- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark as New
- Mark as Read
- Add This Thread to My Bookmarks
- Subscribe
- Email to a Friend
- Printer Friendly Page
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
Last night I saw a powerful play out about the health care debate, Anna Deveare Smith's Let Me Down Easy. Smith writes in a unique way: She writes one-woman plays by recording interviews with real people, cutting them to size, and committing them to memory. She becomes each of her interviewees on stage, to present the sort of powerful discussion that would never happen, by chance, around a dinner table.
The focus here is health care, for which Smith brings about twenty diverse voices to the table, from ABC commentator Joel Siegel to bicyclist Lance Armstrong. One grand idea that emerges is that in order to reform health care, we need to deal with the strange way we Americans think of death.
The story opens with portraits of strength. Onto the stage walk a series of people to give their monologues (what they said in their interviews with Smith). We meet Armstrong, who won seven consecutive Tour de France's; Brent Williams, a professional bull rider; Michael Bentt, a Heavyweight Champion Boxer; and Lauren Hutton, the first model to sign a million-dollar contract. Each owns the stage with his or her graceful body and talks about how working hard on that body (in biking, riding, fighting, or dieting) was a testament to will. "You know, when, when you're riding a bull"--like when you're in great shape, and very alive--says Brent Williams, "you're feeling like...there ain't nothing in the world that could...beat you up or nothing like that, 'cause there's just so much power." In turn, Armstrong stands wide-legged at his breakfast table, grabs a whole-grain muffin, one side in each palm, and eats in fistfuls as he says he lives to express the potential of his body. After he got testicular cancer, he says, he raced harder than he ever had. After all, "I certainly, I didn't, I just didn't want to face this, this, this demon called failure." We see why Armstrong became a champion: He does not separate losing and death. Each is a type of failure.
The problem is--the play suggests--that we too often think of death as failure. We flash to a chat with Sally Jenkins, a sportswriter for The Washington Post. She says, with manic energy about her lifetime spent chronicling our modern heroes, that athletes are our heroes because they symbolize strength that doesn't fade to old age. We want our athletes to retire before they start losing, so that we can hold onto that ideal image. Jenkins goes on to say that athletes die twice. One death is retirement, and the second is the one they share with the rest of us. The first death is often a worse blow to a top athlete, because it means an end of the identity he (and his fan base) likes best.
Soon, we sit in a quieter spot with Phil Pizzo, a Dean at Stanford Medical School. To deal with our health care crisis, he says, we're going to have to stop being so scared of death. About 27 percent of Medicare dollars are spent on people in the last stage of life. That's because we are in denial about death and use elaborate technologies to extend the heart beat and the breath and the vital signs even after the quality of life is gone.
Doctors use machinery to extend the days that a heart beats, because death marks their own professional limitations, says Reverend Peter Gomes, a Minister at Memorial Church at Harvard University. And when death comes, doctors tend to leave the room, turning the patient over to the clergy, as if the stages of dying were radically distant from life. "When it [is] clear that [a patient isn't] going to recover," Gomes said, "the doctors [say], 'Well, we'll leave him to you now. To the clergy.' ...I thought, 'Cowards. Why don't you stick around?' ...Their job was to keep the person here with all the science and the technology that we produce. [When death comes,] the doctors resent the fact that they're leaving in defeat, because death is a defeat for them. So they have to go off and save somebody else. They don't want to be around for the moment of expiration. One of the most important things that you can do is to be with someone when they die. And the doctors don't like it, so off they go."
Gomes lets us know that sitting with someone at his death is a way of accepting that person. So we see Trudy Howell, the director of Chance Orphanage in South Africa, which houses children dying of AIDS. Howell helps these children die by helping them feel safe. One of these children remembers her mother, who died some years before, and Howell buries this child next to her mother when the time comes. That act of kindness reverberates against the monologue of Susan Youens, a teacher who is in love with Franz Schubert and tells some of that composer's life story. At age 20, Schubert put to the poem "Death and the Maiden" to music. In the poem, death sings, "Give me your hand.../I am not cruel,/You will sleep softly in my arms." When Schubert learned he had syphilis and would die young, he worked madly at "Death and The Maiden" and composed almost 1000 works before dying at age 31. Youens loves what Schubert made of life: His work was partly so rich because it came from his meditation on dying.
One of the best parts of the play comes from Eduardo Bruera, a doctor at the Anderson Cancer Center. He says that death is a loss that we want to ignore, but really isn't so different from other losses that shape our lives. Death is not categorically different than other moments in our lives; and we will likely handle our moment of death in the way that we've confronted our other big losses, like heartbreak or being fired or getting injured, he says. If we've confronted those things with stoicism, we'll probably meet death with stoicism. If we get angry over loss, we'll probably get angry about death. If loss depresses us, so will death. Death, he means, is another factor in our lives as we know it, and we can actually work on our relationship to death by working on our reactions to events we're currently experiencing.
In this play of voices, Smith does something that great literature always does: She lets new ideas rise from a dialogue that no one viewpoint controls. She means to say that we need a new, wide dialogue about death in order to figure out modern problems about health care, insurance, and our sense of safety.
I'd like to know any of your thoughts on the above.
You must be a registered user to add a comment on this article. If you've already registered, please log in. If you haven't registered yet, please register and log in.

