The following day everyone was gathering up their belongings for their journey homeward. As the day progressed and Todd had made no effort to pack, I became suspicious. He finally voiced the plan that he had in store for us, that being to talk with the director at the hospice service. We immediately rejected the idea, saying we had no intention of utilizing the service at the present time. It was then that he told us he had actually made an appointment for us, and the director would be expecting us in a few hours. Since we had first thought the idea was a mere suggestion, the negative feelings of anger did not surface until now.
Norm, sensing as I, the trouble which was bound to occur, excused himself before making a scene. He decided to take a walk to displace his rage. I firmly told everyone that I was not going; I didn't want to start digging my grave before my demise, not to mention the fact that I did not wish to die in the hospital if it could be avoided. But above all else, it was the principle of the whole affair that set off my self-protective behavior; I would not have my decisions made for me. My parents were also angered at the thought of their being entirely left out of the decision to see this man, multiplied by their lack of preparation for the discussion which was about to take place. At last, understanding Todd's concern, they agreed to accompany him. As I watched them file into the car, I wasn't quite sure if a battle had been lost or won; perhaps in the forgetting of principle, followed by the acceptance of the former, no one truly wins.
Letting one be free is sometimes the hardest gift to bestow upon another person, yet it can be the one of greatest value. Without personal choice, freedom is but a laughable reality.
Another case which was marked by what I would consider faulty and injurious judgment involved a couple who had been married for 52 years. This couple was a classic example of opposing personalities living together under one roof; she was a rational, mild-mannered lady, while he was obnoxious in every possible sense of the word, needing to be the constant attraction and principal authority presiding over any group or function. He had to have his way or he would make life truly miserable for the unfortunate individual who attempted to voice an opinion, carrying out his revenge with cruel indignance.
After suffering what appeared to have been a stroke, the woman was hospitalized only to discover that a tumor had formed in her brain. It was evident she would not have long to live, so she decided to forgo the torture which would accompany chemotherapy, the sole option of treatment, and explicitly informed her husband of her wishes. As time passed and her condition grew worse, she eventually lost all ability to verbally communicate; it was at this point that her husband bid the doctors to administer chemotherapy, with the supposed hope that she would regain some of her lost functions. Consciously aware of the decision which had been made by her husband on her behalf, yet incapable of voicing her opposition as to its commencement, she was forced to submit, for the last time, to her husband's self-centered dominance. He saw in her eyes that she begged to be released from the treatment, but he played the ignorant fool and watched as she quietly faded into the obscure limbo of unconsciousness.
All through their life together, until her quiet end, the man thought only of securing enjoyment for himself. When he felt his well-being was in danger, he sought only to maintain his happiness, which had little to do with the welfare of his dying wife. This was apparent in his total lack of empathy regarding her wishes, and the merciless ignorance of her speechless plea.
It is difficult for me to believe that such selfish persons exist, for I hope the vast majority of people will conquer their selfish tendencies in order to facilitate the desires of their loved one, even if it shall mean a more rapid decline in health. It is important to realize that only the patient suffers bodily pain; it is ultimately he who must undergo the treatment, which could in fact, significantly alter his overall comfort.
For these combined reasons, I feel it is fair to allow a mentally intact individual to decide how his remaining days shall he spent; this is why open conversation among family members is of such great consequence. When the illness prevents further decisions on the part of the patient, it is then up to the family to respect his previously stated wishes and, should further decisions need to be made beyond those which had been specified, strive to make new options benefit the patient's comfort. Above all else, kindness should prevail and guide in the solutions to any questions which might occur concerning the patient's death. A patient should not be made to suffer through a lack of acceptance on the part of the family; behavior of this sort not only uses the dying, it overtly abuses them.