(Adam’s) Narrative Medicine

Tomorrow, Wednesday, April 12, I will pull a chair up to a table in the Medical History room in the IU School of Medicine, Medical Library. I join ten others–nine students and the professor, who are studying Narrative Medicine this semester. Consider this the preamble. In this post I rehearse my talking points, and I emphasize the importance of storytelling in medicine

Many of you following my journey recognize that I have been sharing my story for several months by way of social media–Facebook Live, this blog, monthly twitter chats (#BTSM), speaking in community settings, in academic venues–Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine; this upcoming public lecture hosted by IUPUI Religious Studies Department on April 19, and perhaps more important than each of these are my regular coffee conversations with close friends and former colleagues, sometimes one-on-one, sometimes in groups.

Here are two theses, hypotheses maybe, which have always been there, just beneath the surface of my areas of interest, motivating continued study.

  1. Story telling is a long-honored and integral piece of our human experience. The content that comprises our stories vary widely by cultural traditions–and with respect to our friends who study myths and tropes, perhaps the content across cultures is not tremendously different, after all (consider flood and creation stories traced easily to many cultures to emerge from the Mesopotamia), but the point I wish to make here is more broad. The act of sharing our experiences, framing our narratives, and contributing to an oral tradition is a defining feature of our collective humanity, at large, and certainly features of our identification with a community or, more abstractly, a peoplehood. But this stands against the following, second hypothesis.
  2. We seek an objective worldview, so far as we think it is possible to achieve. The Western academic tradition employs the language of mathematics to describe the world on purely objective terms, purportedly void of subjective interpretation; physicists seek, through reductionism, the outlook that meaningful explanations are sought after only at the bottom-most level of the explanatory target: the level of fundamentality. That at some most primitive level the discrimination of distinct objects dissolves and what remains are, well, not even objects at all, but a collection of attributes, charge, mass, spin, and so on that stand in relation to one another.

These theses stand in seemingly stark contrast to one another: on the one hand, the anecdotal, narrative, story telling accounts, passed from family to family, friend to friend, peer to peer; multigenerational. These stories contribute the to a sense of community and the reinforcement of values indicative of exemplars borrowed from the community who now live on as the subjects of their celebrated narratives.

On the other hand, the objective, quantified worldview has little concern for the subjective reinforcement of values drawn from a community of origin, and instead is concerned chiefly with predicting outcomes from a set of initial conditions and governing principles. Given reductionism, determinism, and fundamentality, the evidence presented to us by contemporary physical theories are, by definition, stripped of subjective identity.

Where does the physician find herself? Her patients, flesh and blood; her recording of their symptoms locked behind a protective wall erected from the scaffolding called HIPAA. Our office visits call out for personal connection. Our medical record keeping warns against privacy breaches.

Is this the space–the gray area between the practice and the policy, that we find narrative medicine? Between the stories and the statistics? The physicians and the patients. Medical history gathering is the pathway through which the two may become connected. Especially for the chronically ill, the cancer survivor, the terminally diagnosed, that more so than in any other space physicians and patients are presented with the opportunity to recapture the first of my two hypotheses. That storytelling is attachment to a community, through that which medical school may drive a wedge; may serve to detach physicians from their patients; detach specialists from the bodies on which they specialize. The community can be rebuilt when we seek to remove the barriers the lead to detachment. When healthcare is viewed not as physicians and patients–two separate classes, but as members of a medical community, where medical professionals are accountable for the care they provide, and patients are accountable for investing in their health and wellbeing by taking seriously the relationship with their caregivers.

Like great storytelling, the hero of our narratives, the reinforcement of personal values we experience when seeking solace in our favorite stories–what Rita Charon calls the “sense of story,” might we find the strength to craft our own narrative, featuring ourselves at the center, and refusing to settle for medical professionals who are not compelled to listen closely while we tell our stories.

Wednesday, April 12, I will tell my story again, for the n’th time, but for the first time. It will be told to a room of strangers, yet, when our time together is over, the influence we have over each other will linger. This is only possible when we recognize ourselves in others, when we eliminate barriers erected in the name of responsible detachment to practice objective science and medicine, and we do this through the art of storytelling.

 

What Should Public-Facing Science Communication (#scicomm) of Cancer Research Look Like?

In this post, the first of two taking special interest in science communication (hashtag #scicomm), I offer my argument for the important role science communication #scicomm plays in sparking public interest in scientific inquiry, and closer to home, I make a case that #scicomm has a unique and vital role to play in educating our patient population to reinforce the notion of informed consent. A truly informed patient, I argue, experiences improved quality and prolonged length of life, not because they are science communicators, but beause informed patients make better decisions with respect to benefits and risks of treatment. The onus, then, is on science communicators to consider what their role may be in describing origin theories of disease, e.g. cancer, in a way that empowers the public.IMG_0210

 

The disease of cancer is prevalent: perhaps not surprisingly, given our near universal experience of having been touched by cancer in some way, through the diagnosis of a loved one, grandmother, aunt, brother, cousin, and so on, or struggling with our own diagnosis, so it is that cancer is among the leading causes of death in the United States. Identifying preventable causes of the disease largely drives decades-long improvement in patient mortality statistics. The identification of preventable causes of cancer is of great benefit to public health, as it drives legislative action to protect a citizenry from increased risks while acting as responsible stewards of allocated healthcare dollars, taking on board the well-supported hypothesis that prevention is less costly than treatment. Beyond prevention, we may also wonder what researchers know of the nature of the disease itself. Knowing that limiting exposure to certain environmental carcinogens, for example, allows researchers to know something of cancer by way of preventable triggers, but a curious researcher, as we hope all are, should want to know something of cancer qua cancer, as we might employ the phrase in philosophy. Knowledge of cancer in virtue of its causes fails to penetrate deeply into the realm of inquiry, the space where our researchers and theoreticians operate.

 

Here is a story to help us. My oldest son may ask why the moon looks like a big circle one night but can look like only a sliver other times? I would not be incorrect to tell him it is because different portions of the moon are illuminated at different times, but this response is not very satisfying. Anyone with kids knows the natural follow-up question is, why? Why are different parts of the moon lit at different times? Now I may respond that the moon itself does not shine, but the light of the sun illuminates the moon. The illuminated portion of the moon appears a certain shape to an observer on earth given the relative positions of the sun and moon to earth. My son will likely lose track of the conversation at some point. If he is interested enough, he’s had a snack recently, and the television is off, he may entertain me by paying attention while I build a model with a flashlight, his toys, and a ball to represent the lunar phases, but otherwise, he moves on and asks me the next night, why does the moon look like a big circle tonight?

 

Let’s shift back to our topic. Why did my friend get cancer? Your friend got cancer because he smoked. While not technically incorrect, this answer is not very satisfying. A natural follow-up is to ask why? Why did smoking cause my friend to develop cancer? Now we are beginning to seek answers to the types of questions that motivate our researchers.

These stories help lay folk like you and me, “the public” or “the nonspecialist,” those who have taken an interest in scientific questions, but who lack the requisite training, it helps us to engage more closely with academic researchers and their chief means of currency, the academic journal article. The answers provided to nonspecialists, like those I offer to my son, often are either unsatisfying given their nonspecificity and simplicity, or the responses are far too complex to be meaningful, and so nonspecialists are not allowed a seat at the table; no voice in the debate. Hence, we need models with flashlights, toys, and a ball. It is the responsibility of science communicators to build these models and to help nonspecialists along. Einstein reported that his earliest interest in seeking to understand the deep mysteries of the natural world was sparked as a child when he saw the needles of his father’s compass move seemingly autonomously. What deep mysterious forces are moving these needles?

Like his father’s compass did for Einstein is what I hope my conversations do for my three boys: spark their interest in understanding the natural world more deeply—whether that interest leads them to science, literature, theater, culinary arts, politics, machinery, craft, or engineering, there is not a single field or passion worth pursuing that does not benefit from a drive for deeper understanding of its “forces” that appear to the rest of us only as mysterious.

The burden on science communicators is great and the responsibility is one to take seriously because the models built by science communicators to help lay folks grasp deep concepts of the natural world by employing straightforward language, familiar concepts, and model building is not only an opportunity to help the public understand the power and priority of continuing to fund the sciences, but the public is also impacted in a deeply personal way as I may better come to know the hypothesized biological causes responsible for the development of my brain cancer, and I may find myself more genuinely invested in taking accountability for pursuing my treatment regimen if I better understand the mechanism of action by which my chemotherapy kills dividing cells by attacking their DNA, inhibiting mitosis (cell division), triggering cell death, or both.

Cancer mortality is declining, yes in some part to improved treatments, but largely mortality is lessened by identifying preventable causes of the disease. Prevention is good, going forward, but it is of little benefit to the 1.6 million Americans who received a cancer diagnoses in 2016. Effective treatment rests on a comprehensive and empirically tested theory of cancer’s origin. Patients and their caregivers are right to expect safe and accessible treatment that seeks to maintain or improve quality of life and prolong a patient’s life to the extent that is possible, while seeking to protect the first criteria. That is, my personal attitude toward treatment is that beyond some tolerable threshold, prolonging a patient’s life should not irrevocably violate the quality of her life. This balance is subjective, arbitrary, and in every case that time allows, the topic is best discussed openly with friends, loved ones, medical teams, and other interested parties. No treatment allows a patient to  evade death, but many available treatment options prohibit a patient’s wish to die well.

The private and often taboo topics suggested in the final sentences of the previous paragraph are hidden beneath a guise that medical researchers and clinicians invoke with the phrase, “informed consent”: that patients or their elected healthcare representatives, after having been made fully aware of risks and side effects associated with a given treatment, may elect to receive or decline a therapy with their consent, even at great risk to their quality and quantity of life, up to and including hastened death. It is the patient’s right, it is supposed, their autonomy, that a patient may choose to accept or deny treatment on the basis that the patient has been fully informed.

 

What I have said so far ties together researchers, clinicians, and patients in the following way: researchers benefit from intimate knowledge of pathology, clinicians tie their treatment recommendations to their understanding of the nature of the disease, and patients or their representatives consent to treatment on the condition that they be fully informed of the risks. Each of these parties are bound by their reliance on some working knowledge of the disease they either study, treat, or from which they suffer. Medical researchers and clinicians are licensed for their work after years of formal education, lab apprenticeship, or residency. The knowledge they have of their specialty warrants their expert status to make recommendations through research proposals, drug development, or clinical protocols. Patients consent to their recommendations on the presupposition that regulatory agencies and governing bodies maintain acceptable criteria of qualification and credentialing to place an acceptable degree of trust in these professionals.

A point I have made in public lecture and discourse is the following: medical professionals demonstrate their specialty knowledge and tacitly earn patient trust by trailing their names with such designations as MD, PhD, DO, RN, LPN, MSc, only to name a few, and with my asking for forgiveness for the many professionals whose abbreviated credentials do not appear on my list—their absence a sign of my ignorance, not your unimportance. I have received a craniotomy, eight MRIs, 30 sessions of proton beam radiotherapy, two CTs, tens of IVs, nearly 100 individual doses of chemotherapy, countless blood draws, routine vitals, and all I am is “state your name and date of birth.” When do I earn my CPT, certified patient, credential? I don’t, because I just made it up, and further because it flies in the face of the field of contemporary professional medicine whose aim is to treat patients and discharge them, not to celebrate them.

Should a patient be certified? Of course not, I am being rather absurd. Or am I? There are as many varieties of patients as there are diseses, and I am a patient, rather, I am a person who is driven deeply by inquiry to uncover the mysteries of the natural world. I stock my bookshelf full of medical school textbooks and popular medical science novels to intimately learn my disease. On March 29, 2017, I delivered two back-to-back lectures at Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine (MU-COM) to mostly first and some third year medical students. Between lectures I was asked to make a slight modification from the first to second lecture by describing in slightly more technical details the characteristics of my type of brain cancer, glioblastoma. I mention this because while some may struggle to quickly find the words to describe the biological underpinnings of their disease, I have the opposite problem, that I must remind myself to trim back content before delivering an impromptu lecture on IDH mutations in high-grade glioma.

While I have not put in years of work as those serving on my medical team, and while I do not think that I set a reasonable baseline for what is or ought to be expected from patients, I do think that my hard work learning the competing theories of cancer’s origin enables me to be more engaged in my personal healthcare, and I am happy when my oncologist rewards my hard work by allowing our appointments to stretch to an hour, sometimes 90 minutes, as we wander off in conversation about theories of cancer’s origin or he reports about his experience at the recent conference he attended. “Precision Medicine” is the buzzword in cancer treatment these days, therapy that is made precise by targeting a patient’s cancer’s molecular markers, but this ability to identify my desire to share what I have learned, and my oncologist’s willingness to engage in this discussion, is sort of old school precision medicine. It is therapy that is targeted to my needs. It celebrates the informed patient.

I do set a bar for an informed patient. I ask my readers to consider the gulf between my hard earned knowledge of my disease, and the average knowledge of a patient without desire, training, means, or ability, given socioeconomics, education, interests, cognitive impairment, or treatment side effect profile. If you have had a conversation with me about cancer or heard a talk I have delivered within the past several weeks, you know that I emphasize that patients learn to tell their own stories to identify what is most important to them to protect as integral pieces of their quality of life and that medical professionals learn story telling to better inform patients on the patient’s terms, not the physician’s.

 

Public-facing #scicomm is not (only) about sharpening the scientist’s skills as expert communicator; it is not (only) about proving the worth of science writ large, or a specific domain of research within the broader sciences, it is not (only) to help the broad public constituency rally to disallow the disastrous cuts to science funding and frightening censure of science-driven federal administrations such as the EPA; no, the aims of #scicomm are to spark interest from our children, to empower people to seek deep mysteries of the natural world through embracing inquiry; most importantly, through my lens, #scicomm enables patients to become better informed about the nature of their diseases and mechanisms of their available therapies. In so doing, patients improve the quality and prolong the length of their lives. Next, they begin framing their own narratives to lift up the importance of science communication and motivate others to embrace inquiry and uncover the deep mysteries of the natural world.

Respectfully yours, Adam, CPT

[Note: If you are interested in hearing Adam deliver a public lecture on these themes and others, please join him for a public lecture hosted by the Religious Studies Department of IUPUI on the evening of April 19, 2017, 4:00pm. Light refreshments to be served beginning at 4:00pm. Lecture from 4:30pm-5:30pm. Topic: Well Wishes and Folks Theology: Religion in Interpreting Disease. The event to be held in room 409 of the IUPUI Campus Center located at 420 University Boulevard Indianapolis, IN 46202. For more information and to RSVP please click to open the Facebook event page.]

Inside My Head, Now on YouTube

On May 13, 2016, Adam was ordered to a “stat” MRI by his primary care provider. The scan revealed a 71mm primary brain tumor that would be diagnosed as glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), a deadly and aggressive brain cancer. In this talk Adam shares his journey (so far) with GBM, and he highlights lessons that are applicable to everyone.

Please click to view the one hour talk now available on YouTube.

Finding Purpose between Power and Helplessness

I write this post a day after delivering a public talk, Inside My Head: A Story of My Personal Walk with Brain Cancer, and a day before my next eight-week MRI scan. In this post I report the strange emotional dichotomy, recognizing my power of positive impact through public speaking while suffering under the helplessness of the course of my disease.

“In two days I will be changing into hospital socks and oversized scrub pants. I consider the ongoing depersonalization of the American healthcare patient: name, date of birth, diagnosis c71.9, malignant neoplasm of brain, unspecified; one-size-fits-all standard of care, cinching tight the drawstrings on the waistband of my comically-too-big scrubs while I shuffle to the MRI bed.” I delivered these words Sunday afternoon, March 5, to a packed house of 250 or more friends, family, and colleagues gathered in support of me, my wife and young children, and to make a dent in median overall survival by raising money and awareness for brain cancer research.

It is the day after my talk. It is the day before my next eight-week MRI scan to monitor disease progression. This morning I suffered a minor “event” or “episode” or something. I lost my footing in the living room, grasping for a door frame to prop myself up. I tapped out two more emails on my iPhone when seeking respite on the couch following my “something.” I continue my “work”: seeking venues to deliver talks, spread awareness, and raise funds to support my young family after I am long past useful.

I returned home last night following an unmatched display of support from  my community. I hugged my older boys for bed. I rocked my youngest for sleep while participating in the monthly #BTSM chat. This month’s topic: survivor guilt. Other persons with with brain tumors, many living with the disease longer than I have, poured out the contents of their hearts in 140-character confessions, searching for purpose, meaning, and self-worth in contrast to the ever-lengthening list of old friends, now deceased. The longer you walk this road with others, the older friends are lost and new ones join in the march. What lessons live on from the last generation to lend to the newly diagnosed?

 

My youngest son received his 18-month check-up this morning. He is a dot on a curve representing a percentile. All lines trend up. At a point in all of our lives we reach an apex and become a downward trending dot.

 

My wife returns home with our little guy in tow She notices me hunched over my phone on the couch, seeking respite yet tapping away.

“You have to rest!”

There is no resting for me these days, only sleeping when tired.

“You have to take it easy.”

I tap on my phone to pitch my next talk, to schedule a meeting to contribute to a caregiver- and patient-facing website offering resources to people in the path of disease, to connect with the tweet-savvy to grow my network, to share my blog, to gain more followers, to carry out a mission beset by chemotherapy, fatigue, and nausea. To find self worth in my own personal quest toward a meaningful life.

“Sent from my iPhone” isn’t just a status, or business, or to indicate traveling correspondence, but to assert, “I may be nauseated, but I’m not dead”; “I am ‘working from home’ under a blanket, tapping away at the lessons to lend to the next generation.

 

It is the day after my talk, the day before my next scan. Name, date of birth, scrub pant size? The same system I criticize, I trust myself to its care. I cry over this journal today because I am afraid; terrified, really. Do not mistake my comfort and articulation when discussion my morbidity or mortality for hope that I may evade the advancing line. Acceptance does not ameliorate fear; it embraces fear. If one-size-fits-all standard of care depersonalizes the American healthcare patient, we must recapture our personhood. What is more personal; what is more human, than realizing our own mortality. “The path through fear is familiarity,” I spoke yesterday.

The day after my talk, the day before my scan. I am seeking purpose somewhere between the power of my influence and helplessness of disease progression. Between power and helplessness, a person’s place in the world, surviving.

Self-Depracating Journey Through My Higher Education Past and Uncertain Future

In this post I begin with more confession than narrative when I juxtapose my innate intelligence with my poor study habits. My intellect is wasted when my scholastic will fails to promote my best interests. I then lament the loss of potential that I imagined for myself with a future career in higher education. I conclude by recapturing at least some of that potential, struggling to make sense of where to find my place and values amidst chronic illness. Could I contribute to science or health communication?

 

A favorite instructor of mine during undergrad said (and I am paraphrasing here) that the aim of a philosophy education is to make good philosophers, not good students. On one reading, the suggestion is student duties are subservient to quality philosophy. On another reading, probably the correct interpretation, it is presupposed that budding philosophers are already equipped with fundamental scholastic skills before pulling up a chair to the philosopher’s table, but for me, in that moment, the interpretation was not important. The prima facie reading was good enough: good philosophy trumps poor study habits. This was something I desired to hear, and so the philosophical truism remains appropriate: there is no value-free observation.

Here are two further claims, the first often spoken to me, the second often said of myself, each standing juxtaposed in a binary characterization of those features describing Adam as a student, a scholar, and (though I resist common use of the term) a thought-leader. The accurate statement is likely somewhere in the middle of this dichotomy, but for effect, let’s continue.

(1) Adam is the smartest person I know.

(2) Adam fucked up some of his education.

Let’s take each in turn. On the one hand, I excel at my endeavors when I manage to see them through. I continue to meet monthly with a group of four philosophers. These are past professors who shaped my life and academic career: a director of graduate studies and accomplished metaphysician, a current chair of philosophy and well-published philosopher of science, a leading Kant scholar, who, as the story was told to me, is someone who took the MCAT exam more-or-less only to accomplish the task, and not only was the task accomplished, the job done, but he performed strongly, and finally, an emeritus professor of philosophy who chaired a department for 30 years, publishing in the field of ethics. My professor who offered the quote discussed in the previous paragraph is one member of our five-person group. Our first unofficial official gathering of this band of philosophical brothers [1] occurred while I was inpatient at an acute rehab facility, confined to a wheelchair, living in room 202 of the locked brain injury unit. Here we are, interested in Einstein, my focus at that time, while the nurses and doctors round, take vitals, administer meds, and so on. Each of these friends display excellence in their fields, and I am driven to be better, to work harder, and consider more deeply after our coffee talks (“I’m verklempt.”) During our last discussion, one topic–and these topis always arise from the ether, interesting to one of us, at that moment, and then pursued by all while coffee cools and the dregs come into view: “is aging a disease.”

I recently read an NIH paper that correlates glucose metabolism and increased symptoms of agedness. The author compared diabetes and aging. Maybe I will bring up this paper next time we meet. We never managed to settle on an adequate answer, but it was discussed that our question hinged on to further objects of conceptual analysis: just what is ‘disease,’ and what is ‘treatment’ as the concepts are importantly related.

After my diagnosis some months ago, I began a journey to become a patient expert of my disease, and I am proud of my knowledge gained in only a short period. I have zero clinical knowledge, I have no idea how to diagnose a patient, I could not draw a vile of blood, place an IV, much less shunt, stent, or suture. I do not know the molecular markers of non-small cell carcinoma. I could not make sense of the morphology of a slice of tissue taken from a brain tumor. Though, if I were to slip in the back door of a neuro-oncology conference, I could make it through the morning sessions before my identity is embarrassingly revealed at lunch.

I have always been a natural public speaker, and this is not to suggest that I could stand up and speak on anything, at anytime. I certainly must put in the effort, do the work, to learn the topic, to weave together the network of vital information. Though, I am quite good at digesting a few papers and quickly drawing out the key information, synthesizing that information, and presenting that information in way that is digestible for large audiences.

Let these be my pieces of evidence in support of the first claim.

On the other hand, in support of the second claim, I mention it took me longer than it should have to finish my undergrad. During grad school I often submitted excellent work, several days past the deadline. I still have a grade of Incomplete in one of my grad school classes (Note: this professor to whom I still owe a paper is also a member of the philosophers coffee group). I took the GRE and achieved at best a mediocre score. I only applied to one PhD program–relocation being out of the question for my young family. My options were limited, and I applied to the only program that made geographic sense while still recognized in the speciality area I intended to study. PhD acceptance rates in philosophy programs are more competitive than acceptance to Harvard Law School (fact check; not fake news). PhD acceptance for the program to which I applied looks something like this: 330 annual applicants, usually 5-7 candidates accepted. I was waitlisted. This means I was not accepted. I was on the bubble. I wasn’t thrown out at first glance by the admissions committee, but neither was I considered a must have. On balance, applying to only one program and being waitlisted at that one program is viewed somewhat as a success so far as the competitvive nature of PhD program admissions are concerned. Often applicants apply to a dozen or more programs with the hopes of gaining acceptance to one. Though for me, I intended to earn a PhD, and decisions less than acceptance I viewed as a rather unsuccessful outing. My professor, again, to the rescue, confided that maybe I could accomplish more as an “independent scholar” than I would manage to achieve during the seven year slog to earn a PhD. At any rate, I intended to sit out a year before applying again, securing an adjunct faculty position at a community college to scratch the academic itch. Later, the private sector came calling. Then, *ahem* brain cancer. Here I am, lost, a rather lackluster academic career behind me, all the connections, conference attendance, and research of a graduate or PhD candidate, and the technical skills and foundational knowledge to excel in a strong program. Yet, I haven’t proved able to commit to the grind of earning my spot.

Here I sit in the gray area between claims (1) and (2). Stories like, ‘Einstein couldn’t get a job,’ or ‘Einstein’s kindergarten teacher said he couldn’t read,’ or ‘Einstein was a janitor at a university and solved math problems on the board and then he and Matt Damon watched Patch Adams and solved for the speed of light in a vector space’ do little to raise my spirits. The reality is I have done little to help myself out, and before cancer would dash my hopes for a long, rewording career in academia, I did it to myself.

How is that for painful acknowledgment and confession?

I have been holding out hope for some time that after navigating cancer treatment, maybe after getting a year or 18 months of stable MRI scans under my belt–hell, I’m eight months stable now, I would rally around my academic potential, retake the GRE, dust off my writing sample, and once again apply and gain admission to a PhD program. I reflected recently that the liberal arts, and a graduate education in the liberal arts, teaches one how to effectively learn. This facilitates plug and play content to learn at will. Naive, maybe, or arrogant, but, see claim (1). I have been neck deep in molecular biology and biochem textbooks, I am able to summarize the two rival theories of carcinogenesis (SMT and TOFT), I am able to speak to the Metabolic Theory of cancer, and I have an opinion on reductionism vs holism in constructing useful biological explanatory narratives. Maybe my return to academia would be a triumphant dissertation motivating deeper exploration of a robust philosophy of the life sciences.

 

Today I accompanied Whitney to Eskenazi Hospital, her employer, and home to my future primary care provider. We are strategic in this selection, choosing a hospitalist who is usually rounding on the inpatient floors and only holds clinic a day or two each week. We figure we can get in with him on clinic days, and when my disease progresses to require hospitalization, Dr. will already be familiar with my case.

Excited to be in a hospital and not on a gurney, I looked forward to meeting a new doctor today. I have come to regret not pursuing medicine in school. Regardless, here we are navigating a beautiful hospital campus, and I am overcome with the familiar light headedness of overstimulation. The activity, flourescent lights, shiny floors, and automatic doors, I begin to put more weight through my cane to steady myself. My pace slows. My eyes shift downward to limit focus. I fear an impending seizure, or fainting episode. Anxiety or neuro-chemical imbalance? Is it the nerves? Is it the meds? Is it the brain cancer?

How will I navigate a similar environment daily in university halls.

Sunday, March 5, we will see when I address 150 or more gathered to hear me present my journey with brain cancer. Will my ingelligence carry the day? Have I limped my way through school adequately to earn my role as part storyteller part instructor?
What potential fuels the next chapter?

Notes:

[1] Philosophy has long struggled with the demographic composition of its students and faculty: typically all male, white, middle income background. Few women. Few persons of color. Few persons with disabilities. The discipline recently has been rocked with charges of sexual harassment, and the very real problems of systemic discrimination, problems within the realm of academic philosophy to address, have failed to sway the discipline in a meaningful way toward public action. Philosophy is my love, and it is my passion to defend, but the discipline has faced an ongoing intervention from within and outside the field for some years. I wish not say more here, but the representation of my group of close friends and philosophy faculty being all white middle aged men is problematic, but they are also men I respect dearly who have impacted my life in immeasurably positive ways, and I ask at least for your suspension of judgment, if only through the duration of this post.

Coming Together! Inside My Head: Public Talk on March 5, 2017

What Will I Talk About?

Glioblastoma is an aggressive brain cancer that affects mostly 50 and 60 year olds; though the disease is not restricted by age. High grade gliomas are present in all ages, from children to young adults, 30-somethings like me, and those decades older than I am. I started a journal the day that I went in for the MRI scan that revealed my primary brain tumor; I journaled the days before my craniotomy and tumor resection; I journaled in the days following my awake brain surgery. I recorded my thoughts the evening after receiving the diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), a killer that takes the majority of patient lives a year and half following diagnosis. I journaled my way through acute inpatient rehabilitation, and my journal is the basis of the blog I started after hospital discharge.

In this public talk on March 5, join me for an hour long immersion into my personal walk with brain cancer. I bring to light many of the anecdotes, emotions, lessons, and punch lines that so far have only existed inside my head.

Where Do I Find Event Details?

Many of you have responded with excitement for my first public talk I am sharing on Sunday, March 5, 2015, 3:30pm-4:30pm on the south side of Indianapolis. In this post I wanted to hit a few of the highlights that are coming together as we plan for the event. Following these quick-hits highlight is a high-level agenda describing how our afternoon together will be spent. Here is a link to the public Facebook event page. If you have not done so, click GOING if you can make it in person. That will help advertise the event, and aid our planners with room set up.

Highlights

  • Interest has been immense, humbling, and exhilarating. I have friends from healthcare, academia, food service industry, personal friends, and the faith community showing interest. I cannot wait for us to rally together from so many different paths. Following my talk we will have light snacks and time to connect.
  • For my friends with young kids. Please join us. CHILDCARE IS OFFERED. Email your kiddo headcount with ages to event planner Lindsay by March 1 to help lock in the right number of sitters.
  • I know several of interested folks cannot attend in person. The event will be broadcast on Facebook Live from my personal page. Feel free to “follow” me on Facebook to see my posts and live broadcasts.
  • Following the event the video will be posted to this blog.
  • Donations will be accepted for my young family during the event, and a silent auction is arranged. Please arrive at 3:00pm if you would like to participate in the silent auction.
  • A portion of proceeds from the event will be donated to the American Brain Tumor Association (ABTA).

Working Agenda

The agenda is built around two main ideas: first, that we are a community of friends, patients, caregivers, and professionals, and we all have stories within us to learn from given the chance to share. Second, it is our relationships that sustain us through times, good and bad. The agenda reflects these ideas of story telling and connection.

  • 3:00pm, doors unlocked to check out silent auction items. Adam and Whitney will be hanging around to greet friends and chat before the talk is underway.
  • 3:30pm, Whitney, my best friend and wife, will applaud a few key people for their help. She will cover a few housekeeping items, and introduce me.
  • 3:35pm, I will take the stage and share my personal walk with brain cancer. The talk should last around 30-40 minutes.
  • 4:05pm, I will field Q&A from those gathered in attendance. I am a fun medical case because I have managed to endure this battle so far with little cognitive impairment. I have much to say, and I want to do my best to address your questions.
  • 4:20pm, silent auction winners are announced.
  • 4:30pm, light refreshments are available and Adam and Whitney hope to chat with folks one on one who can stick around.

Social Media

One of the most valuable communities to me has been the #BTSM (Brain Tumor Social Media) Twitter-based/online community. Despite our geographic and often demographic separation, our shoulder-to-shoulder battle to survive brain cancer connects us.

Instragram pictures, Facebook posts, and tweets are welcomed and encouraged from anyone attending the event or helping us with coverage. Please post using the hashtags #BTSM #GLIOBLASTOLOGY and #AandWTumorTakedown

Please reach out with any questions you have! I can’t wait to see you on March 5.

 

 

You are Invited! Inside My Head: The Personal Story of My Walk with Brain Cancer

Local (Indianapolis area) friends and supporters, I am excited to share information about a public “talk” I am giving on Sunday, March 5, 2017, 3:30m-4:30pm on the south side of Indianapolis in a large multipurpose room at Friedens UCC, 8300 S Meridian. During this narrative/anecdotal speaking engagement, I will share lessons gleaned from my battle with brain cancer. I hope the talk is interesting to people who have been following me online or through my blog, and I intend for the “lessons” to be applicable to a wide variety of folks.

The talk will give life to the themes you find here in this blog: considerations of the patient experience, insights into the traditional doctor-patient relationships, and thoughtful words about engaging with friends or family who face difficult medical diagnoses. I will bring my narrative to light, and I hope we may connect socially after my talk as we enjoy some time of refreshments in a casual environment.

The following is a link to the public Facebook event. Please feel free to add yourself to RSVP, invite others who may have an interest in the event, and share to your wall or a friend’s.

Facebook Event Page: Inside My Head: The Personal Story of My Walk with Brain Cancer

For non-local followers, I plan to incorporate Facebook Live into the event. I will not say much about that here and now, since I would rather see friends join us in person than find us online, but I hope to reach many friends, and either live broadcasting or post-event video sharing, I will be sure to accommodate whoever can’t attend in person.

Ideas for topics to discuss during the talk? Leave me comments, email me, or tweet tweet tweet.

Can’t wait to see you Sunday, March 5, 3:30pm! Be there or, you know, be [ ].

Click the following link to download a PDF even announcement. Feel free to pass the PDF on to friends via email: ahayden_inside-my-head_3-5-17