Older Disabled Person Wants a Few More Tomorrows but is Denied Cancer Treatment

My late husband was diagnosed with stage 4 bile duct cancer called Cholangiocarcinoma. My husband was aware of a low survival rate for patients diagnosed at a metastatic stage. He knew that chemotherapy did not kill the cancer, but chemo would give him a few more tomorrow's, and the possibility of surviving a full year or more.

The oncologist assigned in Windsor Ontario bullied my husband, which I witnessed. Bullying included threatening to withhold the initial chemotherapy treatment when my husband asked for a 2nd treatment opinion and referral to London Health Sciences to get it. We also were informed that every time the chemotherapy stopped, the 3 month countdown to end of life started.

When my husband agreed not to ask for a 2nd opinion, chemo therapy began. Shortly after the 1st chemo was completed, my husband asked for another oncologist because he felt there was bias in his cancer treatment based on age and disability. My husband was a disabled person, using 2 canes for mobility. He was 64 years old. The head of oncology was then assigned to his case. She stopped all treatment after the 3rd chemo cycle because the cancer continued to grow slowly.

My husband kept asking to get a 2nd opinion from another cancer centre familiar with this type cancer including Princess Margaret. This hospital is one of the top 5 Cholangiocarcinoma research centres in the world. He never received any referrals for a 2nd opinion which Ontarians are legally entitled to or treatment in a specialized cancer centre for which he was eligible.

My husband gave examples to the oncologist of people he knew from Windsor-Essex, who were treated more extensively for this type of cancer at stage 4. They were sent to London Health Sciences or Princess Margaret hospital for treatment. They all survived more than 12 months. They were not disabled. They had been younger than he was. She did not provide any more chemo treatments to slow down the progression.

After being refused additional chemo treatment, my husband wrote 2 letters to the President of the Windsor Regional hospital over a 6 week period to express in both letters that he believed he was treated differently because of age and disability. He gave examples to support this. He asked to be sent to another cancer treatment centre as a result. The President replied by email to the 1st letter expressing he would have his family treated by the physician assigned. The President did not reply to the 2nd letter.

Several weeks after my husband passed, I wrote to the President about the lack of responses on the allegations of ageist and bias behaviors which my husband referred to. An independent review of the situation was conducted more than 1 year later. The independent review addressed issues in patient relations, communications and information sharing. The issue of ageist treatment and deprivation of treatment as a result of both age and disability which my husband had raised were not addressed.