But medically assisted death is not new. It has been present and debated since at least Greco-Roman antiquity and probably much earlier. However, its current status in various countries and within them is fraught with controversy even after legalization. For their involvement, euthanasia providers have been celebrated – and they have gone to jail. They have been portrayed as heroes or as villains, prominent among them American pathologist, Jack Kevorkian (1928-2011). Sometimes, health care workers are wrongly accused of killing their patients, especially when an unusual cluster of deaths arises – one example being the vicious prosecution of Canadian pediatric nurse Susan Nelles in 1981 for having murdered unhealthy neonates. She was later vindicated, absolved of all blame.  

Yet those of us who have worked with seriously ill people on the hospital wards know that a therapeutic choice to help suffering can run the risk of shortening those few remaining days. I recall more than half a century ago, a diminutive, elderly patient, writhing in agony on her bed. A much-respected senior clinician on his rounds demanded to know why we had not given “enough” morphine. “But chief!” we protested, “to raise the dose could stop her breathing!” “Why are you giving morphine?” he asked. “To relieve the pain.” “Have you succeeded?” “No.” “Then give enough; enough to make her comfortable” We did. She stopped moaning and died soon after. Unforgettable. We realized that decisions like this must be happening everywhere, but they occur within a cloud of trepidation, as bereaved family members might choose to make accusations. 

Prior to Canada’s 2016 legalization of medical assistance in dying (MAiD), people seeking help to end their lives with dignity would sometimes go to Switzerland. There, providing assistance to a person able to voluntarily self-administer lethal drugs had been legal (with variations) since the 1940s. In 1998, the Swiss non-profit organization Dignitas was founded to offer assisted death (or assurances thereof) to its members. In 2010, 89-year-old Kay Carter of Vancouver, who was suffering from spinal stenosis, went to Switzerland to end her life. It seemed outrageous that “death with dignity” was available to citizens who could afford to leave the country– yet everyone else was deprived. After her death, the Supreme Court decision that struck down Canada’s law against assisted suicide is known as “Carter vs Canada.” Considering that ordinary suicide had been illegal in Canada until 1972, these changes reflect a remarkable and relatively rapid shift in attitudes to death and dying.  

But the controversies are not over. And Canada is far from alone. Religious objections can be found in many communities. Vulnerable and disabled people together with their caregivers worry that they could be targeted or urged to accept assisted suicide by institutions wanting to save money. The prohibitions on access for children or the mentally ill are repeatedly challenged and have been overturned in some jurisdictions. Psychiatrists argue that assisted suicide would rarely be contemplated if more mental health services were available. Palliative care doctors resent the implication that they should be the administrators of euthanasia; they saw themselves as purveyors of comfort for life, not death. They pointed to the World Health Organization emphasis on the global need for more palliative care, and they complained that the new law made patients even more hesitant to accept their help. Swirling throughout these debates is the well-intentioned question about how a society should treat the least of its members: humane treatment or humane killing. 

It is scarcely surprising, then, Assistedlab.ch comes out of Switzerland; nor is it surprising that it finds a rich supply of sources. Launched in 2023, it claims to be “a living archive of assisted dying” that strives neither to endorse nor criticize the movement. Led by Anna Elsner, a professor of French Culture and Medical Humanities at the University of St Gallen whose 2011 doctorate from Cambridge focused on mourning in the work of Marcel Proust. Her polyglot team includes three other investigators and a manager, all with doctorates in either history or literature, all with Swiss affiliations. They are supported by ten assistants, mostly graduate students, seven from Canada and one each from the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. They rely on an advisory board of four distinguished scholars from Montreal, Glasgow, London, and Garrison, New York (the Hastings Center).  

Funded in part by a starting grant from the European Research Council for five years (2023-2028), assistedlab.ch also acknowledges support from several other universities. It is active on Bluesky with 1400 followers and, in mid-2025, launched a newsletter to feature the latest entries and events of interest. 

Aside from its specific subject-matter, assistedlab.ch has many features in common with our own Medhum, the most obvious being the preparation of reviews by team members. The site is plain but attractive and color-coded for analysis of textual, performance, visual and audio sources, the majority being textual sources. Each menu entry sports a black and white image, which sometimes turns to color upon clicking. The sources – fiction and non-fiction books, short stories, essays, films, plays, artwork, podcasts, memoirs, news reports, and farewell letters from the recently deceased. Most sources are linked from the articles describing them, most from recent decades but some dating back to the 1990s. A bibliographic list of further reading in print or other media accompanies each entry. Keyword tags and an efficient search function make exploration easy. 

At the time of writing, assistedlab gathers more than a hundred articles, all in English, although the works examined can be in other languages. In addition, a news section, similarly color-coded, provides information about upcoming and recently past events: lectures, theatre, conferences, workshops, interviews and new publications. Thoughtful description takes precedence over hyperbolic criticism or praise, making the site welcoming for anyone approaching this dire matter with curiosity for themselves or their loved ones in terms of personal or professional life. It will be fascinating to learn usage statistics for assistedlab.ch, not only the numbers, but also the geographic origins and user traits, for it should serve a wide array of human beings as we wrestle with the most fundamental of existential questions facing us all.  

Web image from Assistedlab.ch.

In 2019, a prominent obstetrician/gynaecologist in Toronto was found guilty of administering intravaginal medications to his obstetrics patients for the purposes of inducing labour without consent. He was subsequently dismissed from his position at the hospital and his career ended. The story was covered in detail in an exposé published in Toronto Life magazine. 

The details of the case are lurid. In the modern age, most obstetricians do group call. Gone are the days when an expectant mother would have both her prenatal care and delivery done by the same physician. Newborn babies are wont to arrive in the world at any given moment, and the traditional obstetrician who drops everything they are doing to attend these deliveries, often in the middle of the night and often with a full day of office work the next day, is all but extinct. Obstetricians now share call duties with a team of physicians. Now, when you sign up with a certain obstetrician, there’s no guarantee that that specific doctor will be the one to deliver your baby, only that someone from their group will be doing the delivery. 

In Ontario, obstetricians are paid more for delivering babies on weekends than they are on weekdays. It’s a nice little reward for doctors who usually work long and unpredictable hours. But in this one hospital, the obstetrics department began to notice that one of their staff had a propensity for babies being delivered predominantly on weekends and evenings and began tracking the matter. 

In time, they discovered that this doctor was inserting tablets of misoprostol into the vaginas of late term pregnant patients in order to induce labour on specific days that were to his advantage, often when the date in question was a weekend. Misoprostol has the ability to induce contractions and is often used in medical abortions. It is not considered to be a medication safe to use in pregnant women to induce labour on command. Needless to say, the patients did not give informed consent for the procedure, nor were they offered the option to decline.The doctor in question was a prominent member of Toronto’s Chinese Canadian community. He had a reputation for being a doctor to the rich and chic. Famous Hong Kong celebrities flew to Canada to have their babies delivered by him and my own patients flocked to him in droves. 

In Toronto, getting a referral to a community obstetrician of choice to deliver your baby is like trying to get your child into an elite private school–no doubt, these actions are often being done by the same parents, just a few years apart. Obstetricians have a set number of expectant mothers they can carry for any given month and once that quota is exceeded, they can’t accept any more patients. In those years when I first started working as a family physician, Chinese immigrant women in my community knew to race to our office as soon as they suspected they were pregnant, so as to get into the front of this doctor’s queue. They were then told by the obstetrician’s office that they were expected to pay a three-hundred-dollar administrative fee in order to guarantee this doctor would be present for the delivery, which they gladly paid.^⁠1 

At the time, it seemed reasonable. Three hundred dollars and your doctor would buck the modern trends of group call and shared team duties and promise to come in on his night off to personally deliver your baby. It all seemed legitimate and altruistic, a call back to a simpler time. If only. 

When the story broke, there was the expected furor in the local medical community. Certainly, the salacious nature of the case, the prominence of the doctor in question, the #MeToo movement which was also taking place around this time, gave the story its pull. 

In the local Chinese community, the story had buzz as well. Toronto, with its large Chinese-speaking population, has several Chinese daily newspapers and the story made headlines in the local Chinese newspapers and filtered its way through all of us. It felt like everyone’s mother had heard of this doctor; he was that well-known. 

As I spoke to patients and friends and colleagues, I discovered so many people around me had had their children delivered by this doctor in the preceding decades. As they reflected on their obstetrics journeys, the stories were all the same. Yes, it was true, many of their babies had happened to arrive on a weekend. Yes, the labour started soon after an assessment, right on schedule and with what had seemed like fortuitous timing at the time. Now, in retrospect, it all seemed fishy and possibly sinister. 

But one thing that I noticed was that this doctor’s actions were met with largely a collective sigh of indifference by the Chinese Canadian community. The lack of outrage most people had towards the story felt odd. Remember, this story was occurring near the height of the #MeToo movement. The idea of a doctor administering intravaginal medications without consent should have, in the West, been seen on the level of battery. At the very least, I expected people to think of it as a violation of a woman’s body. But in the Chinese community, amongst the population that knew this doctor the best, the reaction was muted. Most of his patients that I encountered shrugged off the story. When the subject came up, they were quick to point out to me that he was an outstanding doctor who had helped many people and were disappointed to hear that the doctor was no longer practising. 

In China, women’s reproductive rights is an issue with a thorny history, especially over the last several decades, most of which I was oblivious to until I started working with my own patients. 

The most blatant and obvious reproductive rights issue is China’s One-Child Policy, which ran from 1979 to 2015. During these years, families in China were limited to having only one child, except in special circumstances. The One-Child Policy was formulated in response to the Chinese government’s fear of overpopulation. 

In my naive understanding of China, I was taught the official narrative, that people who had more than one child were subject to higher rates of taxation, and it was the punitive toll of this taxation that kept parents in line. 

But the truth was more complex. What were people’s expectations about birth control? What happened when people didn’t agree with the government’s policy? What happened to people who had an extra child on purpose? What happened if they had a child accidentally?  

When I started working, I soon noticed that all middle-aged women from mainland China had intrauterine contraceptive devices implanted in their uterus. Mostly, they had had these devices placed after delivering a baby years earlier. In many cases, these IUCDs had been present in these patients’ uterus for so long that many of them often forgot to mention it to me, only informing me about the presence of these devices sometimes when they were in their late fifties or early sixties, long after the device had ceased to perform any useful function. Often times, we’d discover that these devices were present during a routine ultrasound, and the patient would remember that yes, they had been wearing an IUCD for so long that they had simply forgotten about it–it had simply become a part of them. This wasn’t an entirely benign situation. The longer an IUCD remained in, the greater the chance it would slowly embed into the tissue of the uterus. Albeit rarely, there are case reports of it rupturing the uterus of women after decades being left in. 

Even after I realized that so many of my patients were wearing IUCDs, I still didn’t fully understand what this meant. I had in my mind envisioned the Western model of women’s reproductive care, that the mother had informed her obstetrician in China at some point after the delivery that she would have an IUCD inserted because yes, she was certain she didn’t want to have another child for a few years. I envisioned a long conversation where a medical professional gave the patient a series of options about contraceptive care. Did the patient want an IUCD? Or maybe to try the birth control pill? Or did the patient want to use natural family planning methods? It was only gradually that it dawned on me, that these were conversations we only had in the West, not conversations women had in China. They weren’t given the option of having an IUCD inserted. They were simply told what to do, or had it done unto them. 

But my women patients didn’t seem bothered by this. They never expressed outrage at having an IUCD. It was again, the collective shrug of indifference. It wasn’t that different than being told that they had to pay taxes. Or have a mandatory retirement age. It was just another curious aspect of life in modern China.  

I couldn’t envision what it meant for a society to exist where a government somewhere could decree that all women would be forced to have a copper intrauterine device placed in their uterus upon having a baby, whether they liked it or not, and that it would remain in place indefinitely. It seemed even more preposterous that almost all the decisions said government made were made by men–the Chinese Communist Party is well known for being almost exclusively male at its highest levels. 

The actual IUCDs that the patients wear bear mentioning also. In North America, IUCD devices like the Copper-T, or Mirena, are little metal or plastic objects that are inserted into the uterus, with a trailing piece of string that dangles out of the uterus. The device itself prevents either ovulation or implantation of the embryo, depending on the IUCD in question. The little piece of string is designed to allow the device to be removed easily in a doctor’s office, where a doctor can tug on the string with a pair of forceps and remove the device. 

In China, the IUCD device is inserted without a string, making it deliberately more difficult for people to remove, even with proper medical equipment. 

As a result, many of my patients, after decades of wearing the IUCD, found that the device could not be easily removed. Canadian-trained gynaecologists, used to the simplicity of tugging on a piece of string and changing the IUCD every four or five years as per the manufacturer’s instructions, couldn’t always remove the Chinese IUCDs. Sometimes, it was because the Canadian-trained gynaecologists didn’t have the practice grabbing IUCD’s without the string. At other times, it was because the device had been put in place so long ago that it had shifted position and could no longer easily be removed. Some of my patients had to go under general anesthesia to have the device removed. Others got on airplanes and flew back to China to get the device removed there by the experts. All of this, I gradually realized, was part of the long-term consequences driven by China’s One-Child Policy. 

For a more detailed discussion of the One-Child Policy, see Barbara Demick’s Daughters of the Bamboo Grove. Demick, an L.A. Times journalist, chronicles her two-decade odyssey to help reunite an American-raised Chinese adoptee named Esther with her birth family in China. Esther was abducted as a two-year-old and then trafficked to an orphanage during China’s international adoption industry heyday in the early 1990s. As it turns out, she has a twin sister, Shuangjie, who stayed with her birth family and the story provides a fascinating case study of the entire issue of women’s reproductive rights and the issue of international adoption. 

In the book, Demick lays out China’s One-Child Policy and its ramifications on the grassroots level, where neighbourhoods were policed by local government family planning offices. These units were akin to local mafioso-like organizations, gangs of thugs who were given carte blanche by the local governments to cajole, threaten, and beat people into towing the party line. And, to top it off, they weren’t above kidnapping the children who violated the government’s restrictions on family planning. 

When it comes to the One-Child Policy, there is a tendency for us as Westerners to discuss it as tomfoolery–a straightforward story of failed macro-economic policy, that the One-Child Policy was short-sighted and hastened China’s likely imminent economic decline. And while this narrative may be accurate, it only scratches the surface. The reality of what happened to people on a personal level is much more complicated. 

As Demick describes it, in the nineties, the One-Child Policy essentially created the market conditions for international adoption and the trafficking of kidnapped children. It isn’t a huge leap of logic to understand that the One-Child Policy begets well-meaning people from the West wanting to adopt babies from China and being willing to pay good money to do so. Once money is involved, human traffickers realize that if they can get good money for babies, then all they need to do is to get more and more babies. Now, cue the kidnappings and forced baby abductions and we get to where we were. It’s a frightening cycle, which only illustrates yet again how economic policy can trickle down to the level of the individual in thousand-fold ways. 

There’s another aspect to Chinese family planning worth pointing out here, which is the desire to have more male children. The Chinese culture is by no means alone in this. Historically, many groups around the world prized boys over girls. In China, the reasons for this have long been established. Traditionally, Chinese culture has long placed an emphasis on families having male heirs. According to Chinese culture, family lineages pass through sons, and daughters are raised but then handed over to other families when they marry, unable to continue lineages of their own. At its most basic level, this meant that your son could look after you in your old age but your daughter couldn’t. 

Growing up as an immigrant in Canada, I accepted that the preference for boys over girls was probably one of those older, primitive world views that Chinese people held in the past, but, like binding women’s feet, surely not something anyone still believed in modern times. After all, I had grown up in a North America where women voted, moms were entering the work force en masse, and dual-income households were becoming more and more the norm. I took it for granted that modern people everywhere would value boys and girls equally. 

And while I had read in books about the gender imbalance in China, about how the One-Child Policy had created a nation with a surplus of boys over girls, I took it as just another example of primitive, traditional Chinese thinking, something from the old world, not something that I would have to deal with directly as a doctor in Canada. 

So imagine my surprise, when in my early years of practice, patients started approaching me, forcing me to confront some of these gender issues head on. 

One patient, an older woman who was already the mother of multiple girls, discovered that she was pregnant again. At the eighteen-to-twenty-week ultrasound, to her disappointment, she discovered that she was having a girl, again. A few weeks later, despondent, she came to my office, asking for a referral for an abortion. She explained to me that she wasn’t primitive or old-fashioned. Indeed, she wasn’t against having girls per say. But she already had so many that it seemed fair that she really didn’t want another one. 

By this point in the pregnancy, she was already precariously close to the twenty-four-week cutoff for late term abortions. In Canada, abortions past twenty-four weeks aren’t allowed. Would it be possible for me to change her estimated date of confinement to so that she could squeeze in just within the 24 week window?^⁠2 I refused to do this, and she ended up returning to the clinic multiple times in the next several weeks, each time suggesting that, telling us in fact, that she had remembered her last menstrual period date wrong. And that if we used her revised calculation, her current pregnancy actually fit in the twenty-four-week window. Needless to say, I did not acquiesce and eventually this patient drifted out of my practice. I never did find out what happened to her and her family of girls. 

Fortunately, not all the stories are so odd. Some patients from China have told me that they were pleasantly surprised to discover that in Canada, at the eighteen-week ultrasound, doctors could reveal the gender of their future children to them if they wished. Finally, they could prepare for the upcoming birth of their child knowing what colour to paint the child’s bedroom and what colour clothes to buy in advance. In China, I was told, this information was kept strictly confidential because the government was afraid that people would go looking for abortions if they found they were pregnant with a girl. 

Of course, now the situation in China is flipped. After decades of the One-Child Policy, China suddenly finds itself facing an economic slowdown, the prospect of an aging population and a more educated working class that wants no part of having more children. More and more young people in China are choosing not to even marry, not to mention start families. 

In a twist of dramatic irony, those same family planning units that harassed women for decades into having less children, have suddenly been tasked with the job of encouraging increased reproductive rates. 

What will the Chinese government do when it’s time to raise its low birth rate? What will it do when it realizes it can’t convince its citizens to get pregnant more readily by offering tax incentives? After all I’ve seen and experienced, it’s something I don’t even want to think about but could be just around the corner. 

I’ve long struggled to understand this concept of just how powerful the Chinese government is and how much impact it is able to have on its citizenry. Because my grandparents fled China after the Civil War in 1949 and my parents grew up in Taiwan under martial law, I’ve always had a bird’s-eye view of how Chinese politics can affect the lives of everyday people. I have an aunt who I’ve never met because she didn’t make it out of China in 1949 and became separated from our family–she wouldn’t see my father, her brother, for almost forty years. In recent years, I’ve read countless books about government reforms in China. I saw how China handled Covid-19 in the news. I’ve visited China and seen the gleaming new buildings and multi-lane superhighways humming with electric vehicles. But none of it has spoken to me as loudly as this collective shrug of indifference that I’ve encountered from my patients when it comes to women’s reproductive rights. 

Sometimes, I wonder what the psychic toll of a person doing something they don’t really want to do might be. What if they’re forced to get a tattoo that they don’t want? Or forced to cut their hair in a certain way? 

What if they’re forced into a marriage they don’t want? Or forced to have a baby they don’t want? Or forced to give the baby away against their will? 

They don’t even have the option of agreeing to any of these things. What if these actions are just done to them whether they like it or not? 

But then what about this: what is the psychic toll if they’re to wear an IUCD for the next thirty years, whether they would like to or not? 

What’s the toll if they’re given intravaginal misoprostol so that their baby can be born on an auspicious day? 

What’s the toll if they’re given intravaginal misoprostol so that an obstetrician can deliver the baby on a day convenient for him? 

If all of these decisions are simply made for a person by an aggressive husband, we’d call it abuse and everyone would be screaming bloody murder. But if these decisions are decreed by an even higher authority, an all-powerful political party or an all-seeing authoritarian government, then what? Would everyone just accept it as just another cultural fact of life, like using chopsticks instead of a fork? It seems like they would. 

To hear further discussion about Barbara Demick’s Daughters of the Bamboo Grove, have a listen to my discussion about it on Apollo On Call, the podcast of medhum.org. 

1. In Canada, health care is publicly funded but doctors can charge fees for services not covered by the public health care system. This can take the form of administrative fees as well as fees for certain medical and surgical procedures that the government health insurance doesn’t cover. 
2. The estimated date of confinement is the projected due date for a pregnant mother. It can be calculated as 40 weeks from the date of the pregnant woman’s last menstrual period, or estimated using prenatal ultrasounds. 

Web Image by Medhum.org and Fred Moon 

Additional Chapters from A Chinese City Doctor’s Notebook

When Your Body Isn’t Yours 

01.12.26 659

From Tigers to Otaku

09.16.25 1499

The Happiest Couple

07.28.25 1258

The Things We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Dying 

05.13.25 1838

Modern medicine’s emphasis on extending the human lifespan has, in some cases, transformed dying, once a communal and spiritual event, into a cascade of arduous procedures. Deftly synthesizing the wisdom of many experts with his own insights and experiences, Palmer offers compelling, accessible, and refreshingly honest advice on how to shape our lives and legacies so that we are better prepared to die as we see fit—highlighting agency in aging in the face of ageist norms. 

Just last week, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced that the state will join 11 others and Washington, D.C., in legalizing medical aid in dying (MAID), or when physicians prescribe a lethal dose of medications to patients with fewer than six months to live. 

“New York has long been a beacon of freedom,” Hochul said, “and now it is time we extend that freedom to terminally ill New Yorkers who want the right to die comfortably and on their own terms.” 

The governor’s rhetoric emphasizes a collective cognitive dissonance: As physician (and fellow politician) Dan Morhaim observes, “our culture celebrates personal autonomy,” but when it comes to death and dying, “we collectively abdicate” that value. 

Citing Morhaim and others, Palmer provides valuable context for our relationship with mortality (along with additional information about MAID). During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the average death was relatively quick and happened at home, with little involvement from healthcare providers and medical technology. Today, dying is protracted and tends to take place in hospitals or nursing homes; healthcare providers and medical technology are highly involved; and life can be prolonged with organ transplants, chemotherapy, and more. 

“There is a significant difference between dying peacefully in your bed at home and dying yoked to tubes and machines in an ICU,” Palmer writes, “receiving futile care that only prolongs the dying process for perhaps a few days while providing a horrendous quality of life.” 

Drawing on surgeon Atul Gawande’s [1] work, Palmer argues that, at best, physicians are uneducated about aging and dying and what might matter to patients approaching the end of their lives. At worst, they are financially motivated to perform aggressive interventions that may do more harm than good.  

According to numerous studies, frail patients do poorly in hospitals, and Palmer points out that doctors nearing death tend to eschew the very treatments they give to their older patients, such as surgeries and radiation. 

“I don’t want my last conscious thought to be of doctors stabbing needles into my veins, my ribs breaking from chest compressions, and a large-bore tube thrust into my throat and lungs,” the end-of-life activist writes. “When a patient is young and robust, such curative measures may make good sense despite their violence, but not for an old, debilitated, frail patient.” 

But we have choices: “where to die, how much treatment to have, and how to spend the limited time we have left.” 

“While, in a real sense, no death is ever ‘good,’” Palmer underscores, “planning and preparation can make death less awful and painful.” 

Legislation to make MAID available to the terminally ill is one step in that direction. However, critics argue that MAID may endanger the elderly and disabled, who might feel pressured to end their lives out of fear of causing hardship to their families. Opponents also contend that such policies reinforce the toxic notion that a life with a disability or chronic illness is not worth living. Also, some individuals may seek MAID due to high treatment costs, but MAID should not substitute for accessible care and support. 

Racial inequities in healthcare are also relevant; Black people might opt for MAID because they are more likely to receive inadequate pain management due to stereotypes that they are drug-seeking or pain-tolerant.[2] Palmer could have engaged more fully with these valid concerns. Fortunately, the Medical Aid in Dying Act in New York has a number of guardrails meant to ensure the patient’s decision is informed and voluntary, including a conflict-of-interest prohibition and a mandatory mental health evaluation. 

Well before we are terminally ill, we need to be having routine conversations about dying with our loved ones and physicians. To that end, Palmer endorses The Conversation Project. He also suggests creating an advance directive, or a legal document outlining your healthcare wishes, and choosing a healthcare proxy—not necessarily your closest relative—when you’re young or in good health. One way to think about your healthcare wishes is to complete the sentence “I would want to live as long as I could still…”, as recommended by physician Eleanor Tanno. Another is to consider an “exit strategy,” or an illness for which you would decline treatment.[3] 

Some other tips from Palmer for a “good” death: 

• Write a personal mission statement; letters of gratitude to loved ones; and legacy letters, also known as ethical wills, that capture your essence, beliefs, and stories to pass on to future generations. 

• Make a folder containing everything your children must handle when you die. 

• Join a “village,” or “virtual retirement community.” 

The author also illuminates the benefits and limitations of palliative and hospice care, delineates various eco-friendly alternatives to embalming (reader: as of writing this, I’d like to be affordably composted), and presents ideas for making funeral and memorial services more substantive—and even fun. 

Achieving a Good Death is a touch dogmatic, but Palmer demonstrates in the book’s rich appendices that he practices what he preaches. In a letter to his family about his own end-of-life wishes, he shares the pain of witnessing his mother’s final years in a nursing home: “I want to prevent what happened to her from happening to me.” 

“If my mental function is seriously compromised with little chance for full recovery, please seek opportunities to encourage death’s approach… Are my kidneys faltering? Let them,” he writes, giving new meaning to author Mel Robbins’ self-help concept. 

The book’s main flaw—one the author himself acknowledges—is that it is primarily aimed at those with friends and families. Readers without such connections may feel less comforted than grimly recognized by Palmer’s planned memorial service playlist featuring the Beatles’ “Eleanor Rigby.” 

Ultimately, Achieving a Good Death is a stimulating must-read for mortals that will leave you equipped for a more peaceful, dignified, and meaningful end. 

Achieving a Good Death: A Practical Guide to the End of Life
Chris Palmer
Rowman & Littlefield, 2024

[1] Gawande, Atul. Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End. Metropolitan Books, 2014. 
[2] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The Opioid Crisis and the Black/African American Population: An Urgent Issue. Publication No. PEP20-05-02-001, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Behavioral Health Equity, 17 Mar. 2020, samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/meeting/documents/csap-nac-presentation-03172020.pdf.  
[3] Harrington, Samuel. At Peace: Choosing a Good Death After a Long Life. Hatchette, 2018. 

Web image by Medhum.org.

The latter decision unarguably constitutes a significant setback in the struggle for reproductive rights for American women, but the history of access to abortion—and a sense of what the future might hold—may best be understood by taking the long view, across cultures. In Pushback: The 2,500-Year Fight to Thwart Women by Restricting Abortion, historian Mary Fissell does just that. Starting with the story of an enslaved woman in ancient Greece who becomes pregnant after being hired out as a prostitute by her enslaver, Fissell presents a series of case studies. Each one illustrates how women continued to have abortions through the centuries despite changing mores, laws, the influence of the church, and the irregular availability of experienced or qualified providers. The stories also demonstrate a pattern: as women gained more social and economic freedoms, the laws governing abortion became more restrictive, with the pendulum eventually swinging back in the opposite direction to a more liberal stance on abortion.

The enslaved woman in ancient Greece would likely have faced no moral sanction for seeking an abortion—her value lies in her continued availability as a sex worker, and, in her case, a singer. Documents suggest that women in her position would have had the knowledge to end her pregnancy, most likely with an herbal abortifacient, though squatting, jumping and sneezing were also recommended methods of preventing pregnancy immediately after sex. In ancient Rome, the focus on controlling fertility was somewhat different; Roman women had greater freedoms than their Greek sisters, raising concerns about adultery, which Augustus declared as a criminal offense. With  a focus on increasing the number of upper-class Romans who would rule the growing empire, controlling the fertility of elite married women was one way to achieve this end.

Leaving antiquity behind, Fissell nimbly guides us through the Middle Ages. In an era where Christianity is on the rise, and the issue of ensoulment is linked to the experience of quickening (when the pregnant woman first feels the fetus moving), the story of Brigid of Kildare was recorded. Brigid, a holy woman whose historical existence cannot be confirmed, was said to have helped a young woman miraculously end her unwanted pregnancy (a subsequent miracle attributed to Brigid helped a woman preserve her chastity).  The Church’s codified position on abortion was still more than 500 years away and for many of these early Christians, discussions of ensoulment notwithstanding, concerns around abortion as a means of covering up illicit sex appear to have weighed more heavily than any harm to the fetus.

In early modern Europe, in some parts of the continent, abortion had become a capital crime punishable by execution, a development that reflected “a larger cultural shift that sought to control female sexuality in the interests of Church and state.”  The story of Anna Harding who went on trial in 1618 was a case in point. Against the background of a witchcraft panic, Harding  admitted to providing both married and unmarried women with herbal and floral preparations to end their pregnancies. A “confession” under torture to having consorted with a demon led to Harding’s conviction and being burned at the stake. 

Indeed, herbal preparations to end unwanted pregnancies were common to societies as disparate as enslaved women in the Caribbean, who used abortions as an act of resistance, to Victorian women of all classes who sought abortions for many of the same reasons as women do today. Use of one of the herbs best known to induce abortion, pennyroyal, persisted up through the early 20^th century, although not without risk to the pregnant woman.

By this time, the idea that life begins at conception had gained a greater hold in the United States. Hugh Hodge, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, argued this “scientifically-based” premise as early as 1839, while the Pope’s 1869 declaration that life begins at conception would have been presented as divine revelation, though Fissell posits that concern on the part of European monarchs in Catholic countries worrying about depopulation and “degeneration” may well have influenced the pronouncement.

The story of Beatrice J, a Baltimore woman, who safely achieved two self-managed abortions in the 1940s through the aid of a catheter and ergot pills to induce uterine contractions, serves as a more modern example of women who had ended a pregnancy going on to administer abortions to others. In Beatrice’s case, after her trusted pharmacist helped set her up as an abortion provider, an undercover police operation exposed her practice. A trial followed, but charges were ultimately dismissed by a progressive judge on the basis that the “client”  who visited Beatrice was not actually pregnant.

In addition, Fissell points out this was not an isolated example by any means. Even in the most restrictive settings and time periods, there appears to have been a fair amount of  tacit acceptance.  In the U.S., for example, “Physicians performed legal abortions for a variety of indications, and the rest, so-called criminal abortions, went largely unremarked. In the 1920s and ‘30s, abortion providers were rarely prosecuted, whether physicians or not, and the former were at risk only if a woman died.” Moreover, once antibiotics and blood transfusions became available in the 1930s and 1940s, the morbidity and mortality associated with these procedures would have been reduced.

The presence of abortion providers who practiced under the radar persisted throughout the ‘30s and early ‘40s, albeit with some providers using their own judgement as to who was morally deserving of their covert services.  But the 1940s and 1950s also brought a more punitive attitude toward abortion in the United States. With an increasing number of arrests of providers administering safe abortions, dangerous practices became more widespread, as did abuses by practitioners, including sexual assault on clients. In turn, these tragic stories led to the underground movement of women and their allies who supported those in need, including the Jane Collective in Chicago, a group of women who risked criminal prosecution to help others obtain safe abortions. 

While the individual stories of women seeking abortions constitute the throughline of Pushback, Fissell consistently addresses the broader factors that affected access in each of the societies she describes, including eugenics, racism, nativism, and concerns about fidelity and heredity. Enslavement and labor demands, the appropriation by physicians in the 19^th century of care that was formerly the domain of midwives, and superstitions linking women’s fertility to fertility of livestock and crops, also come under scrutiny, as does the relatively recent shift of emphasis from the importance of the life of the mother to that of the fetus.

Readers might also consider the role of medical advances as factors that have altered our understanding of pregnancy, development of the fetus, and access to abortion. Among them was the development of simple urine tests that eliminate the uncertainty surrounding pregnancy, a means of confirmation light-years away from those early societies where pregnancy was confirmed by quickening. Sophisticated imaging of the fetus via ultrasound not only confirms pregnancy at an early stage, but packs an emotional punch. Moreover, the availability of medication through pharmacies and online sources for self-managed abortions, while under threat, has created a new landscape for pregnant women. This last means of obtaining an abortion, though formulated in a laboratory, suggests a new iteration of the herbal abortifacients used by so many generations past.

Pushback succeeds at being both highly readable and meticulously researched—the volume includes an extensive list of notes and references for each chapter. Fissell, who is the Inaugural J. Mario Molina Professor in the History of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University, also writes the Substack A is for Abortion: Snapshots from the Past. As a pre-modern historian of the 17^th century, she particularly enjoys the kind of “detective work” that accompanies that study. But she was also pleasantly surprised by how much she enjoyed researching and writing on the modern period, where sources are more readily available, including data she found through Ancestry.com.

Fissell completed her manuscript before the start of the second Trump administration and aside from allusions to Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson, Pushback does not explore the ways in which abortion became a flashpoint in our most recent national elections. (A description of politically motivated anti-vice campaigns that targeted abortion practitioners and pregnant women in the late 1940s and 1950s is included in the chapter dealing with that time period.)

But in a discussion with this writer, Fissell weighed in on current data that shows more American women than ever are having abortions despite the 2022 Dobbs ruling. “Restriction has an impact and makes abortion much more difficult and dangerous to access,” she said. “But it never stamps it out.” She also cited data that suggests roughly 66% of Americans think abortion is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor.  

Interestingly, Fissell did wonder at the onset of her research for Pushback whether she might change her mind on the issue. In the end, she describes holding the same views as when she started.  “Given that abortion was often shameful and secret if not [completely] illegal, I was amazed by how much I was able find out.” Her appreciation for insights from the reproductive justice movement deepened considerably as well, as it informed her understanding of women in earlier societies and the use of the term “choice,” then and now, for women in untenable circumstances.

“[Choice is] something a white woman with money can afford to have,” Fissell said. “Choice [does not apply to] a struggling waitress in a small Southern town who was raped and has two kids at home, and her wages won’t even cover their care…Casting the decision as choice means we don’t understand many women’s experiences.”     

Pushback by Mary Fissell was published by Seal Press (2025).
Web image by Medhum.org.

In my four years of Canadian medical school, I can only remember being taught four clinical pearls specific to Chinese patients. The first two were epidemiological facts: Hepatitis B is endemic in China and Chinese people have a higher incidence of nasopharyngeal carcinoma than non-Chinese. The third was an observation, that Chinese babies are often born with a large, purple discolouration on their buttocks that fades with time. These discolourations were pejoratively called Mongolian blue spots. 

The fourth clinical pearl was the strange one. I don’t remember much about the classroom content of first-year medical school, but this moment sticks with me even now, two decades on. In ethics class, we were learning about the concept of patient autonomy, the concept that patients have the right to make choices about their own health care. At this point, the ethicist mentioned to us that in many Asian cultures, especially Chinese and Japanese, people chose to forego autonomy and informed consent when it came to elderly family members and end of life care. What she meant was that Asian families often withheld information about the nature of their parents’ terminal illnesses from them for fear that by telling them parents the truth, their parents would feel irrevocably sad or upset, and that this might even hasten the progression of their illnesses. Until that day, I had never heard of this issue of withholding information from elderly family members before. As a Chinese Canadian, I had taken it for granted everyone would want to know the truth about their health when the time came. 

A few months after that talk, I was at home and broached the topic with my father. 

“Dad, they taught us that Chinese don’t like to tell elderly people that they are dying in order to protect them. Have you ever heard of this?” 

“Of course. You didn’t know about this?” He raised an eyebrow and gave me a look, as if surprised at how little I understood the world. “For Chinese people, we don’t talk about these things. If you know you are sick and dying, then your sickness will be worse.” 

My father was a learned man. He was a PhD in economics and had lived in North America for more than half his life. I expected more from him. “So you’re telling me that if it was you, you wouldn’t want to know?” 

“Of course I wouldn’t want to know.” 

His answer startled me. I had known that we had some different conceptions rooted in our different backgrounds, but for some reason, this caught me by surprise. I had expected him to share in my discovery of something that I presumed was backwards, old-fashioned Chinese thinking. But now it turned out that he was exactly the person being described in the ethics handbook. How little did I know of the world? How little did I know of my father? 

I dug out my first-year ethics textbook the other day and found the specific passage in question. On the subject of autonomy and Asian patients, the author Philip C. Hébert explains: 

When I read the passage over now, I can’t help but find it jarring. For an ethics textbook, the passage does seem to make the assumption that the western way of autonomy is the only right way. I wonder why I didn’t feel that way when I read the passage the first time so many years ago. 

This specific issue, that of telling an elderly family member about their diagnosis, became the basis of The Farewell, a 2019 film directed by Lulu Wang starring Awkwafina and Tzi Ma. The movie was loosely based on events from Wang’s own family life, in which an elderly grandmother is unaware that she’s been diagnosed with lung cancer. In the movie, the grandmother’s extended family decides that they want to have one last big family get-together but they can’t tell her about her diagnosis. They plot an elaborate fake wedding for one of the grandchildren and use it as an excuse to get everyone together. The movie is told from the vantage point of Billy Wang (played by Awkwafina,) the Americanized granddaughter who loves her grandmother and doesn’t really understand why they can’t tell her the truth. 

By the end, the movie settles on making the point that although the Chinese way of not telling the elderly about the diagnosis is different from what Billy is used to in the West, it isn’t necessarily worse, and it might even have its own merits. 

The movie wraps up with a postscript that Wang’s grandmother in real life is still living happily a good six years following her diagnosis. The movie implies that by not burdening her with the truth, the family has managed to improve the grandmother’s quality of life for at least these last few years, and hints that they might even have possibly affected the outcome of her illness and helped send the cancer into remission by not burdening her with the truth about cancer. 

In my own medical career working with Chinese immigrant patients, I have witnessed versions of this issue arise on several occasions. Several times, I have been asked by well-meaning children that “should anything serious ever happen to my mother or father, please do not inform them of the situation.” 

Sometimes, the request is gentler. “If any really important bad news needs to be broken to the parents, please let me know first and then we can discuss what to do about it.” 

As I’ve come to understand it, the reason for the request is a combination of things. There’s the obvious, overarching cultural basis to it. Confucius may not have ever specifically addressed the issue of whether people should withhold life-threatening medical diagnoses from their parents, but he did repeatedly underscore the value of filial piety and how one’s loyalty to one’s own parents should in some ways exceed their loyalty to themselves. So, in a way, not telling our parents the truth about their own mortality is just a little white lie to ease help ease a loved one through one of life’s inevitable travails. At least they’ll feel better not having to worry. 

This leads to the second reason, the belief that knowledge of one’s own mortality will almost certainly worsen any medical condition and hasten one’s demise. Given our own modern understanding that stress can make health worse, it does make sense to presume that fear about one’s own demise, very likely the greatest stress of all, could have deleterious health effects on a person who is already ill. 

Finally, sometimes the reason for requesting us to forego patient autonomy is simple pragmatism. Maybe mom or dad are unable to handle stress even at the best of times and we already know they won’t take the news well. In this case, shielding them from the truth might make a lot of things go more smoothly. 

In any case, when I’ve been presented with this scenario, as a Westerner, it’s difficult to dial down the urge to sit the patient’s family down and start channeling American police and cowboy movies. I can just imagine myself putting my hand on my holster and informing them that, “Ma’am, this isn’t the way we do things around here.” 

In my early years in practice, this is pretty much how I approached the problem, by understanding it as a purely cultural difference, and assuming that the ethics underpinning autonomy and informed consent should have universal application to all patients, regardless of cultural background. My understanding was that if you were living in Canada, then you had better accept that you had to do things the Canadian way. In short: when it comes to medical care, this is how we do it here. 

With that in mind, I’d sit down with the family member and explain to them that while we respected that other cultures could feel differently about this issue, this wasn’t really the way it’s done in the West. Then I’d present a compromise. “How about I ask your parent a hypothetical question along the lines of ‘if something were to happen to you, would you want to know about it?’” 

I’ve done this on several occasions in my career, and without fail, each time the elderly patient would contemplate the question for a moment before shaking their head and deciding that that no, they were better off not knowing the truth. 

What’s the big deal about all this? What happens if Grandmother or Grandfather doesn’t know the truth about their own illness? Is it really such a big problem if their child makes all the major medical decisions for them while they exist in a state of unknowing bliss? Isn’t that not that different than how parents often approach major medical decisions for an infant or a small child? 

And what about patients who explicitly abdicate responsibility for their own health at the eleventh hour? If the parent specifically says that they don’t want to know about their illness, then what? What are the implications of them ceding responsibility for this portion of their life to their loved ones? 

On a very basic pragmatic level, the parent not knowing about their own medical illness throws a monkey wrench into the basic efficiency of the health care encounter. In the West, certain aspects of health care depend on the patient being able to make informed choices, or at least depend on them having the knowledge of their illness. 

Imagine attempting to go for surgery or chemotherapy but not actually knowing that you have cancer. Imagine furthermore, that all the nurses and doctors who talk to you, who know full well that you are dying, cannot slip up even once and tell you the truth about what you are facing because once they spill the beans, there’s no putting anything back into Pandora’s box. 

Treatment decisions that might normally just be a quick conversation with a patient, now need to be run by an intermediary. Doctor visits that take ten minutes now take twenty minutes as a result.  

Furthermore, the practical effect of withholding information doesn’t end with health care. It applies even beyond the medical aspects of end-of-life care. Estate planning, inheritances, all the things that give grieving families around the world even more grief, are much more easily dealt with if the person who is dying is able to say what they actually want done. Except they can’t, if nobody actually is allowed to tell them that they are dying. 

There’s also this aspect from the family member’s standpoint: when a person agrees to make all medical decisions for their parent, they are agreeing to take responsibility for some decisions that are essentially impossible to make, especially when it pertains to end-of-life care. Should we perform heroic, but most likely futile measures on your parent? How hard is it for someone, even if they’ve had a full discussion with their parent, to be willing to make these life and death choices on behalf of their parent? 

Perhaps I’m giving away my Western upbringing, but I still can’t help but feel that there is something inauthentic about withholding the truth. Imagine living your days in an imagined reality where you believe you aren’t actually very sick, but you are. Without this end-of-life discussion experience, the person who is sick, and very likely their children, are not able to emotionally share life’s final journey together. Since it’s a journey that we all have to take, and it’s well-accepted that a serious illness or death in the family is one of the most difficult and stressful things that anyone has to go through, it only makes sense that if we can talk about it as a collective, surely we could deal with it better together than going through it alone. 

In the West, we are proud to have come up with these ethical principles that define our medical care. We laud the principles of autonomy and informed consent and look down at cultures that do things a different way. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve noticed that in fact, Eastern and Western ideas about this aspect of medicine are not as dissimilar as we might presume. Yes, it’s true that in the West, as doctors we make a point to talk to the patient about death. We’re not afraid to tell a patient they have cancer, and we’re not afraid to try to tell them that the end is near. But at the same time, we usually stop right there and don’t say much beyond that. 

What does it actually mean to be dying? How does that make you feel? Is it scary? Do you have any regrets? Is there anything else you would like to do before you go? How does it make your children feel? Is there anything we can do to help with any of this? These are not conversations doctors typically have, but they seem to be at the heart of facing death honestly and authentically. 

The fact is we’re mostly not trained as doctors to have these conversations. Quite frankly, I’m not sure that most of us even have these conversations at home with our own families. It’s too easy, most times, when faced with these end-of-life crises, for doctors to leap into problem-solving mode. That is, after all, what we’re best at. End of life care sometimes becomes a series of day-to-day crises to manage. You’re having difficulty getting up? We’ll bring in a wheelchair. Constipated? There are so many pills for that. In pain? Good thing narcotics have been invented. As doctors, we’re trained to reflexively problem-solve. But sometimes, maybe what people need as they face death, is just someone to be present, to listen, and to talk to. Death may be inevitable, but it can still come with catharsis. 

Fortunately, the culture of Western medicine is changing. Conversations around death have become more normalized. The development of palliative care, a relatively new field of medicine that has appeared in the last several decades, has certainly helped this process. When it comes to death and dying, medicine in both the East and West still has much to learn, but at least we are trying. Maybe we will get where we need to be someday. 

My father was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s dementia in 2013. Shortly after he was diagnosed, we were faced with the issue of establishing power of attorney and determining what to do in the event of end-of-life care decisions. At the time, his illness wasn’t that severe, and he was a pleasant, if mildly confused, sixty-eight-year-old. He’d even been driving up to a few months prior. 

So one night, at dinner at my mother’s house with my sister and me present, we took out the power of attorney paperwork and gathered around the dinner table with him. I remembered how he’d told me so many years ago that he wouldn’t want to know if he was suffering from a terminal illness, so I tried to explain to him that we weren’t asking him these questions because anything was imminent, but just as a precaution for the distant, distant future; we wanted to know his wishes in advance. We asked him that in the event he became incapacitated, what would he want us to do? Did he want heroic measures like CPR and being put on a ventilator? 

I still remember him looking back at us, sheepishly, like a small child. It’s impossible to know just how much he understood in that moment. 

He smiled and said, “I guess if it’s already that bad, you don’t need to do anything.” 

Then he got up and shuffled off to the living room. 

I breathed a sigh of relief. It was obvious that, demented or not, it was a conversation that my father had not wanted to have. And the same went for me. 

I never talked to him about his diagnosis again. 

Web photo by Alexander Grey

Additional Chapters from A Chinese City Doctor’s Notebook

When Your Body Isn’t Yours 

01.12.26 659

From Tigers to Otaku

09.16.25 1499

The Happiest Couple

07.28.25 1258

The Things We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Dying 

05.13.25 1838

One Patient, Two Systems 

02.24.25 2497