Peter Saul Lets talk about dying

Translator: Joseph Geni
Reviewer: Morton Bast

Look, I had second thoughts, really,

about whether I could talk about this

to such a vital and alive audience as you guys.

Then I remembered the quote from Gloria Steinem,

which goes,

“The truth will set you free,

but first it will piss you off.” (Laughter)

So – (Laughter)

So with that in mind, I’m going to set about

trying to do those things here,

and talk about dying in the 21st century.

Now the first thing that will piss you off, undoubtedly,

is that all of us are, in fact, going to die

in the 21st century.

There will be no exceptions to that.

There are, apparently, about one in eight of you

who think you’re immortal, on surveys, but –

(Laughter)

Unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen.

While I give this talk, in the next 10 minutes,

a hundred million of my cells will die,

and over the course of today, 2,000 of my brain cells

will die and never come back,

so you could argue that the dying process

starts pretty early in the piece.

Anyway, the second thing I want to say about dying in the

21st century, apart from it’s going to happen to everybody,

is it’s shaping up to be a bit of a train wreck

for most of us,

unless we do something to try and reclaim this process

from the rather inexorable trajectory that it’s currently on.

So there you go. That’s the truth.

No doubt that will piss you off, and now let’s see

whether we can set you free. I don’t promise anything.

Now, as you heard in the intro, I work in intensive care,

and I think I’ve kind of lived through the heyday

of intensive care. It’s been a ride, man.

This has been fantastic.

We have machines that go ping.

There’s many of them up there.

And we have some wizard technology which I think

has worked really well, and over the course of the time

I’ve worked in intensive care, the death rate

for males in Australia has halved,

and intensive care has had something to do with that.

Certainly, a lot of the technologies that we use

have got something to do with that.

So we have had tremendous success, and we kind of

got caught up in our own success quite a bit,

and we started using expressions like “lifesaving.”

I really apologize to everybody for doing that,

because obviously, we don’t.

What we do is prolong people’s lives,

and delay death,

and redirect death, but we can’t, strictly speaking,

save lives on any sort of permanent basis.

And what’s really happened over the period of time

that I’ve been working in intensive care is that

the people whose lives we started saving back in the ’70s,

’80s, and ’90s, are now coming to die in the 21st century

of diseases that we no longer have the answers to

in quite the way we did then.

So what’s happening now is there’s been a big shift

in the way that people die,

and most of what they’re dying of now isn’t as amenable

to what we can do as what it used to be like

when I was doing this in the ’80s and ’90s.

So we kind of got a bit caught up with this,

and we haven’t really squared with you guys about

what’s really happening now, and it’s about time we did.

I kind of woke up to this bit in the late ’90s

when I met this guy.

This guy is called Jim, Jim Smith, and he looked like this.

I was called down to the ward to see him.

His is the little hand.

I was called down to the ward to see him

by a respiratory physician.

He said, “Look, there’s a guy down here.

He’s got pneumonia,

and he looks like he needs intensive care.

His daughter’s here and she wants everything possible

to be done.”

Which is a familiar phrase to us.

So I go down to the ward and see Jim,

and his skin his translucent like this.

You can see his bones through the skin.

He’s very, very thin,

and he is, indeed, very sick with pneumonia,

and he’s too sick to talk to me,

so I talk to his daughter Kathleen, and I say to her,

“Did you and Jim ever talk about

what you would want done

if he ended up in this kind of situation?”

And she looked at me and said, “No, of course not!”

I thought, “Okay. Take this steady.”

And I got talking to her, and after a while, she said to me,

“You know, we always thought there’d be time.”

Jim was 94. (Laughter)

And I realized that something wasn’t happening here.

There wasn’t this dialogue going on

that I imagined was happening.

So a group of us started doing survey work,

and we looked at four and a half thousand nursing home

residents in Newcastle, in the Newcastle area,

and discovered that only one in a hundred of them

had a plan about what to do when their hearts stopped beating.

One in a hundred.

And only one in 500 of them had plan about what to do

if they became seriously ill.

And I realized, of course, this dialogue

is definitely not occurring in the public at large.

Now, I work in acute care.

This is John Hunter Hospital.

And I thought, surely, we do better than that.

So a colleague of mine from nursing called Lisa Shaw and I

went through hundreds and hundreds of sets of notes

in the medical records department

looking at whether there was any sign at all

that anybody had had any conversation about

what might happen to them if the treatment they were

receiving was unsuccessful to the point that they would die.

And we didn’t find a single record of any preference

about goals, treatments or outcomes from any

of the sets of notes initiated by a doctor or by a patient.

So we started to realize

that we had a problem,

and the problem is more serious because of this.

What we know is that obviously we are all going to die,

but how we die is actually really important,

obviously not just to us, but also to how that

features in the lives of all the people who live on afterwards.

How we die lives on in the minds of everybody

who survives us, and

the stress created in families by dying is enormous,

and in fact you get seven times as much stress by dying

in intensive care as by dying just about anywhere else,

so dying in intensive care is not your top option

if you’ve got a choice.

And, if that wasn’t bad enough, of course,

all of this is rapidly progressing towards the fact that

many of you, in fact, about one in 10 of you at this point,

will die in intensive care.

In the U.S., it’s one in five.

In Miami, it’s three out of five people die in intensive care.

So this is the sort of momentum

that we’ve got at the moment.

The reason why this is all happening is due to this,

and I do have to take you through what this is about.

These are the four ways to go.

So one of these will happen to all of us.

The ones you may know most about are the ones

that are becoming increasingly of historical interest:

sudden death.

It’s quite likely in an audience this size

this won’t happen to anybody here.

Sudden death has become very rare.

The death of Little Nell and Cordelia and all that sort of stuff

just doesn’t happen anymore.

The dying process of those with terminal illness

that we’ve just seen

occurs to younger people.

By the time you’ve reached 80, this is unlikely to happen to you.

Only one in 10 people who are over 80 will die of cancer.

The big growth industry are these.

What you die of is increasing organ failure,

with your respiratory, cardiac, renal,

whatever organs packing up. Each of these

would be an admission to an acute care hospital,

at the end of which, or at some point during which,

somebody says, enough is enough, and we stop.

And this one’s the biggest growth industry of all,

and at least six out of 10 of the people in this room

will die in this form, which is

the dwindling of capacity

with increasing frailty,

and frailty’s an inevitable part of aging,

and increasing frailty is in fact the main thing

that people die of now,

and the last few years, or the last year of your life

is spent with a great deal of disability, unfortunately.

Enjoying it so far? (Laughs)

(Laughter)

Sorry, I just feel such a, I feel such a Cassandra here.

(Laughter)

What can I say that’s positive? What’s positive is

that this is happening at very great age, now.

We are all, most of us, living to reach this point.

You know, historically, we didn’t do that.

This is what happens to you

when you live to be a great age,

and unfortunately, increasing longevity does mean

more old age, not more youth.

I’m sorry to say that. (Laughter)

What we did, anyway, look, what we did,

we didn’t just take this lying down

at John Hunter Hospital and elsewhere.

We’ve started a whole series of projects

to try and look about whether we could, in fact, involve

people much more in the way that things happen to them.

But we realized, of course, that we are dealing

with cultural issues,

and this is, I love this Klimt painting,

because the more you look at it, the more you kind of get

the whole issue that’s going on here,

which is clearly the separation of death from the living,

and the fear — Like, if you actually look,

there’s one woman there

who has her eyes open.

She’s the one he’s looking at,

and [she’s] the one he’s coming for. Can you see that?

She looks terrified.

It’s an amazing picture.

Anyway, we had a major cultural issue.

Clearly, people didn’t want us to talk about death,

or, we thought that.

So with loads of funding from the Federal Government

and the local Health Service, we introduced a thing

at John Hunter called Respecting Patient Choices.

We trained hundreds of people to go to the wards

and talk to people about the fact that they would die,

and what would they prefer under those circumstances.

They loved it. The families and the patients, they loved it.

Ninety-eight percent of people really thought

this just should have been normal practice,

and that this is how things should work.

And when they expressed wishes,

all of those wishes came true, as it were.

We were able to make that happen for them.

But then, when the funding ran out,

we went back to look six months later,

and everybody had stopped again,

and nobody was having these conversations anymore.

So that was really kind of heartbreaking for us,

because we thought this was going to really take off.

The cultural issue had reasserted itself.

So here’s the pitch:

I think it’s important that we don’t just get on this freeway

to ICU without thinking hard about whether or not

that’s where we all want to end up,

particularly as we become older and increasingly frail

and ICU has less and less and less to offer us.

There has to be a little side road

off there for people who don’t want to go on that track.

And I have one small idea,

and one big idea about what could happen.

And this is the small idea.

The small idea is, let’s all of us

engage more with this in the way that Jason has illustrated.

Why can’t we have these kinds of conversations

with our own elders

and people who might be approaching this?

There are a couple of things you can do.

One of them is, you can,

just ask this simple question. This question never fails.

“In the event that you became too sick to speak for yourself,

who would you like to speak for you?”

That’s a really important question to ask people,

because giving people the control over who that is

produces an amazing outcome.

The second thing you can say is,

“Have you spoken to that person

about the things that are important to you

so that we’ve got a better idea of what it is we can do?”

So that’s the little idea.

The big idea, I think, is more political.

I think we have to get onto this.

I suggested we should have Occupy Death.

(Laughter)

My wife said, “Yeah, right, sit-ins in the mortuary.

Yeah, yeah. Sure.” (Laughter)

So that one didn’t really run,

but I was very struck by this.

Now, I’m an aging hippie.

I don’t know, I don’t think I look like that anymore, but

I had, two of my kids were born at home in the ’80s

when home birth was a big thing, and we baby boomers

are used to taking charge of the situation,

so if you just replace all these words of birth,

I like “Peace, Love, Natural Death” as an option.

I do think we have to get political

and start to reclaim this process from

the medicalized model in which it’s going.

Now, listen, that sounds like a pitch for euthanasia.

I want to make it absolutely crystal clear to you all,

I hate euthanasia. I think it’s a sideshow.

I don’t think euthanasia matters.

I actually think that,

in places like Oregon,

where you can have physician-assisted suicide,

you take a poisonous dose of stuff,

only half a percent of people ever do that.

I’m more interested in what happens to the 99.5 percent

of people who don’t want to do that.

I think most people don’t want to be dead,

but I do think most people want to have some control

over how their dying process proceeds.

So I’m an opponent of euthanasia,

but I do think we have to give people back some control.

It deprives euthanasia of its oxygen supply.

I think we should be looking at stopping

the want for euthanasia,

not for making it illegal or legal or worrying about it at all.

This is a quote from Dame Cicely Saunders,

whom I met when I was a medical student.

She founded the hospice movement.

And she said, “You matter because you are,

and you matter to the last moment of your life.”

And I firmly believe that

that’s the message that we have to carry forward.

Thank you. (Applause)

译者:Joseph Geni
审稿人:Morton Bast

看,我真的有第二个想法,

关于我是否可以

与你们这些如此重要和活跃的观众谈论这个问题。

然后我想起了 Gloria Steinem 的话

“真相会让你自由,

但首先它会让你生气。”

(笑声) 所以—— (笑声)

考虑到这一点,我将着手

尝试在这里做这些事情,

并谈论在 21 世纪死亡。

毫无疑问,首先让你生气的

是,事实上,我们所有人都将

在 21 世纪死去。

不会有任何例外。

显然,在调查中,大约八分之一的

人认为自己是不朽的,但是——

(笑声)

不幸的是,这不会发生。

当我做这个演讲时,在接下来的 10 分钟内,

我的一亿个细胞会死亡,

而在今天的过程中,我的 2,000 个脑细胞

会死亡并且永远不会回来,

所以你可以说死亡过程

开始得很好 在这件作品的早期。

无论如何,关于在 21 世纪死亡,我想说的第二件事

,除了它会发生在每个人身上之外,对我们大多数人来说

,它正在形成一个火车残骸

除非我们做一些事情来尝试和恢复 这个过程

从它目前处于的相当不可阻挡的轨迹中走出来。

所以你去。 这是事实。

毫无疑问,这会让你很生气,现在让我们看看

我们能否让你自由。 我什么都不承诺。

现在,正如你在介绍中所听到的,我在重症监护室工作

,我想我已经度过

了重症监护室的鼎盛时期。 这是一个旅程,伙计。

这太棒了。

我们有可以ping通的机器。

上面有很多。

我们有一些我

认为非常有效的巫师技术,在

我在重症监护室工作的这段时间里

,澳大利亚男性的死亡率减半

,重症监护室与此有关。

当然,我们使用的许多技术

都与此有关。

所以我们取得了巨大的成功,我们

有点陷入了自己的成功

,我们开始使用像“救生”这样的表达方式。

我真的向所有人道歉,

因为很明显,我们没有。

我们所做的是延长人们的生命

,延缓死亡,改变死亡的方向,但严格来说,我们不能

在任何形式的永久基础上拯救生命。

在我在重症监护室工作的这段时间里,真正发生的事情

是,

我们在 70 年代

、80 年代和 90 年代开始挽救生命的人们,现在将在 21 世纪死去

我们不再像当时那样找到答案的疾病。

所以现在发生的事情是人们死亡的方式发生了巨大的转变

他们现在正在死去的大部分东西都

不像我以前那样做 80 年代和 90 年代。

所以我们有点赶上了这件事

,我们还没有真正与你们就

现在真正发生的事情达成一致,现在是我们这样做的时候了。

在 90 年代后期,

当我遇到这个人时,我有点意识到这一点。

这个人叫吉姆,吉姆·史密斯,他长这样。

我被叫到病房去看他。

他的小手。 呼吸内科医生

叫我到病房看

他。

他说:“你看,下面有一个人。

他得了肺炎

,看起来需要重症监护。

他的女儿在这里,她希望一切

都可以完成。”

这是我们熟悉的短语。

所以我到病房去看吉姆

,他的皮肤像这样半透明。

你可以透过皮肤看到他的骨头。

他非常非常瘦

,而且他确实得了肺炎

,他病得太厉害了,不能和我说话,

所以我和他的女儿凯瑟琳说话,我对她说,

“你和吉姆有没有谈过

你的事?

如果他落入这种境地,他会想要完成吗?”

她看着我说:“不,当然不是!”

我想,“好吧。稳住。”

我开始和她说话,过了一会儿,她对我说,

“你知道,我们一直认为还有时间。”

吉姆 94 岁了。(笑声)

我意识到这里没有发生什么事。

我想象中的对话并没有发生。

于是我们一群人开始做调查工作

,我们调查

了纽卡斯尔地区纽卡斯尔的四万五千名疗养院居民

,发现只有百分之一的人

有一个计划 停止跳动。

一百分之一。

他们中只有五百分之一的人计划好

如果他们病重了该怎么办。

当然,我意识到,这种对话

绝对不会在公众中进行。

现在,我从事急诊工作。

这是约翰亨特医院。

我想,当然,我们做得比这更好。

所以我的护士同事丽莎肖和我

在医疗记录部门检查了成百上千套笔记,

看看是否有任何迹象

表明有人

就治疗可能发生在他们身上的事情进行过交谈 他们

收到的东西不成功,以至于他们会死。

我们没有

医生或患者发起的任何一组笔记中找到任何关于目标、治疗或结果的偏好记录。

所以我们开始

意识到我们遇到了问题,

而且问题也因此更加严重。

我们所知道的是,显然我们都会死去,

但我们如何死其实真的很重要,

显然不仅对我们,而且

对所有后来生活的人的生活都有什么影响。

我们如何死去活在每个幸存者的脑海中

,死亡给家庭带来的压力是巨大的

,事实上,在重症监护室死去所承受的压力是在其他任何地方死去所承受的压力的七倍,

所以死去 如果您有选择,重症监护不是您

的首选。

而且,如果这还不够糟糕的话,当然,

所有这一切都在迅速朝着这样一个事实发展,即你们中的

许多人,事实上,在这一点上,大约有十分之一的人

将在重症监护室中死亡。

在美国,这一比例为五分之一。

在迈阿密,五分之三的人死于重症监护。

就是我们目前所拥有的那种势头。

这一切发生的原因是由于这个

,我必须带你了解这一切。

这是四种方法。

因此,其中之一将发生在我们所有人身上。

你可能最了解的是

那些越来越具有历史意义的东西:

猝死。

在这种规模的观众中,这很可能

不会发生在这里的任何人身上。

突然死亡变得非常罕见。

Little Nell 和 Cordelia 的死以及所有类似的

事情不再发生。 我们刚刚看到的

绝症患者的死亡过程

发生在年轻人身上。

到你 80 岁时,这不太可能发生在你身上。

80岁以上的人中,只有十分之一会死于癌症。

大的增长行业是这些。

你死的原因是器官衰竭加剧

,你的呼吸、心脏、肾脏,

任何器官都在堆积。 其中每一个

都将是入院急性护理医院,

在结束时,或者在某个时候,

有人说,够了,我们就停下来。

而这个是所有增长最大的行业,

在这个房间里,至少有十分之六的人

会以这种形式死亡,这

是容量的减少,

越来越脆弱,

而脆弱是衰老的必然部分,

越来越脆弱 事实上,这

是人们现在死去的主要因素,不幸的是

,过去几年,或者说你生命的最后一年,

是在大量的残疾中度过的。

到目前为止享受吗? (笑)

(笑声)

对不起,我只是觉得这样,我觉得这里是这样的卡桑德拉。

(笑声)

我能说什么是积极的? 积极的是

,这发生在非常大的年龄,现在。

我们所有人,我们中的大多数人,都在为达到这一点而活。

你知道,从历史上看,我们没有这样做。 当你活到

大龄时,这就是发生在你身上的事情

不幸的是,长寿确实意味着

更多的老年,而不是更多的年轻。

我很抱歉这么说。 (笑声)

不管怎样,我们做了什么,看,我们做了什么,

我们不只是把它

放在约翰亨特医院和其他地方。

我们已经启动了一系列项目

来尝试看看我们是否可以,事实上,让

人们更多地参与到事情发生在他们身上的方式中。

但我们当然意识到,我们正在

处理文化问题

,我喜欢克里姆特的这幅画,

因为你看的越多,你就越能

理解这里发生的整个问题,

这很明显 死与生的分离,

以及恐惧——就像,如果你真的看,

那里有一个

女人睁着眼睛。

她是他正在看的那个人

,[她]是他要来的那个人。 你能看到吗?

她看起来很害怕。

这是一张了不起的照片。

无论如何,我们有一个重大的文化问题。

显然,人们不希望我们谈论死亡,

或者,我们是这么认为的。

因此,在联邦政府

和当地卫生服务部门的大量资金支持下,我们

在 John Hunter 引入了一项名为“尊重患者选择”的项目。

我们培训了数百人去病房

,与人们谈论他们会死的事实,

以及在这种情况下他们更喜欢什么。

他们喜欢它。 家人和病人,他们喜欢它。

百分之九十八的人真的认为

这应该是正常的做法

,事情应该是这样的。

当他们表达愿望时,

所有这些愿望都实现了。

我们能够为他们做到这一点。

但是,当资金用完时,

我们在六个月后回头看

,每个人都再次停下来

,没有人再进行这些对话了。

所以这对我们来说真的很令人心碎,

因为我们认为这会真正起飞。

文化问题再次出现。

所以这里是音调:

我认为重要的是,我们不要只是在这条

通往重症监护室的高速公路上不认真思考是否

是我们所有人都想要结束的地方,

特别是当我们变得越来越老,越来越虚弱,

而重症监护室的资源越来越少时, 提供给我们的越来越少。

对于那些不想走这条路的人来说,那里必须有一条小路。

我有一个小想法,

还有一个关于可能发生的事情的大想法。

这是一个小想法。

小小的想法是,让我们所有人都以

Jason 所说明的方式更多地参与其中。

为什么我们不能

与我们自己的长辈

和可能接近这个问题的人进行此类对话?

您可以做几件事。

其中之一是,你

可以问这个简单的问题。 这个问题永远不会失败。

“如果你病得不能为自己

说话,你想为谁说话?”

这是一个非常重要的问题要问人们,

因为让人们控制谁会

产生惊人的结果。

你可以说的第二件事是,

“你有没有和那个人

谈过对你很重要的事情,

以便我们更好地了解我们可以做什么?”

所以这是个小主意。

我认为,这个伟大的想法更具政治性。

我认为我们必须解决这个问题。

我建议我们应该有占领死亡。

(笑声)

我的妻子说,“是的,是的,在太平间静坐。

是的,是的。当然。” (笑声)

所以那个人并没有真正跑,

但我对此感到非常震惊。

现在,我是一个上了年纪的嬉皮士。

我不知道,我觉得我不再像那样了,但

我有,我的两个孩子在 80 年代

在家中出生,当时在家分娩是一件大事,我们婴儿潮一代

习惯于负责 的情况,

所以如果你只是替换所有这些出生的词,

我喜欢“和平,爱,自然死亡”作为一个选项。

我确实认为我们必须从政治上

着手,并开始

从医疗模式中恢复这个过程。

现在,听着,这听起来像是安乐死的宣传。

我想让你们都明白,

我讨厌安乐死。 我认为这是一个插曲。

我认为安乐死并不重要。

我实际上认为,

在像俄勒冈这样的地方,

你可以在医生协助下自杀,

你服用有毒剂量的东西,

只有 0.5% 的人这样做过。

我更感兴趣的是 99.5%

不想这样做的人会发生什么。

我认为大多数人不想死,

但我确实认为大多数人希望对

他们的死亡过程如何进行有所控制。

所以我是安乐死的反对者,

但我确实认为我们必须给人们一些控制权。

它剥夺了安乐死的氧气供应。

我认为我们应该着眼于

停止对安乐死的需求,

而不是让它成为非法或合法的,或者根本就担心它。

这是

我在读医科时认识的 Dame Cicely Saunders 的话。

她创立了临终关怀运动。

她说,“你很重要,因为你是

,你很重要,直到生命的最后一刻。”

我坚信

这是我们必须发扬光大的信息。

谢谢你。 (掌声)