City of Aurora government Facebook video screenshot
Thoughts relevant to the end-of-life process
Reprinted from February 3, 2022:
Beating death?
Scott was 85 years old when he died. He had been diagnosed with cancer and had just recently begun treatment. His health rapidly declined and he was removed from life support and allowed to die, approximately 60 days after his diagnosis. Many factors surround Scott’s death, but one has my attention, the fact that he had begun treatment, for cancer, which begs the question, did Scott die from cancer or cancer treatment?
Nobody can know for certain how Scott lived his final days. I understand he was on life support for a short time. That’s not pleasant. He was in a hospital. I know that isn’t a good thing. Let’s assume that the treatment did not kill Scott. I still want to ask if his final days were good or bad, better or worse, than they would have been if he had not started medical treatment.
Some could say it is counterproductive, or even cruel, to suggest that medical intervention hastened Scott’s death, or that it caused his final days to be lived chained to medical machines instead of being in his home.
I’ve been in the health business for many decades and I understand the power it holds. Vast numbers of persons accept medical advice without giving it a second thought. Here we have Scott, 85 years old, being diagnosed with lung cancer. That in itself is frightening. Scott has lived a busy life. He has achieved over a decade more living than the average person. He probably visited a doctor who offered to treat him. That’s what doctors do.
Would anyone even think to allow Scott to rest, be comfortable, stay home, enjoy whatever life he had remaining, and die without efforts to treat him with drugs? Of course not. But, why not?
We’re born, live, and die. We’ve reached a place where we, collectively, have the power to do miraculous things with medicine. Regardless of how hard we try, we cannot extend life indefinitely, unless you believe that having tubes, drugs, and breathing machines is a reasonable kind of human life. I have seen thousands of individuals who are alive, only because some system, or another keeps their heart beating.
In years past our company supplied feeding solutions to a number of nursing homes. Those receiving those feedings weren’t really here. They didn’t talk and never knew when someone was visiting, or, changing their feeding tube (or diaper). They were old and no rational person would agree that they would one day wake up and get on with the rest of their lives.
I am not advocating for any kind of assisted dying. I am, however, bringing up an important point, that of recognizing when medical treatment – even tube feeding – is futile and possibly far more inhumane than allowing the person to die.
What age would I pick? None. Some people are doing fine at 95 or even 100. I know some people like that. But, when providence intervenes and puts them at the intersection between life and death, who are we to believe that they will come back and carry on with their lives? Except for making a person comfortable, what other measures should we administer?
When Scott found out he had a particularly virulent form of cancer, why then did he, his family, and the doctors think he could beat it at age 85? It is not cold or cruel, but a recognition of a basic fact of life, death.
At best, Scott didn’t know what was happening around him as he sunk toward death – and his family decided to stop the treatments and life support. It is likely, though, that he knew what was happening during part of it, and that he was uncomfortable or scared. Still, he was surrounded by false hopes, and all those tubes and machines. I think that was unkind and inappropriate.
A person at age 45 has a future far different from a similar person at age 85. Although the younger person can be expected to fight harder, the older one might be best served by accepting his mortality and finding the best means to reach the end. I strongly suggest that Scott had a far more difficult time at the end than was necessary.
If you’re diagnosed with a terminal condition, how would you respond?
No, none of us knows exactly what we’d do, however, we can think about it, discuss it with family and friends, and get a clear picture of how we’d like to respond.
Larry Frieders is a pharmacist in Aurora who had a book published, The Undruggist: Book One, A Tale of Modern Apothecary and Wellness. He can be reached at thecompounder.com/ask-larry or www.facebook.com/thecompounder.
Candidate Bailey concedes to governor Pritzker
By Peter Hancock
By the time speakers came out to pray, say the Pledge of Allegiance, and play the national anthem at Republican Party challenger, Darren Bailey’s election night watch party in Springfield Tuesday, Nov. 8, the Associated Press had called the Illinois governor’s race for incumbent, Democrat JB Pritzker.
The Associated Press called the race for Pritzker instantly upon closure of the polls at 7 p.m. As of about 10 p.m., unofficial results showed Pritzker with a lead of approximately 54% to 42% with 65% of precincts reporting, according to the Chicago Tribune’s tally of election results.
At 8 p.m., Pritzker addressed the crowd at the Marriott Marquis in Chicago.
“Just a few minutes ago, the news networks called the race in our favor,” Pritzker told a cheering crowd at a Near South Side hotel ballroom. “I’m grateful tonight that Illinois continues a long tradition of peaceful and fair elections. And I am so thrilled to spend four more years serving as your governor.”
Bailey took the stage just prior to 10 p.m., to give a heartfelt speech to supporters.
“I may not be going to Springfield as your next governor, but I will never stop fighting for you,” the State senator said, to cheers.
He noted he called Pritzker to congratulate the incumbent on his victory, evoking a murmur from some in the crowd. But he had a message for the governor.
“You need to be better,” Bailey said. “You need to be better for our children. And you need to be better for our grandchildren.”
Earlier, his team and the crowd of a few hundred at the Crowne Plaza hotel in Springfield seemed stunned by the immediate call.
Representative Blaine Wilhour, R-Beecher City, a Bailey ally and frequent campaign surrogate, took the stage at 7 p.m., to call the campaign a movement that goes beyond any party or politician. Representative Adam Niemerg, a Teutopolis Republican and another Bailey ally in the General Assembly, said he expected a late night.
But Pritzker had taken the stage to declare victory within an hour with a fiery speech to supporters.
“And finally, here in the Land of Lincoln, the home state of Barack Obama, the first state to ratify the 13th and 19th amendments ending slavery and guaranteeing a woman’s right to vote, we will never surrender in the battle against hate,” he said.
The race for governor had become a referendum on Pritzker’s sweeping first-term agenda.
Bailey, a downstate farmer and lawmaker from Xenia, had attacked the billionaire from Chicago over his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and high crime rates in Chicago and elsewhere, often accusing him of being out of touch with ordinary Illinoisans.
But Pritzker, who self-funded his campaign, touted accomplishments during his first term such as balancing the State budget, earning multiple credit upgrades and passing a $45 billion capital infrastructure bill while casting Bailey as a conservative extremist.
Pritzker was first elected in 2018 after never having held elected office, defeating then-incumbent Republican governor Bruce Rauner, 55% to 39%.
As of about 10 p.m. Tuesday night, it appeared Democrats would maintain control of every statewide office and super majorities in the General Assembly.
Republican candidates for State treasurer, Tom Demmer, and for secretary of state, Dan Brady, had conceded Tuesday to incumbent Treasurer Michael Frerichs and Democratic SOS candidate Alexi Giannoulias.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government. It is distributed to more than 400 newspapers statewide, as well as hundreds of radio and TV stations. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
— Capitol News Illinois