How Doctors Die

“How Doctors Die” by Ken Murray

            “How Doctors Die” is a slightly morbid essay, and bears significant thematic resembance to the essay “The Good Short Life” by Dudley Clendinen. In the essay, physician Ken Murray discusses the care of patients who are very near death. He calls this care “futile care” because there is no chance in the patient making a recovery. While their life is prolonged, it is often in considerable pain and discomfort. Murray explains that because doctors see this pain and suffering, they often choose to forgo life-support and other medical procedures at the end of their life, reducing potential suffering as well as medical costs. Instead they accept their condition, and accept death.

            Murray, who has been a physician for over 25 years, has plenty of experiences to draw from. He is able to use exemplification to demonstrate the pain and suffering he sees, as to help the reader, assumedly an average person, understand the mindset of doctors. He describes one patient, a lawyer with diabetes and bad circulation who developed an infectious sore on her foot. Against Murray’s recommendation, she was ushered into surgery. Her wounds wouldn’t heal, causing her to have double amputations. She later died due to complications in a medical facility. Though measures were taken to try to save this woman’s life, her last moments were not happy ones.

            Murray also describes he cousin, Torch, who was diagnosed with brain and lung cancer. The cancer would need intense treatment, as Murray describes, “we  learned that with aggressive treatment of his condition, including three to five hospital visits a week for chemotherapy, he would live perhaps four months” (235). Instead Torch lives at home with his cousin, and his months were happy: “He had no serious pain, and remained high-spirited” (235). He died later, peacefully in his sleep.

            Through his well chosen examples, Murray is able to successfully explain his mindset on end-of-life care. Like Dudley Clendinen, he believes that quality trumps quantity, and is surprised that so many Americans choose to tell the doctors to do “everything they can”, even when life-saving efforts are futile. But, perhaps it is only human to cling to life, especially in the case of a loved one. Like Clendinen said in his essay “The Good Short Life” Americans don’t know how to talk about death. Maybe if we did we could be more accepting, and more people could live out their final days in peace.

"I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me... 'Promise me if you find me like this that you'll kill me.' They mean it."  (232)

N.d. Photograph. The Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times, 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 9 Aug. 2013.

The Good Short Life

Dudley Clendinen was an American journalist and author, who wrote about a vareity of topics, including civil rights, aging in America, the New South etc. He has held the position of reporter and senior editor at several newspapers in the country, including the New York Times, for which he was a national correspondent and editorial writer. In “The Good Short Life”, he discusses his approaching death. In November of 2010, Clendinen was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, abbreviated ASL, but more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. As Clendinen describes his disease, “it is not a kind disease. The nerves and muscles pulse and twitch, and progressively, they die” (63). There is no known treatment or cure.

            What is striking about this essay is the tone. Clendinen knows he is going to die. He is so blunt and matter-of-fact about the subject. He jokingly refers to his disease as “Lou”, giving a chillingly friendly and jovial impression of his situation. He writes, “I am in fact prepared. This is not as hard for me as it is for others” (65). Clendinen has accepted the fact of his own death. Although he has the option to try to prolong his life with various medical procedures, he chooses not to. He argues that it is better to spend the remainder of ones life with friends and family, doing what one loves, rather than be uncomfortable and in the hospital

            In fact, towards the end of the essay Clendinen announces that he has choosen to commit suicide before his disease renders him speechless and immobile. He writes, “I found the way. Not a gun. A way that’s quiet and calm. Knowing that comforts me” (66).  Clendinen died late May of 2012, not by his own hand, but by Lou’s. In the words that he left behind his message is clear. In life, quality trumps quantity. Clendinen scolds Americans for being drawn towards quantity, because they are afraid of death. He call for a change in how we talk about and perceive death. Because being afraid of death is no way to really live.

Lou Gehrig, the disease's namesake.

N.d. Photograph. Time Magazine. Time, 17 Apr. 2010. Web. 8 Aug. 2013.

My Father/My Husband

“My Father/My Husband” by David J. Lawless

            David J. Lawless is an author and behavioral expert. In “My Father/My Husband” he describes his wife’s struggle with Alzheimer’s and dementia. The essay is skillfully written almost exclusively in dialogue, allowing the reader to pick up subtleties from subtext. He actually doesn’t reveal to the reader his wife’s exact condition until midway through the essay, when he explains her ailments to a police officer she called in the middle of night, having mistaken her husband for an intruder. However the reader, being educated and aware of the effects of Alzheimer’s can infer that from the very beginning.

            Lawless also uses the rhetorical device of repetition in his dialogue. In the beginning of the narrative he and his wife are enjoying dinner: “‘Is my father coming for dinner?’ she aks./‘No.’ /‘Why not?’/‘Because your father died forty-six years ago.’ He has given this answer several times a day for the past two or three years” (193). The following evening they are having dinner and almost the exact same dialogue ensues: “‘Is my father coming to dinner?’ /‘No.’/ ‘Why not?’/ ‘Because your father died in 1964’” (197).  His wife often asks about her father, where they live, if they are married, if they have children. The repetition allows the reader to see the severity of her Alzheimer’s, but also the repeated tenderness and patience with which her husband replies. He answers her questions routinely.

            While Lawless successfully demonstrates to the reader the affects of Alzheimer’s and dementia on an aging mind, he is also able to accomplish so much more. This is not a story of illness, but one of love. With each interaction the reader can feel the tenderness with which Lawless answers and reassures his wife. For example when the reader reads, “‘I don’t remember. I don’t know what’s wrong. I don’t remember things.’ A tear runs down her cheek. She clings to him./ ‘I know. Don’t worry.’/ ‘I’m losing my memory.’/ ‘Don’t worry.’ He gives her a kiss.” (198) they can feel their heart breaking. Lawless has used dialogue and repetition to weave such a bittersweet narrative with a heartfelt message about love; it’s everlasting.

‘I don’t remember. I don’t know what’s wrong. I don’t remember things.’ A tear runs down her cheek. She clings to him.

 ‘I know. Don’t worry.’

 ‘I’m losing my memory.’

‘Don’t worry.’ He gives her a kiss.” (198)

N.d. Photograph. No Elder Abuse. Nursing Home & Elder Abuse Law Center. Web. 6 Aug. 2013.

Getting Schooled

Getting Schooled” by Garret Keizer

            Garret Keizer, critically claimed American author and essayist, has also taught English at a public high school in Orleans, Vermont. In, “Getting Schooled” Keizer describes his experience returning to teaching at a high school from which he had taken a fourteen-year hiatus. While Keizer describes his return as pleasant, he cannot deny that much has changed in the fourteen years he has been gone. Throughout the essay, Keizer explains to his readers, the average educated American familiar with the education system, these changes through the comparative rhetorical strategies.

            Keizer mainly communicates the differences between his past and present school experiences through the point-by-point comparative technique. In this fashion he introduces each point, and then recalls how it differs, or remains the same. However, Keizer’s essay does not make the reader “sea sick” as one might expect from an entire essay of point-by-point comparison. He also utilizes exemplification, adding length to each point, and making the differences clearer.

            For example, he notes that technology has been introduced into almost every aspect of learning, and is able to provide countless examples. He writes, “The library looks like a NASA control center… The proverbial dog who ate the homework is now a flash drive. Smoking in the boys’ room is now texting in the boys’ room…” (180). Technology has overwhelming changed school life. Keizer is able to effectively demonstrate this to his reader because, having seen the development of technology, can relate to these examples. Keizer also notes that teachers are more involved in giving kids extra help to succeed, and that students’ attitudes are changing as well.

            All in all, Keizer successfully contrasts past and present teaching experiences. Through point-by-point comparison and exemplification he creates a compelling narrative with interesting commentary on the “twenty-first century” school.  Students, he explains, have evolved into primarily social creatures, turning school into a “social democracy”. What this means for the teacher as an artisan, Keizer isn’t sure, but what he can say for sure is that “kids are kids”. That’s one thing that hasn’t change, and never will.

The twenty-first century classroom

N.d. Photograph. Edudemic. Edudemic, 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 4 Aug. 2013. <http://www.edudemic.com/2011/11/technology-transform/>.

Duh, Bor-ing

           Joseph Epstein is an essayist and short story writer. Epstein, who is currently a contributing editor at The Weekly Standard, has also been an editor of The American Scholar Magazine and a lecturer at Northwestern University.  In “Duh, Bor-ing”, Epstein attempts to explore and analyze the phenomenon of boredom. Written for the layperson, “Duh, Bor-ing” explains the differences between situational boredom and existential boredom. Situational boredom arises from tedious every day events, while existential boredom is caused by existence itself, and can \equated with depression (102-3). Epstein argues that boredom is at times inescapable, and that everyone suffers from it (102).

            Since everyone suffers from boredom, Epstein is able to use the rhetorical device of pathos, or connecting emotionally with the reader, in order to prove his point. Everyone can relate to being bored, as Epstein demonstrates by opening his essay writing, “Unrequited love, as Lorenz Hart instructed us, is a bore, but then so are a great many other things: old friends gone somewhat dotty from whom it is too late to disengage, the important social-science-based book of the month…” and goes on to list several boring items including “lengthy lists (like this one)”. Epstein is able to use humor, as well as countless examples to relate to the reader. Undoubtedly the reader has experienced at least one of the events or items on Epstein’s lengthy list, and can recall the feeling of boredom, which Epstein argues is a secondary emotion.  By having the reader recall the emotion, they are better able to understand it and its different forms (situational v. existential).

            Because of this emotional connection, the reader is left with a better understanding of boredom. Not only did he cite other scholarly articles on the subject, debating different points of view, he intertwined anecdotes from his own experiences with boredom, making the piece relatable.  The reader is left with an understanding of what causes boredom, and the interesting perspective that boredom could in fact be good for us. As Epstein explains, boredom “intensifies self-perception” (108), we need it to have a better understanding of who we are. We can never escape boredom, but as Epstein dramatically closes his essay: we need to “Live with it” (110).

Only boring people.... quote by Ruth Burke