Health

No Image

Called Back After A Mammogram? Doctors Are Trying To Make It Less Scary

Although false alarms are not at all unusual when it comes to mammograms, they can cause women much anxiety. Doctors are thinking about ways to ease those fears.

Although false alarms are not at all unusual when it comes to mammograms, they can cause women much anxiety. Doctors are thinking about ways to ease those fears. Helen King/Corbis hide caption

itoggle caption Helen King/Corbis

When I left my first mammogram appointment a few weeks ago, I felt fine.

Everything had gone smoothly, the technologist hadn’t made a concerned face when she looked at the screen, and I was convinced I’d get the all-clear from my primary care doctor in a week or so.

Then came the phone calls the following day — first from my doctor’s office, then from the mammography center — telling me the radiologist had seen something that didn’t look quite right. I needed to come back for another mammogram and this time an ultrasound exam, too.

I shouldn’t worry, both callers said. But it was too late.

My thoughts had already leapt to the worst-case scenario, and remained there for the (blessedly few) days it took to get a follow-up scan and then the reassurance that it was nothing to worry about.

I’m still pretty shocked by the degree of anxiety the whole incident provoked. I write about health and in theory should know that the odds were in my favor. But I spent those couple of days in between scans miserable.

My stress went away pretty soon after getting the good news. But the experience made me wonder about the frequency of these recalls and the anxiety they can provoke. And I also wondered if there’s anything to be done about it.

As it turns out, false alarms are not at all unusual when it comes to mammograms.

According to the American College of Radiology, for every 1,000 women who have a screening mammogram, 100 will be called back for another look, and 61 will find nothing wrong after follow-up imaging. Five of those 1,000 will ultimately be diagnosed with breast cancer after further testing, according to the ACR.

The recall rate is higher for women, like me, having their first mammograms — likely closer to 20 percent on average and as high as 50 percent at some facilities, says Stamatia Destounis, a radiologist at Elizabeth Wende Breast Care in Rochester, N.Y., and a professor of radiology at the University of Rochester.

For a first visit, if a radiologist sees an area of density or calcification or a nodule, it’s not possible to look back on previous scans to see if it’s new or has been there, unchanged, for years. So those things are more likely to get checked out by follow-up imaging.

Assessing a mammogram is very different than, say, looking at a femur on an X-ray. “Every breast looks different,” says Debra Monticciolo, chairwoman of the ACR’s Commission on Breast Imaging and a professor of radiology at Texas A&M University College of Medicine. “It’s like reading fingerprints. There isn’t just one normal.”

Women who are pre-menopausal also tend to have denser breast tissue, which makes mammograms harder to read and more likely to prompt a recall, says Destounis.

Those false positives aren’t happening in the same women over and over again, either. According to an analysis published last year in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association, over the course of 10 years of annual mammograms starting at age 50, about 61 percent of women will have at least one false positive result.

As for the emotional consequences, a study published last year in JAMA Internal Medicine found false positives are associated with anxiety, but that it had dissipated a year later.

“When you first get called back, you go through all these ideas of what that might mean,” says Anna Tosteson, a professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth University and an author of the study. “Then you think, ‘I’m so glad I don’t have cancer.’ ” She says anxiety might be more persistent, however, if a woman is recalled year after year.

Doctors are thinking about how to make recalls less miserable.

A study published in 2004 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute looked at two interventions to see if they would reduce the worry and stress caused by false positive mammograms. The first was immediate reading of the initial mammogram so that follow-up imaging could be done at the same visit, eliminating those days or weeks of worried waiting. (Some women still needed a biopsy or other follow-up to confirm a false positive.)

And the second focused on educational materials — a pamphlet and video that included information about the risk of an abnormal mammogram, common follow-up procedures and tips and strategies for reducing stress and anxiety. That material was provided to women while they waited to see whether mammogram images were clear enough to be read.

“We were trying to normalize the experience” of getting a false positive mammogram, says Mary Barton, an author of the study and now vice president of performance measurement at the nonprofit National Committee for Quality Assurance.

The study found that three weeks after the mammogram, the women with false positive results whose scans were read on the same day had lower levels of anxiety than those whose scans were read later. But that difference had balanced out three months after the mammogram.

Some centers do offer the option of same-day reading, says the ACR’s Monticciolo, though it can be less efficient for the imaging center. And, she says, “some patients don’t want to wait around.”

Receiving the educational materials during the visit wasn’t associated with any difference in anxiety, though. That may be because of the cultural fears surrounding breast cancer, says Barton. As a comparison, she notes, very few people get really stressed out while awaiting the results of a cholesterol test.

There’s a broader debate going on about when to start mammography. And when a woman speaks with her primary care doctor about the screening test, “part of that conversation should be educating women just how common these callbacks are,” says Tosteson.

I’m hoping to be less stressed out if it happens to me again, but I’d just as soon it didn’t.

Katherine Hobson is a freelance health and science writer based in Brooklyn, N.Y. She’s on Twitter: @katherinehobson

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.


No Image

Treatment Changes For DCIS Haven't Affected Breast Cancer Deaths

Ductal carcinoma in situ sometimes can turn into invasive breast cancer, but there's currently no test that can tell when it's dangerous and when it's not.

Ductal carcinoma in situ sometimes can turn into invasive breast cancer, but there’s currently no test that can tell when it’s dangerous and when it’s not. Steve Gschmeissner/Science Photo Library hide caption

itoggle caption Steve Gschmeissner/Science Photo Library

The number of women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ, abnormal cells that sometimes become breast cancer, has soared since the 1970s. That’s mostly because more women have been getting screening mammograms that can detect the tiny lesions.

The vast majority of women diagnosed with DCIS have surgery, even though there’s considerable debate whether it’s needed, since DCIS sometimes never becomes invasive cancer.

Shifts in treatment since 1999 away from single mastectomy and toward lumpectomy with radiation for DCIS haven’t changed breast cancer survival rates, according to a study that looked at data on over 120,000 women.

The highest overall survival rate after 10 years, 89.6 percent, was in women who had lumpectomy with radiation. The survival rate for women who had mastectomies was 86 percent, followed by lumpectomy alone at 80.6 percent.

But most women in the study group who died didn’t die of breast cancer; cardiovascular disease was the major killer, with just 9 percent of deaths overall due to breast cancer.

Looking at deaths from breast cancer alone, the 10-year survival rates were pretty much identical: 98.9 percent for lumpectomy plus radiation; 98.5 percent for mastectomy and 98.4 percent for lumpectomy alone.

Between 1991 and 2010, the number of women who chose lumpectomy with radiation almost doubled, the study found, rising from 24 percent to 47 percent. The number of women choosing single mastectomy dropped from 45 percent to 19 percent.

The number of women who chose no treatment, which usually involves screening mammograms, rose from 1 percent to 3 percent.

But more women also started choosing bilateral mastectomy, which usually involves removing a healthy breast as well as a breast with DCIS. Those numbers rose from zero in 1991 to 8.5 percent in 2010. They tended to be younger women.

The results were published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“When we treat these precancers women do very, very well; they have a 99 percent chance of not getting breast cancer,” says Shelley Hwang, senior author of the study and chief of breast surgery at the Duke Cancer Institute.

She and her colleagues were expecting to see differences in survival based on treatment, “but there really didn’t seem to be any difference at all. Which sort of argues for doing the bare minimum versus doing the most you can do.”

Problems after surgery can be significant, she notes, and include long-term pain, disfigurement and lymphedema if lymph nodes are removed..

“The troubling trend in my point of view is that more women are getting bilateral mastectomies,” Hwang says. “That’s because there’s a limited understanding on how good the treatment is for DCIS. I’m not saying that women don’t die from breast cancer; they do. But the cures have never been better, and your likelihood of surviving is greater than 90 percent.”

Far better, Hwang says, would be to have a test that can tell which types of DCIS will become dangerous cancer, and which will never cause any harm at all. Other researchers are trying to create those tests, and Hwang is hoping to run a big clinical trial that will compare surgery to taking hormone-suppressing medication instead.

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we take a disease that women are feeling compelled to have a bilateral mastectomy for, and it can be eradicated by taking a pill once a day?” Hwang asks.

That’s what she’s working for.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.


No Image

Video Of Michigan Man's Death In County Jail Draws FBI Scrutiny

Friends and family of David Stojcevski protest outside the Macomb County jail in Mount Clemens, Mich., on Oct. 10. Stojcevski died while he was being held in the jail because he was unable to pay $772 in driving fines. His mother, Dafinka (shown here with family friend Jason Howard), is suing for wrongful death and the FBI is conducting an investigation.
3:40

Download

Friends and family of David Stojcevski protest outside the Macomb County jail in Mount Clemens, Mich., on Oct. 10. Stojcevski died while he was being held in the jail because he was unable to pay $772 in driving fines. His mother, Dafinka (shown here with family friend Jason Howard), is suing for wrongful death and the FBI is conducting an investigation. Sarah Cwiek/Michigan Radio hide caption

itoggle caption Sarah Cwiek/Michigan Radio

The FBI is investigating the death last year of a 32-year-old man in a Michigan jail.

In March 2014, David Stojcevski was sentenced to 30 days in the Macomb County jail.

He died there a little more than two weeks later — despite being under 24-hour video monitoring for most of that time.

That video footage captured nearly every minute of the physical and mental breakdown preceding his death.

For Dafinka Stojcevski, David’s mother, the anger is still raw. She is seeking justice for her son.

“They need to be punished for everything what they do (to) my son,” she said during a protest on Oct. 10. “Shame on them!”

Friends, family and supporters protested outside the jail over the weekend. His family filed a wrongful death lawsuit earlier this year.

Stojcevski’s official cause of death was acute drug withdrawal. He had struggled with opioid abuse. But it was withdrawal from benzodiazepines — drugs like Xanax and Klonopin — that killed him.

Stojcevski did have prescriptions for those drugs, as well as methadone. But according to his family, he never received the medications in jail, despite asking for them.

Family friend Jason Howard says it should have been obvious that Stojcevski was dying.

“He was in convulsions and, you know, in an observation cell, with a camera in it,” Howard says. “And they just sat back and watched, with medical staff right down the hall.”

Problem Of Denied Access To Medication

There are more than 200 hours of video from Stojcevski’s stay in the jail’s mental health unit.

Stojcevski suffered from seizures and dehydration. According to his family’s lawsuit, he lost 50 pounds.

But Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel insists the video made public last month doesn’t tell the whole story.

He calls allegations of wrongdoing “irresponsible.”

“It’s the actions of the officers that were working in that facility, that I know damn well did what they needed to do to care and tend to an individual,” Hackel says.

The county already concluded its own internal investigation and found no wrongdoing. The FBI is now reviewing the case.

County officials won’t comment on specifics, due to the pending lawsuit. So they won’t answer questions about whether Stojcevski was denied access to his medication.

But experts say that happens often in county jails.

“That’s a very common problem,” says Michele Deitch, a senior lecturer at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, who researches prison oversight.

“When inmates come from the streets into the facilities, they often don’t have their medicines with them,” she says.

Deitch says it’s a big problem in a system where county jails are increasingly overwhelmed by inmates with substance abuse and mental health issues — often locked up for minor crimes.

“There are far too many people in these facilities that don’t need to be there,” she says.

How Poverty Plays A Role

And that’s another point of outrage in this case: the reason Stojcevski was in jail to begin with.

At his March 2014 district court hearing, Stojcevski faced a choice: Pay $772 in fines stemming from two driving infractions, or go to jail.

Michael Steinberg, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, says that’s a problem.

“When somebody’s too poor to pay a fine, they’re going to jail because of their indigency,” Steinberg says.

After Stojcevski went to jail, a judge approve his release to a community service and monitoring program. But Steinberg says that never happened. Emails between corrections officials show why.

“He was apparently somewhat catatonic when they went to meet with him in jail to work out some alternative,” he says.

There’s widespread consensus that county jails aren’t well-equipped to handle lots of people struggling with addiction and mental illness.

It’s just not often that the public can see the consequences of that struggle play out on video.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.


No Image

A Metronome Can Help Set The CPR Beat

Metronome GIF
2:25

Download

Credit: Meredith Rizzo/NPR

The heart beats rhythmically, and so does a metronome.

So it makes sense that a metronome, typically used by musicians to help keep a steady beat, could help medical professionals restart a heart.

“What we know for sure,” says pediatric cardiologist Dianne Atkins, a spokeswoman with the American Heart Association, is that “high-quality CPR improves survival.” So anything that improves CPR could save lives.

For CPR to be effective, the rescuer kneels at the side of the person in distress, presses one hand on top of the other in the center of the person’s chest and pushes down about 2 inches to force blood through the body before releasing and then compressing again.

The optimal rate for compression is 100 to 120 per minute, which is “fairly fast” says Atkins, and hard to maintain without something to guide you. “When chest compression is too slow or too fast, it decreases the effectiveness of CPR,” she says.

That’s where the metronome comes in. It offers a consistent guide. With every click, you do a chest compression and the metronome helps you keep the beat. Previously researchers have tried using music, including the songs “Disco Science” and “Achy Breaky Heart” to set the beat.

Now we’re not talking about everyone carrying around a metronome just in case CPR is needed. Most studies of metronomes have involved medical professionals doing CPR on adults. The most recent study in the journal Pediatrics looked at using metronomes to guide CPR for children.

More than 150 medical providers performed two rounds of chest compression on pediatric manikins, one with the metronome and one without. It turned out the metronome increased CPR effectiveness by 22 percent.

Surprisingly, this simple tool isn’t typically found in emergency medical kits with EMS teams or in hospitals. Atkins hopes the findings of the research will change that. In the meantime, she says there are several apps that can be easily downloaded on your mobile phone. Set it to 100 beats per minute, or quarter notes, since the app is typically designed for musicians.

It’s not a bad idea, says Atkins, for all of us, medical professional or not, to download a metronome app and get trained in CPR just in case.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.


No Image

Washington, D.C., Council Proposal Sets New Standard On Paid Family Leave

3:21

Download

Critics say the U.S. is one of the few industrialized nations not to offer any paid leave for new parents, but now the Washington, D.C., Council is considering a bill that would grant workers in the nation’s capital 16 weeks of paid leave — more than anywhere else in the U.S.

Transcript

KELLY MCEVERS, HOST:

We hear a lot that the U.S. is behind other countries when it comes to paid maternity and paternity leave. People in Germany get 14 weeks. In Bangladesh, it’s 16. In Cuba, it’s 18 weeks. All at full pay. Martin Austermuhle, of member station WAMU, reports that city council members in Washington, D.C., are proposing that workers get 16 weeks of paid family leave.

MARTIN AUSTERMUHLE, BYLINE: Rob Keithan became a dad last month when his daughter was born seven weeks early. But for all the joy of becoming a parent, he says he’s now adapting to the reality of being a parent.

ROB KEITHAN: Neither my wife or I have any paid leave. She works for a small business that has great, great people, but a small business, and doesn’t have any kind of paid leave program. And I’m an independent consultant. So I don’t get work, I don’t get paid.

AUSTERMUHLE: Keithan says he and his wife were forced to save up so they could afford to take time off with their new daughter. And they’re not alone, says Vicki Shabo, of the National Partnership for Women and Families.

VICKI SHABO: Only 13 percent of workers nationwide have access to paid family leave. Just 40 percent have access to temporary disability insurance. And only 60 percent of workers – 61 percent of workers – have access even to a single paid sick day.

AUSTERMUHLE: Shabo says only California, New Jersey and Rhode Island have paid leave laws on the books, but they could soon be joined by Washington, D.C., where this week a bill was introduced in the city council that would give workers like Keithan and his wife a full 16 weeks of leave, all of it paid. David Grosso is a member of the D.C. Council and wrote the paid leave bill. He says the bill would require all employers to pay a percentage of each employee’s salary into a fund run by the city.

DAVID GROSSO: Higher-paid employees you pay up to 1 percent, lower-paid employees you pay as little as 0.2 percent. And then that money goes into the fund where the fund then gets paid out people who are out on leave.

AUSTERMUHLE: But that the cost would fall largely on employers has sparked opposition from business leaders like Harry Wingo of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce.

HARRY WINGO: You know, our concerns is that this would go further than any other type of legislation in the nation, and in a bad way. The burden would be completely on employers. So this would be employer funded, and in fact, employees would not be contributing as they do in other systems.

AUSTERMUHLE: Business owners also say that operating costs have steadily increased as the D.C. Council has passed new laws like mandatory paid sick leave and a higher minimum wage. Barney Shapiro says that cuts into the bottom line at the trash hauling company he owns.

BARNEY SHAPIRO: In theory, we all want better lives for our workers – at least I do. But you have to also take into consideration we still have to make money.

AUSTERMUHLE: But Grosso, the D.C. Council member, thinks the city’s skeptical businesses should look at paid leave in a different light.

GROSSO: So you’re going to be able to retain employees. You’re going to be able to attract good employees. You’re going to have employees coming back to work happy. They’re going to be more productive.

AUSTERMUHLE: The paid leave bill still faces two votes in the council, but a majority of council members say they already support it. For NPR News, I’m Martin Austermuhle in Washington.

Copyright © 2015 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.


No Image

TPP Negotiators Reached Agreement With Sticky Compromise On Biologics Drugs

3:12

Download

A big sticking point in the negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership involved biologics medicines and vaccines created from living organisms. The dispute centered on patent protection: how many years drug companies should have before facing competition from generics. The negotiators ended up with a complicated compromise that gives drug makers five to eight years of protection. But nobody is really happy with the outcome.

Transcript

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

On Monday, the United States and 11 other countries reached an agreement to boost trade throughout the Pacific basin. It’s called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and it still has to be approved by the legislatures of the countries involved. One of the most controversial parts of the agreement involved the sale of biologics, the class of medicines derived from living organisms. As NPR’s Jim Zarroli reports, the compromise reached by the countries has left many unsatisfied.

JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: U.S. officials say the dispute over biologics was so intense this weekend that it nearly caused several countries to walk away from the table. The reason has everything to do with money. Judith Rios of Doctors Without Borders says biologics is a fast-growing and very lucrative segment of the drug industry.

JUDITH RIOS: Pharmaceutical companies consider it to be the future. It’s basically going to be one of the most important markets for the pharmaceutical industry not only in the United States but, of course, globally.

ZARROLI: The pharmaceutical industry has developed biologics to treat rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease and psoriasis, and others are in the pipeline. But the drug industry has long complained that competitors can can essentially copy and sell their own version of biologics can biosimilars, and in 2010, the industry convinced Congress to pass a law protecting the data used to develop biologics for 12 years. Joseph Damond is vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

JOSEPH DAMOND: What that means is that a copycat company can’t just piggyback on that data and say, well, our product’s like theirs, so we don’t have to do any clinical trials.

ZARROLI: Damond says that will give pharmaceutical companies more incentive to develop biologics. But public health advocates say the law sharply curtails competition in the drug business. Again, Judith Rios.

RIOS: Nobody can manufacture. Nobody can sell. Nobody can import, export. It’s a complete barrier to competition. Basically, you cannot enter this country’s market for that period of time.

ZARROLI: And Rios says that will hurt developing countries that desperately need access to inexpensive drugs. Rios notes that drugs are already protected by patent law for 20 years almost everywhere in the world, so drug makers already have plenty of protection from copycats. But Joseph Damond argues that Biologics aren’t like regular drugs, so they’re more vulnerable to being imitated.

DAMOND: They’re not identical to the original product because these products are synthesized by living cells. If you have a different cell line, it’s going to be slightly different. And because they’re not identical, it allows a biosimilar company to claim that they’re not violating the patent.

ZARROLI: As the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks got underway, U.S. officials had hoped to persuade other countries to extend the same 12 years of data protection that Congress had given U.S. drugmakers. But the idea proved deeply unpopular, and the U.S. was forced to accept a complicated compromise that protects data for at least five years and potentially eight.

Critics say the deal will cause drug prices to stay higher than they otherwise would have been. But drug industry officials say they’re disappointed with the compromise too, and they’re holding out the possibility of opposing the deal outright. The opposition from both sides will make it harder for Congress to pass the trade pact next year. Jim Zarroli, NPR News, New York.

Copyright © 2015 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.


No Image

World Health Organization Posts Ambitious New Guidelines For HIV Treatment

2:23

Download

The World Health Organization has revised its guidelines to say that every person infected with HIV should now be given powerful anti-AIDS drugs. But many countries in Africa have struggled to meet previous less-ambitious WHO treatment targets.

Transcript

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

New guidelines from the World Health Organization call for a change in treating HIV, but the recommendations may be difficult to meet. The WHO wants anyone who’s infected with HIV to be given powerful anti-AIDS drugs as soon after diagnosis as possible. And that’s the change – getting the drugs to people earlier. NPR’s Jason Beaubien reports that means millions more people living with HIV should be placed on treatment.

JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: South Africa has more than 6 million people infected with HIV. It also has one of the best programs on the continent to get people onto lifesaving anti-retroviral drug treatment. Most South Africans with later stages of HIV-AIDS are now getting treatment – roughly 3 million of them.

FRANCOIS VENTER: If we do move to this WHO’s recommendations, we’re going to have to double the people that we put onto anti-retrovirals, so that’s a big ask.

BEAUBIEN: Dr. Francois Venter has been treating AIDS patients in Johannesburg since the early days of the epidemic. He also runs the Wits Institute for Sexual and Reproductive Health. Venter calls himself a grudging supporter of these new WHO treatment targets mainly because he’s seen that getting large numbers of HIV-positive people onto treatment in South Africa has helped slow the spread of the disease.

VENTER: What’s interesting, I think, is that we have some preliminary data from the rural areas of South Africa showing quite a dramatic impact into its prevention.

BEAUBIEN: That data links even a modest increase in HIV drug treatment rates with a significant decline in new infections. But the big question remains. How realistic is this goal of universal HIV treatment?

KATHERINE WHETTEN: (Laughter). So I think it’s going to take a long time.

BEAUBIEN: That’s Katherine Whetten at the Duke Global Health Institute. She says getting millions of additional people on treatment in some of the poorest countries in the world is going to be a massive challenge.

WHETTEN: It’s the funding and infrastructure. South Africa or Tanzania, where I do a lot of work, or Kenya – they’re working so hard to get people on treatment already and to keep them on treatment. I’m not sure that the recommendations will help them a lot in the next couple years.

BEAUBIEN: Venter in Johannesburg describes the problem as trying to shove expensive pills down a very weak health care delivery pipeline. Currently, it’s unclear even where the funding will come from to pay for anti-AIDS drugs for another 9 million people around the world. There are also concerns about side effects and drug resistance when you start putting lots of asymptomatic people on powerful medications for the rest of their lives. Jason Beaubien, NPR News.

Copyright © 2015 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.


No Image

California Gov. Jerry Brown Signs End Of Life Option Act

4:19

Download

NPR’s Kelly McEvers speaks with Christy O’Donnell, a former LAPD detective who became an advocate for the right-to-die law after being diagnosed with terminal lung cancer.

Transcript

KELLY MCEVERS, HOST:

Yesterday California’s Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the End of Life Option Act. The law allows terminally ill people to be prescribed the drugs that will end their lives. The main opponents of the bill included some doctors, disability rights groups and religious organizations. One group called it, quote, “a dark day for California.”

On the other side of the debate, there is Christy O’Donnell. She’s 47 years old and a former LAPD detective. After she was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer last year, she became an advocate for this law. And we reached Christy at her home in Santa Clarita, Calif.

Christy, thank you so much for being with us today.

O’DONNELL: Thank you so much for having me.

MCEVERS: How did you hear the news yesterday that Governor Brown had signed this bill into law?

O’DONNELL: Well, I was at lunch with my daughter and received a call from one of the senators who had authored the bill. So there’s no place else that I would want to be except with my daughter getting the news.

MCEVERS: Yeah, how did you feel?

O’DONNELL: You know, I was speechless at first – which my friends and family will tell you is a very unusual thing for me. I was so happy to hear that the governor really had looked into his heart, that he had been very insightful in realizing that, you know, there are people like me and my daughter who need this and we need it now. We can’t wait.

MCEVERS: How do you respond to some concerns though that there are people who might be pressured to end their lives to save money on health bills, or that other people might just sort of give up on themselves before exhausting all the other options?

O’DONNELL: All I can tell you is this. People right now in California already have the right to refuse medical treatment. A bill that gives them one option is not going to emotionally change whether or not a terminally ill patient wants to accept treatment. You know, if I didn’t want to live, I could’ve refused treatment 13 months ago and I would’ve already passed away.

MCEVERS: Could we talk about your health?

O’DONNELL: Certainly.

MCEVERS: How are you feeling right now?

O’DONNELL: Well, today’s a tough day for me. I’ve got a very bad headache and dizziness and tremendous nausea. I have some good days. You know, yesterday, physically, was a good day for me. So it’s really sort of up and down.

MCEVERS: And what is your overall prognosis?

O’DONNELL: My prognosis at this point really is two to three months. The tumors have spread. They’re throughout my liver, my spine, my rib. And then of course, the original tumor in my lung and the tumors in my brain.

MCEVERS: So does the governor signing this bill change your plans? Will you be able to start the process of ending your life here in California with the help of a doctor?

O’DONNELL: I knew, as did my daughter, that when we started speaking out in favor of the legislation that it was highly unlikely that I personally would be able to utilize aid in dying because of my short prognosis. That is still the case because it’s unlikely that the bill’s going to take affect any time prior to January, and, currently, my prognosis just isn’t that long.

MCEVERS: If this new law doesn’t change your personal situation, what does the signing of this bill mean to you either way?

O’DONNELL: It still means a tremendous amount to my daughter and I because while we personally may still have to go through the suffering, you know – and unfortunately, my daughter may have to carry a very horrible, terrible memory of me and my death forward – we hope that we are the last family ever to have to have that experience, and that thousands of other Californians now that are terminally ill will never have to go through this because whether or not they choose to use aid in dying, knowing that they have that option is going to bring tremendous peace to them. So all of this was worth it. It’s still a landmark day for California and hopefully for the country.

MCEVERS: Well, Christy O’Donnell, thank you so much for your time.

O’DONNELL: Thank you.

MCEVERS: That’s Christy O’Donnell. She did tell us that she is pursuing another option to end her life legally. She has a lawsuit pending that would protect a doctor from prosecution if that doctor prescribed her medication that would end her life.

Copyright © 2015 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.


No Image

California Governor Signs Landmark Right-To-Die Law

Debbie Ziegler holds a photo of her late daughter, Brittany Maynard, after the California State Assembly approved a right-to-die measure on Sept. 9. Maynard died on Nov. 1, 2014.

Debbie Ziegler holds a photo of her late daughter, Brittany Maynard, after the California State Assembly approved a right-to-die measure on Sept. 9. Maynard died on Nov. 1, 2014. Rich Pedroncelli/AP hide caption

itoggle caption Rich Pedroncelli/AP

Updated at 9:15 p.m. ET.

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed landmark legislation Monday, allowing terminally ill patients to obtain lethal medication to end their lives when and where they choose.

In a deeply personal note, Brown said he read opposition materials carefully, but in the end was left to reflect on what he would want in the face of his own death.

“I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain,” he wrote. “I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others.”

One of the key co-authors of the legislation, state Sen. Bill Monning, a Democrat from Carmel, Calif., said the signing “marks a historic day in California” and called the governor’s thoughts “a powerful statement.”

Brown’s signature concludes a hotly contested, 10-month debate that elicited impassioned testimony from lawmakers, cancer patients who fear deaths marked by uncontrollable pain and suffering, and religious and disability advocates who fear coercion and abuse.

Marg Hall, an advocate with the Bay Area disability rights group Communities United in Defense of Olmstead, said she was “disappointed” and “worried.”

“Given the level of dysfunction and injustice that exists currently in our health care system — with many people without insurance still, with the very underfunded ability of people to have choices for treatment and care — adding this very potentially dangerous tool to the mix is of great concern to people with disabilities,” Hall said.

Marilyn Golden, a policy analyst with the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, also strongly opposes the new law. It lacks safeguards, she said, adding that she fears abusive heirs or caregivers could “steer” patients toward assisted suicide.

But U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, said Brown made the “absolutely correct” decision.

“I’ve seen firsthand the agony that accompanies prolonged illness, for both patients and loved ones, and this bill provides a compassionate, kind option,” Feinstein said in a prepared statement, which emphasized the law’s safeguards.

Dr. Robert Liner, a retired obstetrician who is in remission from lymphoma, said he was thrilled with the governor’s action, having fought for this change for many years.

“It has been a long road,” Liner said. “I’m really glad Gov. Brown stepped up to the plate and signed it.”

Liner is part of a lawsuit seeking the right of doctors to avoid liability for prescribing lethal medication to terminally ill patients. Liner said he doesn’t know what he will do when he reaches the time to make a decision about his own life.

“But I really think it is important to have an option,” he said. “I am delighted.”

The new law requires two doctors to determine that a patient has six months or less to live before the lethal drugs can be prescribed. Patients also must be physically able to swallow the medication themselves and must have the mental capacity to make medical decisions.

One of the meetings must be private, with only the patient and the physician present. That requirement is aimed at ensuring the patient is acting independently, Monning said. Patients must also reaffirm in writing that they intend to take the medication within 48 hours.

Golden called these safeguards “hollow.” She said none of the states — including California — that have legalized this option require a witness at the death. When asked if opponents would be monitoring implementation of the law to ensure there is no abuse, she said her group “is not taking any options off the table right now.”

The law will take effect sometime in 2016 — 91 days after the special legislative session, which is still ongoing — concludes. At that time, California will become the fifth state to allow physician-assisted suicide. Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont permit the practice. It was permitted in New Mexico until August, when an appeals court in the state reversed a lower court ruling that had established physician-assisted suicide as a right. The New Mexico Supreme Court is now hearing that case.

Perhaps the most visible face of this law is Brittany Maynard, the 29-year-old California woman who suffered from terminal brain cancer and moved to Oregon explicitly because it permits aid-in-dying. Maynard used the law to end her life last November.

In an interview Monday, her widower, Dan Diaz, said he felt “an enormous sense of gratitude” that the bill has been signed into law. He said his wife would have felt “relief … for all terminally ill Californians — that they have that bit of control.”

Elizabeth Wallner, who lives in Sacramento and has stage 4 colon cancer, said she felt a “a great sense of relief. … I don’t want to die,” she said, but “having the option is really powerful.”

The legislation started out as SB128, a bill introduced in January. That bill cleared the California Senate, but ultimately stalled in the state Assembly in July. The authors then introduced a similar bill in August, during a special legislative session called by Brown this summer.

When the law goes into effect in 2016, California will become the fifth state to allow physician-assisted suicide, along with Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont.

The practice was permitted in New Mexico until August, when an appeals court reversed a lower court ruling that had established physician-assisted suicide as a fundamental right. Advocates have appealed that case to the state Supreme Court, and a hearing is set for later this month.

The California law is set to expire in 10 years, unless the legislature passes another law to extend it.

This story was produced by member station KQED’s blog State of Health, with reporting contributions from Anna Gorman, a senior correspondent with the NPR partner Kaiser Health News.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.


No Image

Let Me Show You What Keeps Me From Being Healthy

What do you see in your community that helps you be heart healthy, and what gets in your way? People who live in the “stroke belt,” an area in the Southeast with high rates of heart disease and stroke, can show you.

“The idea was to have community residents take photos of their individual take on the topic of barriers to heart health,” says Sarah Kowitt, a study author and graduate student in public health at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

The teen and adult volunteers took photos of what they think creates barriers to good heart health in Lenoir County, N.C., where they live. The study, published Thursday in Preventing Chronic Disease, is part of Heart Healthy Lenoir, a community-based project aimed at creating long-term strategies to reduce heart disease in a community at high risk.

Lenoir County is rural, low-income and mostly African-American. While cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S., there are “big disparities in income and disease among African-Americans” when compared with people of other races and ethnicities, Kowitt says.

This was a tiny study, just nine adolescents and six adults. But just look at some of these photos, and what people have to say about them.

Barriers To Good Health

  • Family Influences

    “He wasn’t raised where health was an issue in the household. There was nobody talkin’ about health, probably nobody talking about not smoking or drinking or unhealthy practices, what it could lead to. There was nobody talkin’ about that.” National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion hide caption

    itoggle caption National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

  • No Safe Place To Play

    “We live on a busy road … but if you branch off there’s little neighborhoods like this. There’s a branch where you can go ride your bike. But where we live at, you walk out [laughter] you won’t be walkin’ no more.” National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion hide caption

    itoggle caption National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

  • Candy At The Front Of The Store

    “Have you ever noticed, like when you walk in the store, like most of the time right upfront where the cash registers are it’s candy, candy. All the healthy stuff is in the back, and right upfront is the candy, so it’s the first thing you see ’cause everybody knows you’re gonna buy it ’cause it’s good. It’s advertised good. People like it!” National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion hide caption

    itoggle caption National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

  • Fast-Food Avenue

    “What I’m showing here is the amount of fast-food places on [omitted] Avenue within a mile. I would say less than a half a mile! Four pizza joints … you got Moons, then you got a steakhouse right next to it. So you get your Chinese food and then your greasy sub sandwiches here; Burger King’s … you have Bojangles; the Mexican joint.” National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion hide caption

    itoggle caption National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

In discussion groups following the photo sessions, adults and teens dug into these and other stressors in the community. Adults often pointed to racial prejudice and the stress it causes, saying that “as a people, this whole stress thing is new; we just think this is how it is.”

Bottom line, the photos and discussion sessions started a conversation about the importance of heart health and the difficulties many people face in maintaining it. According to co-investigator Alexandra Lightfoot, participants saw this as an opportunity to explore barriers to good health and rally the community to bring about needed changes.

Some great ideas emerged, says Lightfoot, including ways to “entice residents toward the healthy food” section in grocery stores and fast-food establishments, initiate nutrition education in the schools and even encourage rap stars to incorporate positive health messages in lyrics. All a great beginning, they say, in getting the community involved in helping make positive changes that are good for the heart.

What hurts or helps your health? Show us. Post your photos on Twitter or Instagram with the hashtag #NPRmyhealth.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.