty he felt at the end of his life, she speaks powerfully for taking our lives in our own hands and fully exploring what is best for each of us.