Visiting with a friend over breakfast the other day, the subject of quality versus quantity of life came up over eggs and crispy bacon.
The question was simple: If you're diagnosed with a fatal illness and must choose between undergoing life-extending care that seriously detracts from the quality of what time you have remaining, or forgo radical treatments in favor of prolonging quality of life through palliative care, which would you choose? Live perhaps a year longer, or a briefer period relatively free from pain and suffering?
Knowing that either choice invariably leads to the same end, albeit in different timeframes, we agreed we'd prefer quality over quantity under most circumstances.
It's not a hollow question. Thousands of people face this choice daily. And it's a decision any of us might one day be forced to make.
How about you? Would you trade, say, an extra year of survival under trying circumstances that affect the quality of your remaining time, or sacrifice some of that time to live out your remaining life with notably greater quality?
I put the question to the Internet and received a lot of responses. Nearly all said they also would choose quality over quantity. Posing the question clearly was enough to spark considerable interest.
One female said: "While this is very interesting, I've learned that I don't know what I would do until I'm actually faced with a situation. It hasn't stopped me from guessing, but I've usually been wrong about myself!"
"My dad and his brother were both told they had lung cancer less than two weeks apart," said another woman. "We chose the treatment route, knowing that would only give [Dad] about another year. His brother chose no treatments and both died three days apart a year later. Shows it's God's decision, not ours."
Another female said she's a terminal patient today. "I have chosen to have symptom control and enjoy as much as the Almighty sees fit. I've refused any life-support situations. When it's my time I only ask to pass in as much comfort as can be provided, surrounded by family and friends. No tears or sadness, only smiles."
"I know I wouldn't like to live like my mom with paralyzing Alzheimer's," offered another lady.
"I'd so choose quality. And live the rest of my life bringing joy, light and laughter into this world," said a woman who's an artist.
Another woman wrote, "My father is suffering another type of dementia and I, with this type of psychosis, would definitely take quality. I won't know 'til I'm there. With dementia I wish we had 'death with dignity' laws. There is no quality for them."
A man said: "I've always said I wouldn't take the poison that's offered. It's who will die first--me or the cancer."
A Fayetteville attorney wrote: "If I had a child getting married or a grandchild being born, I might choose to extend. Tough question and way too easy to answer sitting here in perfect health and a long healthy road (I'm hoping) ahead."
A woman who works in a local hospital said: "I see family members making choices I wouldn't want made for me. I've made sure my kids know I choose quality."
And a former Fayetteville newspaper publisher seemed to summarize the feelings of most who responded: "Live every day as if it's your last and you'll have no regrets."
UA hog study
Speaking of bacon, it's time to decide if our state will cough up a few hundred thousand more tax dollars so the University of Arkansas geosciences folks can continue monitoring that hog factory our state allowed into the precious Buffalo National River watershed back in 2012.
Former Gov. Mike Beebe, under whose administration this factory with up to 6,500 wrongheadedly gained entry to the most environmentally sensitive region of our state, initially allocated $340,000 for the university to monitor possible hog-waste contamination in the watershed.
That expenditure thus far has resulted in "inconclusive" results based on examining a fraction of the spray fields.
Now the decision on whether a lot more money is needed to continue studying the millions of gallons of waste from the swine factory: If the location isn't critical, why spend so much money and energy to monitor the castoffs being regularly sprayed on watershed fields?
Truth is, it matters a lot. The state created a terrible situation that now we are paying to police. What's wrong with this picture? And why is this Cargill-supplied factory being so coddled? Yes, the factory jumped through the state's hoops for a permit, but those upfront requirements clearly weren't close to stringent enough, as evidenced by the game of "pay money, watch and see" we're playing now.
Denying a hog-factory permit in this location to begin with would have saved so much time, energy and taxpayer dollars.
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at [email protected].
Editorial on 01/20/2015