The NPR article entitled “When A Tattoo Means Life Or Death. Literally” by Rebecca Hersher was short, but an accessible introduction to the potential complications of end of life care and making end of life decisions, particularly when a patient’s wishes might not be clear. During the Rose Table Talk discussion of this article , we hit on the most salient, and fairly obvious, points of the article. These points including the tenuous legal position healthcare providers could be in if they do not follow certain guidelines properly as well as the pain and burden of watching a loved one suffer and being responsible (or not) for carrying out his or her end of life wishes, if available.
Nonetheless, the initial conversation on this specific topic did not really excite novel or surprising ideas or discourse, but it evolved into talking about other matters of healthcare. For example, one international student shared insight into the healthcare system of his country and another participant spoke about other systemic healthcare differences in her home country. This aspect of the Table Talk, where participants share personal stories or knowledge instead of just their opinion about an article, has enriched every one of these discussions that I have attended so far.
I can sympathize with your point that the conversation lacked interesting ideas/discourse. However, that begs the question what are the interesting questions to ask in this context? I would imagine that it’s difficult with a specific case since most of the interesting things one might say generalize to the general problem of the extent to which one persons will for themselves takes precedence over the will of someone else for them. But perhaps there is something more specific that is interesting to think about?