How Doctors Die (Ken Murray) Analysis

The premise of How Doctors Die essay is that extended medical care for terminal patients is illogical. In just five pages, author Ken Murray uses several anecdotes and thought experiments to show how "futile care" can lead to more suffering before death than acceptance of one's condition and a natural demise. He blames misunderstandings of medical decisions (specifically the difference between providing "all possible care" and "reasonable care"). Ken Murray's experience with such care comes from his 25 years of experience as a family physician. How Doctor's Die became viral on the Internet, giving Murray the opportunity to be interviewed by NPR and the New York Times. Murray has significant personal connection to the topic of futile care, as his older cousin spent eight months afflicted with terminal cancer in Murray's home before passing. Murray considered the experience positive for his relative, perhaps inspiring Murray to write this essay for those in similar situations, either caregivers or those terminally ill. It did clearly influence his opinion on care of the terminally ill, as Murray is a firm supporter of the idea that "Almost anyone can find a way to die in peace at home, and pain can be managed better than ever" (4). He contends that extreme medical treatment for terminal patients causes "misery we would not inflict on a terrorist" (2). Murray goes about his argument almost entirely emotionally. He begins with an anecdote of a doctor Murray considered his mentor. This man was diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer, but he refused treatment from a one of the best surgeons in the nation in favor of a quiet end at home. Murray then addresses why it is doctor's act differently with knowledge that they will soon die, establishing their ethos because they have much more experience with death and modern medicine. The reader, less educated than these reported doctors, is now obliged to focus on this inside advice. Murray systematically breaks down the process of receiving futile care via a theoretical scenario and the potential negative experiences it can cause (ex. broken ribs from CPR). Finally, Murray concludes with another personal anecdote, the one describing his older cousin's hospice care in Murray's own home. I think that the article is brilliantly written, because it uses personal anecdotes to describe dying, a topic that can be very personal for a reader. These anecdotes also establish my trust in Murray, because he obviously has experience beyond my own.

Last Moments
The most peaceful way to depart is in the presence of family at home.
Image Source: Tennessee Hospice Organization

Duh Bor-ring (Joseph Epstein) Analysis

Duh, Bor-ing is written by Joseph Epstein, a writer, essayist, and former editor for the Phi Beta Kappa Society's The American Scholar magazine. He writes for numerous publications, including The New York Times and The Atlantic Wire. This essay, specifically, is an in-depth description of boredom, as Joseph Epstein explores the particular sensations associated with it, its causes, and the positive impacts. Epstein draws from numerous books and papers, from as far back in history as Tacitus to most heavily relying on Peter Toohey's Boredom: A Lively History. Epstein's purpose is to relieve the negative stigma from boredom, and instead attempts to reveal the positive effects it can have on his audience, namely, all who experience bordeom. He says "If I am a useful example as one grows older, one often finds oneself more patient with boredom. Pressureless dull patches in life - bring them on" (7). To convey his message, the essay begins with a brief list of activities and subjects that aim to remind the reader of a time that they were bored (conversations about wine, discussions about the Internet, etc.). Epstein then follows with the argument that everyone has experienced the sensation of boredom, using the deductive reasoning that if scientists have discovered that animals can be bored, surely we are susceptible as well. Epstein then makes clear to his readers his personal experience with boredom, utilizing anecdotes from his own life, for example his time in a peacetime army when he could revel in "the sweetness, the luxuriousness of boredom" (3). Epstein also utilizes refutation in Duh, Bor-ing, quoting Lars Svendsen's A Philosophy of Boredom, a work that, according to Epstein, argues "boredom is the major spiritual problem of our day" (3). Epstein fairly explains Svendsen and other philosopher's negative views of boredom, and then seeks to identify the problem. With a slew of outside sources, Epstein first identifies the kinds of boredoms and their effect, and then presents its positive effects with another set of sources. With this organization and his exceptional evidence, Epstein effectively introduces the common opinion of boredom, effectively explains the emotion, and then seeks to see its positive aspects. To the reader, he abolishes the original negative arguments, and succeeds in conveying his purpose.

Sweet, Luxurious BoredomBoredom allows us to reflect on the world around us.
Image Source: Stuart Richards