Category Archives: New Ideas

A place to bat around new thoughts and real, implementable ideas.

Ethics of Fetal Intervention, and another big idea

I was invited to participate in a panel discussion yesterday, at Mount Sinai Hospital’s bi-annual Fetal Update conference (which continues today).  I was there as a parent, joined by 3 ethics professionals, a fetal therapy physician, and a social worker. We were part of a session called “Ethics of Fetal Intervention” which represented a noticeable diversion from the rest of the program.  (To illustrate: we were slotted between sessions on Neural Tube Defects and Cardiac Lesions.)  The 100+ audience included sonographers, radiologists, obstetricians, nurses, and other clinicians involved in antenatal assessment and diagnosis. They were an interested and engaged crowd – made for a lively discussion with lots to digest afterwards.

I wish I had recorded the session!  Instead, a summary and my thoughts of one of the discussions:

A dilemma:

What exactly constitutes informed consent?  At what point can a clinician believe that the patient is fully informed and has what she needs to make a decision?  How much information is enough?  I was moved by the dilemmas and uncertainties expressed by the audience – they do their best yet know there are shortcomings.

A story I shared:

At the time we were making decisions about Owen’s fate in utero, I was focused only on whether or not the risk was worth the intervention.  It was a relatively easy decision – if we didn’t intervene, he would likely have died. So we proceeded.

We didn’t know about his future disabilities at the time.  If someone had said, “Your son will never walk, talk, hear, hold up his head, eat on his own, will always need full care and will probably die before he reaches his teens” -  I would likely have aborted, or at least not intervened and shifted to palliative care.

However, if someone had said, “You are eventually going to reach middle age having lived an extraordinary experience that will change your world view and make you a better person.  You will do more than just survive – you will embrace your son and his life and even his death and you will be grateful that you took this path” – well, I may have hesitated, but then would have moved forward with more confidence and less fear.

The point I was making:

My 28-year-old self couldn’t have imagined how my 42-year-old self would mature and transform. The medical information, which I perceived as complete and enough to go on, offered nothing to predict the realities of what life might hold.

With the passage of time my recollections of life with Owen have little to do with medical details and trivia, hospitals and interventions – and everything to do with our relationship, our community and our experiences together.

My conclusion?

Those with lived experience (which almost no one in the neonatal clinical setting is likely to have) can offer the most revealing glimpse of what life might be like, should the parents make certain decisions.

A possible solution:

Bring together a diverse panel of parents to discuss the decisions they made and the consequences of those decisions – including those who chose to terminate their pregnancies.  Perhaps create a series based on diagnosis, prognosis or whatever else.  There can be additional panels of teens and adults who survived their parents’ decisions with disabilities and diagnosed conditions, as well as panels of clinicians discussing their own decision-making processes regarding how they present information, communicate with families, and their feelings about it.

Record the sessions and offer the downloads/DVDs to deliberating parents.  Encourage them to wonder how their future selves might look back on this terribly confusing time.

A project for me?

I just might take this up. What do you think?  Would you participate?

——-

A bit about Mount Sinai:

Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto is a world leader in fetal therapy, a discipline that provides life-saving or otherwise impactful interventions to fetuses (and moms) in distress.  We’re no strangers to their Fetal Medicine program – Owen’s interventions were performed there.  He was also delivered at Mount Sinai and lived in neonatal intensive care for 3 months.  I have a deep respect for the staff of the Fetal Medicine Unit – I have known some of them for 15 years now and have witnessed first-hand their ongoing efforts to continue improving services and communication – both of which, for the record, are unparalleled.

Speaks volumes about their integrity that I would be invited to talk candidly about my experiences and reflections in an open forum.

unconference1

UnConference for Caregivers of Children with Disabilities – proposal

I attended an event called HealthCamp a couple of years ago and was impressed by its awesomeness.  So much so that I’d like to run one too – an UnConference where the attendees decide what is most important to talk about – then talk about it.  It’s the Parent Grand Rounds idea with a modern twist.

All you have to do is show up and participate!  There’s a quick survey at the bottom of this post – please read to the end.  If interest is strong, I will plan a Toronto event for fall 2012.

Here’s how it works:

  • A large grid is taped to the wall – Rooms or Meeting Areas across the top, timeslots down the side.
  • The event starts with an orientation and ‘rules of the road’.
  • Then, whoever wants to post a topic writes it on a piece of paper and tapes it to the wall.  When all slots are filled (except for the last timeslot, which is filled later), the conference starts.
  • Participants choose which sessions to attend and can move freely between sessions.  (You must attend your own event, at least to start.)  Smaller breakouts can happen spontaneously.  There is no pressure to attend or stay.  Popular topics will be well attended, unpopular topics will not be.  Regardless of how many people are in a session, each person commits to speaking and listening proportional to the attendance – for example, if 5 people are in a session, each person speaks approximately 1/5 of the time.
  • A scribe is appointed at each session to record the conversation.
  • The full group convenes afterwards and shares salient points.
  • The last timeslot of the day is reserved for a final round of topic suggestions, based on a distillation of the day’s conversations.

 

Who can attend?

Anyone with an interest in talking about caring for and raising a child with disabilities.  Parents, caregivers, clinicians, physicians, therapists, educators etc.   The unconference model assumes that whoever shows up is supposed to be there.

What topics will be discussed?

No one knows until the event starts!  Bring your ideas and ‘propose’ them on the big grid.  If the topic is interesting to others, your session will be attended.  If not, well, you can join another conversation.   This is your chance to bring challenging questions, solicit ideas and share information!  It can be as general as ‘Coping Strategies’ and as specific as ‘Is X therapy actually helpful?’

Will there be a fee?

Probably, unless I can get donations to cover everything.  I will do my best to keep the fee as low as possible.

How can I help?

Funny you should ask!  Please fill this out so I can gauge interest. I’ll post the results in a couple of weeks.

____________________________________

(all fields below are optional)

 

UnConference Survey

bellevue

Follow up post: ‘Grand Rounds’ for patients/parents

Since I posted the original idea for parent ‘grand rounds’, much dialogue has taken place! I’m sure no one will be surprised to learn that there is strong support from us regular folks… so I’d like to share some of the (generalized) responses I’ve received from some professionals with whom I’ve corresponded.

  1. I had a twitter conversation with an old work acquaintance who shared this idea with a physician. The response was an unequivocal No. Unworkable, the doctor (via my friend) said. Risks outweigh the benefits. Limited value. Significant risks. No two cases are alike. Parents aren’t at the same level. My thoughts: Imperialist thinking that started all this power imbalance and disconnect in the first place. Equal parts fear and control. Troubling to note this mindset still exists and depressing to see it on full display. Of course twitter plays a guilty role in this reductionist dialogue, so I leave room for the possibility that there is a more fully-developed argument lurking somewhere behind these tweeted gems.
  2. Several administrators/professionals offered up examples where this idea is ‘already in place’, citing examples of patient-to-patient matching and buddy/support programs. My thoughts:
    • these are well-meaning suggestions pointing to programs that are not at all like what I am suggesting, which speaks to the dearth of actual programs like the one I am suggesting,
    • responders possibly missed the point I was making (admittedly poorly) that these programs are not enough. They do nothing to equalize the power imbalance between clinicians and patients – in fact, these programs can sometimes make things worse. My partner, Carsten, gave me permission to quote him from an email exchange on this topic:

      Claire (see comments here) says that “parents feel powerless in medical institutions.” She’s right: it’s designed to be that way. The privacy stuff – but more importantly also the belittling, disempowering attempts at relegating the exchanges parents/patients have with one another to the realm of emotional support is a balkanization/ghetto-ization of the patient. This kind of mechanism is widely used everywhere – hospitals, medical practices, prisons, psychiatric wards, schools – to protect the knowledge of the specialists, and to ensure order and hegemony in its delivery. Institutions benefit tremendously from having only “one version of the truth” and will do almost anything to protect it. Because what they are protecting is their supremacy, their continuing ability to function – their jobs.

      What you’re suggesting is deeply subversive. The first wave of responses is the “friendly wave” – they are pretending that it already exists by pointing to their initiatives where patients/parents are relegated to the realm of emotional support structures.

      Subversive?! How intriguing. I see Carsten’s point now, although I made the suggestion quite innocently, thinking it was such a no-brainer it would be widely embraced.  I like Carsten’s calling-out of what often amounts to mollifying strategies, which can subdue and distract patients from noticing their lack of real participation.

  3. Some participants in the dialogue engaged with the suggestion, gave their own feedback:
    • in fast-moving diseases like some cancers, time is of the essence and these sorts of workshops may not come around at convenient times.
    • Logistics, expense, accessibility?

    My response: Great issues/questions.  Let’s talk more.

  4. A couple of participants in my email conversations responded with real interest and a spirit of exploration and curiosity. Said they would send the idea to others in their organization and see what they think, start a dialogue. My response: Where do I sign up?!

 

 

grandrounds

An idea: Grand Rounds for patients/parents

I had a thought recently, while speaking at a pediatric conference here in Toronto.  I looked around at the attendees–chatting, sharing notes, comparing stories and anecdotes, listening to presenters delivering the latest research and case studies.  Why, I thought, do parents and patients not do this?  Or rather, why do we do this only online?  Where are our conferences?

I reflected on what opportunities I had ever been given by an institution to connect with families where I would be invited to openly share and compare details of our circumstances, diagnoses, conditions, home life–with the goal of soliciting opinions, ideas, creative solutions from other patients or parents.   The answer?  Never.  Instead, I was aware of various support groups for emotional sharing, or groups formed by administrators/social workers/family resource staff to deliver how-to information sessions (or, as I experienced once, to deliver propaganda on a particular surgery.  I’m looking at you, cochlear implant.)

Truth is, institutions discourage this (sharing amongst families). I attended a symposium last month – it was about how hospitals should respond to contentious cases that go viral through social media.  The discussion was a good start but a bit depressing.  Social media is so clearly misunderstood by those who don’t participate.  And there seemed to be a conflation of the term ‘media’ and ‘social media’, as though there was some kind of agency called “The Press” who was managing all those tweets (?!).

Anyway, the most surprising statement of the afternoon was this, spoken by a well-intentioned but flustered administrator:  “We as institutions need to look at what we are doing wrong if families are turning to each other online and sharing their stories.  Obviously it means we are not doing our jobs right.”  Laughable, yes?  I almost fell out of my chair.   In this statement, the desire to own and control all aspects of a patient’s medical experience came through loud and clear.

Let me run with this idea a minute.  Imagine this:

Parents gather once a month in the Sick Kids Hollywood theater, or in Holland Bloorview’s auditorium.  Maybe cap it at 100.  Whoever wants to present their case to the group for feedback puts their ‘problem’ up on a whiteboard.  Then, the group votes on which ones get airtime.  You get 15 minutes (or whatever) to present your problems – kid not sleeping, can’t decide whether or not to get a g-tube,  surgery is recommended but you’re not sure, medications aren’t working etc etc.  With light moderation, the audience responds – with ideas, things to consider, sharing their own anecdotes, recommended ways to deal with the child, suggestions for how to negotiate with the doctor… Maybe a physician or two is in attendance, as a resource.

(I can hear the whole patient privacy argument rearing its head – I will say just two things:  I don’t have it all figured out, AND I think it’s the institutions most worried about patient privacy, not parents who are willingly sharing information.)

What do you think?  An idea worth exploring?