Posted in Death & Mortality Series

Everyone’s death belongs to them alone: What octopuses and hospice can have in common…

A sculpture of a skull with an octopus sitting on it.
Death and octopuses, who knew there was a cool sculpture that combined them?

 

This post is part of my Death & Mortality Series.  Please read my introduction to my Death & Mortality series if you can, to understand the context I write this in.  Thank you.

There’s a problem I’ve seen over and over in people like hospice workers (and this post is gonna focus on hospice, but it can be applied more broadly).  And it’s one of the things that made me reluctant to out myself as a Deathling.  Because there’s so many people with this problem, in Deathling-type communities, that I didn’t want to associate myself with it.  Because this problem can kill people.  And no matter how you feel about death personally, that’s not okay.

To describe it, though, I’m gonna start somewhere weird.  I’ve been reading a book about octopuses.  Or more about the author and her experiences with octopuses and thoughts about them.  I’ve been struggling to find a way to articulate the problem here.  And a passage from her book really helped, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with either hospice or death.

It has to do with wild-caught octopuses captured for aquariums. But understand that I didn’t choose this passage because of my own views on octopuses.  Nor about Ken’s views.  Rather, because of the way Ken approaches his views on the matter.  Ken is an aquarium worker who, among many other aspects to his job, helps with transporting new octopuses to the aquarium.  The author asked him his opinions on catching wild octopuses, and the following is what he said (bolding in this and any other quote on this page is my own, added for emphasis):

How does he feel about capturing animals in the wild and sending them to a life in captivity? He has no regrets. “They’re ambassadors from the wild,” he said. “Unless people know about and see these animals, there will be no stewardship for octopuses in the wild. So knowing they are going to accredited institutions, where they are going to be loved, where people will see the animal in its glory—that’s good, and it makes me happy. She’ll live a long, good life—longer than in the wild.”

Montgomery, Sy. The Soul of an Octopus: A Surprising Exploration into the Wonder of Consciousness (pp. 188-189). Atria Books. Kindle Edition.

He might be right that he’s doing the right thing.  He might be wrong.  I’m not even going to go there.  That’s not why I brought this up.

He’s come to a conclusion about why it’s okay with him for this to happen.  It may be a good conclusion.  A reasonable conclusion.  A justifiable conclusion.  A right conclusion.  He might be making the right decision.  That’s still not the point.

The point is, it’s his conclusion that, for instance, the octopus is an ambassador.

The thing about ambassadors.  Real life ambassadors.  The literal kind who exist and do work that’s mysterious to me but has something to do with representing their countries to other countries.  Is they choose to be ambassadors.

It’s not the octopus deciding to be an ambassador for her species.

The author, Sy Montgomery, a volunteer at the aquarium, does not explore this matter any further or deeper.

But it’s an exact illustration of something that happens with many hospice workers and other people in the death industry.  And I’ve never heard anyone discuss this in public.  But I’ve seen it enough times to know what I’m looking at when I do.  And I know it’s horribly dangerous in a context where you’re working with dying people.

Deathlings like to think and talk about our relationships with death.  Most of us feel that we fear death less than we used to.  Or don’t fear it at all.  Most of us see death as embedded in life itself, as a necessary part of the cycle of life, even as potentially quite beautiful.

Those of us who’ve spent much time around actual death and dying, whether our own or other people’s, might also notice the power of Death.  The sacredness of it.  A depth and beauty and meaning that can’t be put into words or fit into blog posts.  When Death is near, either for you or someone else, the world can become transparent to love, transparent to light.  There is power and meaning there, on a level that even many atheists and agnostics will acknowledge as sacred on some level, for lack of a better term.

And there’s probably at least one blog post on what happens when you notice all that but forget to give Death the respect She deserves.  But I’m not gonna go there right now.  Right now, I want to talk about what happens to a lot of people who work in hospice or similar industries, who are exposed to a lot of death and develop something close to this understanding of it.  An understanding that I largely share — but as with the aquarium, that’s not the point.

The point is… there’s a level on which your personal revelations about death don’t matter.  The realizations you’ve come to.  The way they’ve altered your entire life for the better.  The way you see your job differently, as a sacred duty of sorts, now.  How you’ve accepted the deaths of your patients or clients, how that’s changed you, and them, and your relationshp to future patients.  All of these things that matter deeply to you.

They also don’t matter one whit on another level.

Just like octopuses don’t choose to be ambassadors.  People don’t choose to develop a terminal illness.  Most wild octopuses will never face the possibility of being caught and put in aquariums.  Everyone will die one day.  But these situations share one important thing in common.

The octopus’s viewpoint on captivity will have fuck-all to do with Ken’s reasons, or rationalizations, for participating in her capture.  The octopus has her own viewpoint.  And nobody stops much to consider her viewpoint in all of this.  They’re too busy with their own.

Everyone’s death is their own.

That’s my main point.  I’m gonna go off on a very long tangent.  But I do have a main point.  So I’m gonna repeat it, in bold, a LOT:

Everyone’s death is their own.

Everyone’s death is their own.

Everyone’s death is their own.

Everyone’s death is their own.

Everyone’s death is their own.

Everyone’s death is their own.

Everyone’s death is their own.

Everyone’s death is their own.  Everyone’s death belongs to them.  Everyone’s relationship to death, and to Death, is theirs.  Theirs.  Not yours.  Theirs.

That means it is not your job to bring their views of death more into alignment with yours.

That means it is not your job to sit there accepting and reveling in the beauty of their death for them when that may not be how they feel, or want to feel, at all.

And it is not your job to teach them that death is wonderful and beautiful and a part of life and everything else that Deathlings often believe.

That sacredness associated with Death… a lot of people don’t seem to realize this, or realize it fully enough to put it into practice, but coming into contact with that on a regular basis comes with responsibilities.  One of which is a deep respect for Death.  But there’s too many to count.  One, though, is not to mess with someone else’s experience of Death, even if their experience is not the one you want them to be having.

I don’t mean you should never talk about your viewpoint.

But sick and dying people can be very vulnerable.  This includes having reduced defenses against unwanted outside ideas.  Which includes your ideas.  Which means you have to approach any job involving death with the utmost caution and care.

And you have to stay on the other side of a firm line in the sand. And you have to be the one drawing that line.  Your patient may not be capable of drawing it, or aware that it needs to be drawn.  It’s not like terminal illness comes with an automatic manual given to you that tells you you’re vulnerable to accidentally absorbing the opinions of hospice workers.  Or what to do if you do notice.

Thsi may seem like a weird thing for me to have such an adamant opinion about.  It’s because no matter how it feels to you, this can lead to situations that are downright sinister.

Talking someone into accepting death sounds so wonderful, especially to Deathlings who usually have a particular view on death acceptance.  It sounds like the right thing to do.

But you could be talking someone into making a different decision about their medical treatment than they would’ve decided otherwise.

They may decide against a medical treatment that would give them a little more time in the world, time they really very much want.  The hospice system is already structured to discourage life-sustaining medical treatment, so it wouldn’t take much to tip someone over the edge into making a decision that’s against what they want at the end of their life.

They may decide against a medical treatment that would not make them live longer, but might help them live more the way they want to in their time left.

They may accept a medical treatment that they know is likely to result in them dying sooner.

They may accept the idea that they need to die on a certain schedule.  (I know that sounds weird, but this happens in hospice a lot when deaths are treated as  lot more planned than actual death tends to work.  And when you’re barely hanging onto life to begin with, you can end up having more conscious control over your time of death than you’d imagine someone would.)

They may make decisions that have more to do with the convenience of their hospice institution, than with their own desires and choices.  And these decisions may end up justified in the name of accepting and coming to terms with one’s own death.

They may start receiving a lot of praise and encouragement for adopting views similar to yours, with all kinds of consequences for all kinds of decisions they may make.

You might not understand their viewpoint.  You might decide that all decisions to prolong life in situations you wouldn’t want your life prolonged, are actually because of an irrational fear of death that must be overcome in order to be at peace.  And then you might persuade them and wear them down.  Until they are making very different decisions than the ones in their own best interest by their own values.

Just because you can’t fathom a reason someone would want to see Alzheimer’s through to the end and be kept alive at all costs, doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons for this that have nothing to do with fearing death.

And.  Even if it does have to do with an irrational fear of death.  That is part of their relationship with death.  It’s not your place to decide why they ought to be making their decisions, any more than it’s your place to decide what decisions they ought to be making.

And no, I’m not saying nobody should share their opinions, or persuade anyone of anything, or try to change other people’s minds, ever.  But if you’re a hospice worker or healthcare professional, you’re in a position of great authority and power over your patients.  And that power comes with a responsibility to do your level best not to misuse it.  Which includes learning to guard against accidental misuses of power.

And when you’re dealing with the end of someone’s life, the potential for great harm from the misuse of that power is only amplified.  The more that potential is there, the harder you have to work not to misuse it.  And believe me, if you’re working on the end of the death industry where you’re dealing with the last days of the living, you’ve got more power than you are probably even aware of.

Michelle storms by with the crash cart. “They want everything done. She used the wrong language; she gave them an alternative. She said we can keep going.” She means Shreya, the resident. Shreya is in Michelle’s room. She comes out and goes up to the Pulmonary fellow. She looks concerned that she has done the wrong thing. I can hear her say, “Lactate’s seventeen, bicarb drip.” She opened a door she’s trying to close. They don’t know how to talk to families. They don’t know how to tell them it’s okay to stop. Doctors will almost never tell the family the patient is dying. Nurses will. Nurses have little phrases. Dana says, “actively dying.” Lori will say, “it’s irreversible.” When they ask me how the patient is doing and it’s bad, I’ll say, “You should prepare yourself for the worst.” Some nurses will try and sell DNR orders. They’ll ask, “Would you want to have chest compressions?” and they’ll clasp their fingers together and move their upper body like a jackhammer, or, “Would you want to be shocked?” and pretend they’re holding paddles onto a chest and then jerk their body like they got Tasered.

Kelly, James. Where Night Is Day: The World of the ICU (The Culture and Politics of Health Care Work) (pp. 76-77). Cornell University Press. Kindle Edition.

The above passage was written by an ICU nurse who has no problem with the practice of ‘guiding’ families in the direction of DNR/DNI (Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate) orders.

It’s a relatively common point of view that runs like this: It’s cruel to prolong life when the only thing a person is doing is suffering.  Quality of life is more important than quantity of life.  Patients and families who don’t choose DNR/DNI are either:

  • irrationally afraid of death
  • driven by strict religious beliefs (and religious beliefs that contradict the medical consensus are treated as a bad thing in this kind of context)
  • unaware how severely disabled a person often is after a resuscitation
  • unaware they’re “allowed to let go”
  • unaware of what a resuscitation actually looks like (pretty brutal, often)
  • unaware of the low success rates of resuscitation (because on TV shows resuscitation almost always works, whereas in real life it almost always doesn’t, or doesn’t work the way people expect it to)

So they genuinely believe they are sparing a person needless suffering by using the above tactics talk to people into DNR/DNI orders.  They think people who “want everything done” are simply ignorant of the medical realities.

My mother, who has coded before and probably will again (we have an inherited neuromuscular condition, hers is more severe at this point in our lives), does not have a DNR.

Doctors and nurses are always surprised, because she was a respiratory therapist for decades.  They say they’d expect any former medical professional to want a DNR order.

She says it’s because she’s a former medical professional that she does not have a DNR order.  She wants to live, is in her seventies, and knows firsthand the extreme bias in the medical professioin against both elderly and disabled people.  She’s had doctors refuse to treat her because of her age.  She knows we already have things stacked against us and that a DNR would be dangerous.

Laura Hershey, an activist from the Independent Living Movement (a branch of disability rights mostly made up of physically disabled people), had a friend in the movement who got talked into a DNR in this manner.  This is Laura’s account of what happened, written November 2, 1999:

Attitudes Towards Disability Prove Almost Lethal

A doctor entered, on his rounds.  […]  Becky and I both jumped in to tell him that Ginny wanted to talk to him about the DNR, that we thought she wants it revoked.

For the next fifteen minutes, the four of us engaged in a conversation that was difficult, both mechanically and emotionally. Through a painstaking exchange of yes-no questions, nods, scratchy notes, and lip-reading, Ginny conveyed her desire for every effort to save her life.

The doctor heard this message, was willing to hear it; but his obvious biases made him subtly resistant. Here’s how he posed one question to Ginny: “Would you want to be put on a respirator?” Ginny responded with a fearful, uncertain look. I instantly insisted on rephrasing the question like this: “If you couldn’t breathe on your own, would you want them to use a respirator to save your life, rather than letting you die?” Still with an apprehensive expression, Ginny nevertheless nodded, yes.

By the end of the conversation, Ginny had indicated unequivocally that she would want ventilation if necessary to save her life; and that she would want attempts made to start her heart if it stopped beating. The doctor agreed to remove the DNR order immediately.

Ginny had been weak with pneumonia, and with a trach making communication difficult, and they talked her into signing a DNR she didn’t want to sign.

I can say from firsthand experience that being sick and weak really does make it hard to fight off other people’s opinions of what is best for you.  This is even true when you’re 100% sure you disagree.  When I was hospitalized for aspiration pneumonia (and was also weak from malnutrition) and they were trying hard to talk me out of a feeding tube — I knew I wanted the feeding tube.  And without having had a lot of people in my corner, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to hold out for survival much longer.  Being weak even simply on a physical level makes it very hard to fight these things.

Ginny’s story continues, by the way.  This happens:

That was about a month ago. A lot has changed since then, mostly for the better. Ginny regained her voice, and began growing stronger once the infection left her lungs. She has repeatedly stated her intention to go on living, in front of a variety of witnesses. Her friends have stayed in touch with her, and her situation.

About three weeks after my visit with her, I heard that Ginny’s gradual recovery was abruptly interrupted when she went into respiratory failure. Emergency measures saved her life, and her recovery now continues.

Ginny would not have survived this if the DNR she was coerced into signing had stayed in place.

If you ever doubt the power your opinions might have, think of Ginny.  Pneumonia made her weak enough to have trouble fending off other people’s opinions.  It’s very likely that whatever nurse or doctor talked her into signing the DNR, used subtle persuasion of the sort described in that book by the ICU nurse.  It doesn’t take much persuasion or pressure when you’re already vulnerable.

I was simply walking down the hall of the hospital last time I was there, and there was a group of residents speaking to an attending.  The conversation I overheard was alarming.  They’d saved the life of a cardiac patient.  He was set to go home soon, without major complications.  The patient was extremely happy about this.  The attending was very unhappy about this and wanted to tell the residents why.

So the attending explained that while the man was going home without complications, that wasn’t the only possible outcome. And he didn’t think the man’s family should’ve chosen to tell the doctors to save his life.  He said it was possible the man could’ve ended up with a severe disability.  And therefore, it would’ve been a better decision to let the man die even though his life was saved and he was extremely happy with this outcome.

Medical professionals frequently believe this stuff is morally neutral information.  That in trying to persuade people to choose death over life, they are simply giving people the facts.  The thing is, you can choose which facts to give people, and what manner to present those facts in, and “giving someone the facts” turns into an act of persuasion.  And you don’t even have to mean to do so, for this to happen.

If You’re Interested In Power & Control…

Power Tools by Dave Hingsburger
Power Tools by Dave Hingsburger

Anyone interested in the use and misuse of power in human services professions, could do a lot worse than reading Dave Hingsburger’s book, Power Tools.  I always plug this book.  It’s extremely short and easy to read, but contains a lot of important information on how to recognize your power over other people and how to do your best to avoid misusing it.  It’s available from Diverse City Press. Or Amazon.

He also wrote another book of the same size, shape, and potency, called First Contact.  It’s about communicating with people with (presumed) profound cognitive impairments.  And it’s also well within the topic of this post, given that this level of cognitive impairment is often the fate that medical professionals are trying to save us from when they push DNRs at us.  You might want to pick that one up at the same time you get Power Tools.  They go well together, and both of them contain real-world wisdom that applies to a lot of everyday life situations beyond the ones explicitly described in the book.

First Contact: Charting Inner Space (Thoughts about establishing contact with people who have significant developmental disabilities) by Dave Hingsburger
First Contact by Dave Hingsburger

While I’m shamelessly plugging Hingsburger’s work, he has a blog called Of Battered Aspect.  And there’s a longer review of both Power Tools and First Contact on the website of the old disability rights magazine, Ragged Edge, called Same, Different, Human.  A quote from the review that mirrors my thoughts on these books:

The subject matter may appear limited to the service systems concerned with people with intellectual impairments, and Hingsburger’s focus is the individual rather than society. Nonetheless, I commend these books to you.

I read Dave Hingsburger as an ethicist. Not an ivory-tower Ivy League ethicist, mind you, but rather one who worries how to live well amid the blood, the shit, and the chains that surround him. Instead of offering moral axioms from some fake-objective standpoint and then applying them to whitewashed situations, he acknowledges the ways in which the commitments he has made and the messy situations in which he finds himself shape his moral development and his moral outlook.

Many of the other writers on my shelf take a political approach to the problems of power and powerlessness, to the problem of disability, asking how communities, organizations, nations should act. What does justice demand? they ask. How can we address injustice?

Hingsburger’s stance is more ethical than political, though it is also concerned with disability. How, he asks, should I, an individual, respond to the people around me? Very often, the people around him, the people to whom he is responding, are disabled people. It’s not that he pretends injustice away, or that he treats it as irrelevant; it’s just that even when he addresses injustice, he confronts it in an ethical sense, as an individual. Even when he addresses the politics of disability — the self-advocacy movement — he is concerned with his relationship to it.

His primary ethical concern is interpersonal, and his rule is awareness: awareness of the moral risk in any important action and awareness of one another. “People don’t hurt people. People hurt things,” he quotes Dick Sobsey as saying (First Contact, p. 20). And he acknowledges that such awareness, such self-knowledge, is much more difficult than it looks.

Like Cal Montgomery, the author of the review, I can’t stop recommending these books.  To the point I keep a supply of multiple copies each because people walk off with them and forget to return them.

Now back to your regularly scheduled blog post on death and octopuses…

When I was writing this post, I tried to Google statistics on resuscitation. I found a news article alarmed me.  Not because of the statistics, but because of the way it was  point of the article was to inform people that resuscitation in real life is not like in the movies, either in terms of statistics, outcomes, or the level of violence it does to the person’s body.  But the article made it impossible for me to understand the statistics.

See, every time it mentioned death, it mentioned severe disability in the same breath.  I was trying to look up survival rates.  But it was so ambiguously worded that I couldn’t tell whether survival with a severe neurological impairment requiring lifelong care counted as survival for the purposes of the article.  And no matter what you think of the “quality of life” issues involved (I, like Laura Hershey and many other disability rights activists, am extremely wary of that phrase), being alive and unconscious is still being alive.  And there’s plenty of new evidence that people presumed unconscious based on outward responsiveness are not always unconscious at all.  Which may horrify you in completely different ways, but it’s still being alive.  And I never did figure out what the statistics in the article meant.

Disability is often considered a fate worse than death.  And while I consider the fear of death and the fear of disabiliy deeply intertwined, many Deathlings, and many hospice workers, have conquered one without touching the other at all.  An extreme fear of disability, combined with a lack of fear of death, can make people view death as the answer to a type of disability they greatly fear.

This is an extremely common perspective among medical professionals, including hospice workers.  And it’s the entire point behind DNRs, living wills, and the like.  These are not documents that were created to offer a neutral set of choices to people.  They were created to make it easier to say “This is the level of disability at which I would rather die.”  You can use them to say other things, but there’s pressure not to, and it’s harder to get such wishes upheld in any circumstances where someone disputes your wish to stay alive.  It’s much easier to use a living will to die than to use it to live.

Anyway, medical professionals have been shown to rate disabled people’s quality of life lower than we rate it ourselves.  There’s a very jargon-heavy paper called Quality of Life, Disability, and Hedonic Psychology (that’s a PDF link) that deals with the topic of disability and quality of life (abbreviated QOL in the article) in a fair bit of depth.

One belief about QOL has been very widely demonstrated. Nondisabled people believe that the QOL of people who live with disabilities is extremely low. This belief will be termed the standard view of the QOL of disabled people.  The standard view is faced by an apparent falsification: When disabled people report about their own QOL, they rate it only slightly lower than when nondisabled people self-report their own QOL. This produces the anomaly of the QOL of disabled people (Amundson 2005). The anomaly is the pair of conflicting assertions: the standard view on the one hand, and the conflicting self-reports ofdisabled people on the other.

[…]

In fact, nondisabled health care professionals judge the QOL of disabled people to be even lower than the judgments made by nondisabled people who are not health care professionals (Duckworth 1988; Brillhart, Jay, and Wyers 1990; Bach and Tilton 1994; Gerhart et al. 1994; Albrecht and Devlieger 1999).

[…]

If hedonics researchers believed that disabled people were kidding themselves about their own QOL, nothing would stop them from saying it. I therefore propose that we ask them who’s right about the QOL of disabled people. Does hedonic research support the standard view that disabled people have an intrinsically low QOL? Or is there evidence that the standard view is mistaken, and the disabled people who report a high QOL are correct when they do so? Hedonic psychologists may not have the last word in the debate, but their contribution must be considered. The results are these: according to the experimental results of hedonic psychology, the judgments of nondisabled commentators about the QOL of disabled people are far more likely to be mistaken than are the self-reports of disabled people.  

So basically, nondisabled people in general assume that disabled people are much unhappier than we are and have very little in the way of ‘quality of life’.  And medical professionals judge our quality of life to be even lower than your average nondisabled person judges our quality of life to be.  Meanwhile, disabled people are roughly as happy or unhappy as nondisabled people (there’s many possible reasons for our quality of life to rate slightly lower that don’t actually reflect disability as much as the way it’s tested, but I don’t have the time or space to get into all the details), and certainly much happier than either nondisabled people in general, or medical professionals, assume we are.

So if you’re a medical or hospice professional, advising dying people on life and death decisions involving disability, you’re also likely to be judging our quality of life much lower than it actually is.  And as a medical professional, you’re more likely to be biased in that area than someone who isn’t a medical professional.  The presence of a known bias, like the presence of power, requires much more increased carefulness to be taken with how you wield power around people.

And the above is just one major way this can go wrong.  It’s a way I and many other disability right activists are highly familiar with, which is why I was able to go into so much depth.  I could really go on all day.  But hopefully it’s enough to show you there are dangers you might not even be aware of.

So now that I’ve tried to get way too much information crammed into one blog post, the basic point I want to make?

Everyone’s death is their own.

Being accepting of death is a wonderful thing, in my eyes.  But there are many different ways of accepting death.  And no matter how valuable it is to you that you have accepted death, you have to be really careful as a healthcare worker, not to impose your own ideas about death on people who might not want them.  However an octopus feels about captivity is the business of the octopus, and how a dying person feels about their own death is the business of the dying person.

Everyone’s death is their own.

Given the biases of healthcare professionals around disability, and the power they have over disabled people (and dying people are generally either disabled or about to become disabled), it’s especially important for them to keep this in mind.  It’s very easy for death acceptance in these circumstances to become something much more sinister.

Everyone’s death is their own.

But it’s also a matter of respect:  People’s death is deeply personal and for lack of a better word, sacred.  And people’s own death belongs to them.  It’s not yours to mold into a shape you find more fitting.  No matter how appealing your own beliefs about death are to you.  The other person might have very good reasons for beliefs that mean something to them.  

Everyone’s death is their own.

There really is an idealized death, or an idealized set of deaths, that is pushed wholesale on hospice patients.  People who work in hospice often come to absorb this view of death, and of how death should happen.  But actual patients of hospice may have very different experiences.  Experiences they are afraid to even bring up out loud, because of the power relationships inolved.

Everyone’s death is their own.

And if you care about a person, you want to meet them where they’re at.  It’s impossible to truly know another person, to even begin to understand them, if all you can do when you see them is look in the mirror.  And when you get too wrapped up in your own reflection, you can’t see anyone else, you can’t know anyone else, you can’t connect with anyone else.  And if you can’t see who someone is even a little, you certainly can’t accurately perceive their relationship with death.  Nor can you respond to it in a way that’s even halfway adequate.

I’ll leave you with an excerpt from Dave Hingsburger’s First Contact:

When considering making contact with people who have multiple disabilities – those who are considered to be so significantly mentally disabled that they are in a “vegetative” (that’s what it’s called) state – there is a huge obstacle. Prejudice. Yours. Mine. Ours. Against them. The difficulty here is that prejudice will feel like pity. You may be overwhelmed by a sense of hopelessness first, and then, if you examine the feeling long enough, terror.

They can’t be “like us” because then the logical extension of that is that they must be “feeling in there” and what they are feeling in there is what we’d be feeling in there – desperation, hopelessness, isolation, loneliness. The misuse of your sense of identification with the person inside that body will lead you to think horrible thoughts.

Dangerous even.

“I’d rather be dead than be like that.”

“If I was like that I’d like to be smothered.”

Well, back off. This isn’t about you. Catching a first glimpse of a soul inside a body that is so different from your own can be frightening, true. But it can, if you work hard enough, be exhilarating. I know, I know, I know, you have to “walk a mile in their moccasins.” The temptation is to engage in an incredible waste of time and psychological energy – spending time imagining what it would be like to be you inside them. How egocentric is that?

The issue is coming to understand and to get to know what it’s like to be them, in them. That’s the joy of contact, of connection. It allows us other perspectives. The placing of ourselves inside someone else and then imagining what it would be like, is not learning – it’s like masturbation but without the stickiness. And while it’s fun, and it is fun, it’s not particularly valuable.

And it gets in the way.

How can you make contact with someone when all you see reflected in their eyes is your sad face? Get out of the way. Understand that you are you. You are only you. Now look again, look past your own reflection and what do you see?

The answer?

Some one else.

Cool, huh? Even cooler is to discover who that person is. To do this you need to step by prejudice. Please, please, please, don’t delude yourself into thinking that you don’t harbour anti-disability sentiments inside your heart. Please don’t say, “but my child…” “but my best friend is…” or even “but I’m…” We everyone of us is prejudiced against those who are different. Awareness is the first step.

And that is why obtaining a copy of those two books is so very worth it.

And remember — everyone’s death is their own.  If you work with dying people, don’t stare at your own reflection.  Get out of your own way and deal with them, and their relationship with death, on their own terms, not yours.  And whatever you do, don’t use their death as a vehicle for your own desire to be close to the beautiful side of death.  I promise it will be better for you, and more importantly, for them.

Everyone’s death is their own.

 

Posted in Developmental disability service system

Big Words

An old-fashioned girl and boy, she is older, and she is pointing in his face as though lecturing to him. A caption says, "People think I'm too patronizing. (That means I talk down to people.)"
“People think I’m too patronizing. (That means I talk down to people.)”

So years ago I took a sexuality and relationships class from my developmental disability agency.  The class wasn’t actually half bad and I learned a lot. One of the two instructors, though…

So there’s a bunch of us in the lobby of the building waiting around for class to start.

And they decide to do some kind of introduction to the class down there in the lobby before we go up to the room the class is in.

And there’s two instructors, a woman and a man.  I know the man, he’s okay.  But the lady is one of those people who’s secretly terrified of people with developmental disabilities and masks it with twenty layers of condescension.  And they always think we don’t notice. We always notice.

So she’s talking down to us, and asking us what we expect to learn in the class, and so forth.

And a guy with an intellectual disability very deliberately asks, “Are we gonna learn about cunnilingus?”

She flinches, tries to recover, goes five times as sing-song, and says, “Woowwwwwww, that’s a biiiiiiiiig woorrrrrrrrrrrrrd.”

We were… unimpressed with her, to put it mildly.  And she had no idea what an ass she was making of herself.

Anyway, I wish I could think quicker on my feet, or I’d have quoted Terry Pratchett:

“Hello, little girl,” he said, which was only his first big mistake. “I’m sure you want to know all about hedgehogs, eh?”

“I did this one last year,” said Tiffany.

The man looked closer, and his grin faded. “Oh, yes,” he said. “I remember. You asked all those… little questions.”

“I would like a question answered today,” said Tiffany.

“Provided it’s not one about how you get baby hedgehogs,” said the man.

“No,” said Tiffany patiently. “It’s about zoology.”

“Zoology, eh? That’s a big word, isn’t it.”

“No, actually it isn’t,” said Tiffany. “Patronizing is a big word. Zoology is really quite small.”

-Terry Pratchett, The Wee Free Men (exchange between a girl named Tiffany and a wandering teacher trading knowledge for food)

As it is, I think we all settled for rolling our eyes and the like, which our instructor of course missed entirely.   Just like she missed the point of the guy choosing a word like cunnilingus when being talked down to…

Posted in Developmental disability service system

They decide what helping is, even if it isn’t.

A woman reaching her hand down to help a boy. The boy, who has no legs, stares doubtfully up at her from his skateboard, not taking her outstretched hand. Photo from Mouth Magazine.
A woman reaching her hand down to help a boy. The boy, who has no legs, stares doubtfully up at her from his skateboard, not taking her outstretched hand. Photo from Mouth Magazine.

Here is one picture of helping.  Here is another.

A woman reaching her hand down to help a boy. The boy, who has no legs, stares doubtfully up at her from his skateboard, not taking her outstretched hand. Photo from Mouth Magazine.
A woman reaching her hand down to help a boy. The boy, who has no legs, stares doubtfully up at her from his skateboard, not taking her outstretched hand. Photo from Mouth Magazine.

Pictures of helping deserve a second look.  The photo at right, from a cancer camp, shows a helper offering her hand.  Should the boy accept this offer, on the trajectory indicated, he will lose his wheels and dangle, helpless.

He can see it coming.  She cannot.

He will, all his life, be the real expert on what help he wants or doesn’t.  That is exactly not what is taught to students at helping schools.

He will learn:  (a) that not all help is helpful, (b) that he must find graceful ways to decline even ill-conceived help, and (c) that gratitude is required in any event.


Mouth Magazine, Who’s In Charge: Excerpts from a Pictorial Essay, Lucy Gwin

The above is an incredibly important thing to understand about the developmental disability service system:  They think they know what is helpful to you.  They think you are not able to see how their help might be unhelpful or even harmful.  They think that if you object, you are just resisting the help you clearly need and that they need to help you learn to accept their goals for you.

As the article says, we can see these things coming.  They can’t.

And we’re treated like the only reasons we react the way we do to less-than-helpful help is things like this:

  • We have cognitive disabilities and therefore don’t know any better.
  • We have an emotional attachment to getting help we don’t need.
  • We are afraid to try something new.
  • We are afraid of independence or responsibility.
  • We are lazy or slobs by nature.
  • We are stubborn and defiant.
  • We just want to make trouble.
  • We are mean or rude.
  • We just want to make them feel bad.
  • We are like children who can’t understand when adults know what is in our best interests.
  • We can’t see the big picture of our lives the way they can (even if they barely know us at all).
  • Anything else other than we actually know and understand what is happening.

Then they turn our responses to their efforts to help us, into something pathological that we need more help to work through so we will accept what they consider to be help.

And then we just need to be manipulated into doing what they’ve already decided is best for us.  Like usual.  Even if it hurts us.  Even if it harms us.  Even if it is just something we don’t like.  Even if it kills us.  That they are helping, sometimes just that they can feel or look like they are helping, matters more than what their “helping” actually does to us in the real world.

And we are the ones who pay in all kinds of ways.

Mind you, the problem isn’t that they get things wrong.  Everyone gets things wrong.

The problem is that they think their status as professionals makes them always right about things like help.  At least, always more right than people with developmental disabilities.

 

Posted in Being human, Nature

Living stumps and the living dead: Feeding tubes aren’t unnatural

Mel wearing a hat, jeans, and a Green Mountain Self-Advocates t-shirt, with feeding tubes showing, standing next to an IV pole with a feeding bag on one side and a potted succulent on the other. There is an elaborate crocheted wall hanging showing different parts of the forest floor on a redwood forest. Including soil, water, slime molds, fungus, tree roots, plants, slugs, a snail, a newt, redwood cones, and random forest debris.
They say this is unnatural…

I need a couple of feeding tubes, and sometimes a chest port, to stay alive.  One of the feeding tubes drains fluid out of my partially paralyzed stomach so it doesn’t overflow into my lungs.  The other feeding tube goes straight into my small intestine, and you put all the food, water, and medication in there.  That bypasses my stomach, which doesn’t empty properly so most things just sit there or backflow into my lungs instead of being used.  People can need feeding tubes for lots of reasons, but in my case it’s to get around the fact that my stomach resembles a dead-end street.  Luckily you don’t really need your stomach for digestion.  Small intestines do it just fine.

There’s a lot of things people don’t understand about feeding tubes, but one of the objections I hear most often is that living with a feeding tube is ‘unnatural’.  It’s modern medicine run amok, going too far, keeping people alive who’d be better off dead, and lots of other cheery bullshit.  And the very idea creeps people out because it’s supposedly artificial, unnatural, and disturbing to even think about.  It’s hard to know where to begin with that kind of thing, but I have a lot of objections to the idea it’s unnatural.

First off, human beings using technology to keep each other alive is the most natural thing we could possibly do.  We are built to have compassion for each other, to take care of each other.  We are built to solve problems, both alone and as groups.  We pass on our knowledge and build on it from generation to generation.  We are skilled at making and improving on technology.  These are our natural skills, our natural instincts, and there is little more natural for a human being than using them.

Feeding tubes also aren’t that recent an invention.  They date back at least to ancient Egypt, where they were tubes stuck up people’s butts to try to get food into them that way.  Butt feeding tubes were the norm until people started figuring out how to use a tube down the throat to bypass the windpipe on the way to the stomach.  They used those for everything from torturing and force-feeding prisoners to making picky children eat food they didn’t want.  Butt tubes were still around though.  When  President Garfield was shot, they were able to keep him alive for awhile using a butt-based feeding tube.

It wasn’t until anesthesia made surgery possible and antibiotics reduced the infection risk, though, that people really made headway with the kind of feeding tubes I have.  These are implanted through a hole (stoma) directly into the stomach or intestine.  When done properly, these days, this is reasonably low-risk and reversible.  The hole heals if you take the tube out.  Even while the tube is in, it’s perfectly possible to eat by mouth if you’re capable of it.  Nothing about the tube itself will prevent you from doing that, only whatever condition is making feeding difficult in the first place.  So if you have the feeding tube and don’t need it anymore, you can get used to eating again before having it removed.

It may be obvious that I have a problem with the way people divide things into artificial and natural.  Lots of animals use tools and technology.  Lots of animals do things to solve problems.   We’re not different there.  The things we make are just as natural as the things beavers make.  Whether we, or beavers, cause problems with the things we make, is a completely different question.  But just the act of making things isn’t defying nature.  It can’t be.  That’s not possible.  And it’s perfectly in line with every natural human instinct out there.

But for people who find what human beings do hopelessly unnatural… here’s this other thing that happens:

A living stump next to a tree that is keeping it alive through its roots.
…I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t call this natural.

In case you don’t know what you’re looking at, that’s a couple of Douglas fir trees.  One of them is a regular tree, the other is a stump.  The stump is alive.   Even though it has no leaves to make food out of, the stump is still completely alive.

How is this possible?  The roots of the two trees are connected.  The tree sends nutrients to the stump, so that it doesn’t have to make its own food.  This can keep the stump alive indefinitely.  This happens all the time.  It’s tube feeding for trees.

Douglas firs, like the redwoods depicted in the wall hanging in my first photo, are a social species of tree.  Many social species of tree connect at the roots, either directly root to root, or through a network of roots and fungus.  They can send signals, nutrients, and other chemicals through the roots.  They even show preference for family and for trees that — however trees decide this — are friends.  Just because they’re a social species of plant and work very differently from us, doesn’t mean they don’t share with humans the desire to help each other survive.

I mean, I’m talking in terms that sound very human, but there’s no real words out there for saying what trees want and how.  All life  wants to be alive, though.  For social species, that often involves helping each other out.  That goes no matter what kind of life form you are and how different you are.

I’ve never met even the most ridiculous nature purist who’d claim trees are unnatural.  And if it’s not unnatural for trees to use their time and resources to feed each other when they can’t make their own food, it’s not unnatural for humans to find ways to do the same.  Including feeding tubes.

So don’t call my feeding tube unnatural.  It’s as natural as the redwood forest in the crocheted wall hanging next to me in the first picture.  And using technology to help each other survive is one of the most natural things human beings can possibly do.  All these tubes and machines don’t have to horrify you.  I’m a living stump, not the living dead.


Further information:

You can read all about the history of tubefeeding and more in Complete Tubefeeding: Everything you need to know about tubefeeding, tube nutrition, and blended diets by Eric Aadhar O’Gorman.  I’d recommend the first half of the book much more than the second half, however.

The first half is well-researched information on tubefeeding in general.  The second half reads like a cross between a sales pitch for blenderized diets and regurgitated Michael Pollan stuff.  I use Osmolite for my main nutrition and supplement it with blenderized vegetables to get things you won’t find in elemental formulas.  But when you’re reading along and the book starts referring to food the author thinks is bad for you as “edible food-like substances” and all the recipes specify the vegetables need to be organic, seriously?  I don’t want orthorexia when I already can’t eat, thanks.  It does tell you how to properly blenderize food for a feeding tube, though.  It focuses on G-tube feeding and doesn’t mention the steps you have to do (like using a chinois) to make sure blenderized food can’t clog a longer and narrower J-tube, though.

If you’re interested in the social lives of trees, the following TED talk may be of interest:

Here is a link to a page with a transcript:  How Trees Talk To Each Other.

Books regarding plant communication, cooperation, and senses:

The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate – Discoveries From A Secret World by Peter Wohlleben.  This is a combination of personal observations from decades in a German woodland, and scientific discoveries backing up those observations.  Living stumps are described in detail.

What A Plant Knows: A  Field Guide to the Senses by Daniel Chamovitz.  This one describes the sensory experiences of plants in a way that is pretty easy for a layperson to understand and dispels many popular myths about plant senses.  The things described are in line with the scientific knowledge at the time the book was written in 2012, most of which is likely to surprise people.  There is a lot of bullshit out there about plant senses, this is the real thing as far as we know right now.

Do not confuse these books with The Secret Life of Plants, which is largely garbage.  Be careful of information that comes from that particular book, it’s made its way into popular understanding but most of it is nonsense or misleading at best.