Final Exam

death
When I first began writing this, I was tucked into bed at seven p.m., hoping to be asleep soon. As I take my notes from last night and begin to type them into the computer, it is 4:34 a.m., and I've been awake for an hour. The headaches that have been dogging me for months have intensified their barking in the past couple of weeks. Pain and nausea are paired, and the pain in my face simply changes shape when I swallow the Vidodin I was prescribed on Friday. I have been trying other pain medications—and they haven't been working—so strung out from pain, I broke down and accepted the doctor's offer to write a small script for opiates until I can get in for my CT scan, which is scheduled for later this morning. (My history with opiates is not a good one.) The Vicodin has made me feel sleepy and sick—and relieves the grinding ache in my head for only 45 minutes or so.

I could pop these pills every hour, chasing the dragon of relief, but ironically, the Vicodin gives me a headache—it's in a different part of my head—a pressure that feels as if the inside of my skull is a pneumatic piece of rubber dangerously overinflated. I'm not really having a lot of fun with this, but distraction seems my only real coping mechanism. And so, I've been reading and reading. By my count, five books in a month, plus who knows how many magazine articles, online articles, and blog entries.

Each time I've read a book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, A Long Way Gone, Pretty Birds, The Book Thief, I have intended to write a review of it and did not. That was the headache that got in the way. Sunday, I bought Final Exam: A Surgeon's Reflections on Mortality by Pauline Chen. I finished it last night. The book was put-downable—I HAD to put it down, allow whatever emotion it had provoked to wash over me, before I would find myself picking it up again, wanting to know more, to allow myself to read something that was giving me access to an entirely different pain. Not my headache. And not something I would simply label heartache. It was, rather, that peculiar vibration that moves through my body when I am reading something that is resonating through me so strongly that I feel something begin to shake, to loosen within me. Resonant reading makes my boundaries less solid because of the recognition of my connection to the writer, my knowledge of the subject. Not smarts knowledge. Visceral knowledge. Gut feeling. The stuff that reminds me of my humanness, the fact that I am a part of something larger than myself.

Pauline Chen is a very successful surgeon if the list of schools where she did her training: Harvard, Northwestern, Yale, National Cancer Institutes, and UCLA are any indication.

As an accomplished surgeon, she could have writtten a deity-like paeon to the number of patients she had saved, the lives restored, the power she would be expected to feel as a member of such an elite profession. This book could have been Narcissus saying, 'Behold what I have done! Look at me!

Instead, what Dr. Chen focuses on is the ways that she has learned to stop failing her patients. Dr. Chen has written an extraordinary meditation on how her profession is ill-equipped to deal with one of the major health issues—helping patients to have good deaths. Despite the fact that humans have a 100 percent mortality rate, even among doctors who see patients die on a regular basis, there is a belief somehow that a patient death is a failure. Profoundly uncomfortable with death, many doctors cannot discuss end-of-life issues with their patients. (The problem is so endemic that even a percentage of oncologists do not tell their cancer patients that they are terminal.)

Why is this? Chen has many potential answers that look at the systems by which m.d.s are trained, and her critiques of those systems are interesting.
But it is in talking about her experiences, surgically stitching together her small encounters with individual patients and the setting in which she saw them, that is where Pauline Chen cracked open my chest.

I'm a terrible book reviewer. I'm so intent on not spoiling anything for readers that I will rarely even quote from the book. Words, for me, are like magic, and I'm always afraid that if I quote too much from the book that that magic sensation—the first time you read great writing and you feel that feeling in your gut that tells you this is great—well, I'll take that away from you if I've already quoted those parts. And so, my book reviews tend to be reflections on what got provoked in me—rage, sadness, happiness—or the epiphany I had, in my effort to convince you that this book is interesting enough that you should go read it.

I read Cynthia Ozick's brilliant exegesis of book reviews in this month's Harper's. And while I have read books whose authors are long dead, I am not sure that I could perform the "who begat who" that Ozick argues is part of a critical reviewer's job in tracing the influences at work in a piece of writing. So, let's just say that I'm not really a book reviewer. I can link a book to the zeitgeist, or tell you how a book made me think about a period in history with which I have some familiarity. With this book, I can say that as someone who has recently experienced the death of someone close to me, many things that Dr. Chen has written about touched those nerves.

I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise to me that those parts of my flesh are still bruised. Yves' death feels as if it happened years ago, and yet, we just passed the four-month mark. I still think about him, and feel him at the oddest moments.

Reading the book was like having him reading over my shoulder. It was comforting and tear-inducing at the same time. Dr. Chen's book did nothing to frighten me about my own death; in many ways, I've already made my peace with that, mostly because of the gift I was given in November.

Image is Ralph Fabri, "Death and Transfiguration"


Lorraine's picture

| | | | | | |

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 1832 guests online.

Words to live by

To WILLIAM H. HERNDON, Esq. February 15, 1848.— LETTER TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

Dear William :

Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are— first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced ; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him Î You may say to him, " I see no probability of the British invading us "; but he will say to you, " Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.


— Abraham Lincoln (while a Congressman)


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify