As time advanced, conflicting medical findings and professional opinions muddied our understanding of Matt’s condition and prognosis. For example, after the first week, one doctor commented that Matt’s neurological assessment had improved slightly. Yet the very next day, a different doctor, in a monotone voice and practical manner, indicated no change! I sensed that he was questioning, “What do you expect?” I bristled at this turnabout.

Later that same day, the Chief Neurosurgeon, who was seeing Matt for the first time, expressed his view that he did not see any permanent brain damage on the MRI. What others described as ischemia in the corpus callosum and left temporal region he viewed as swelling. The neurosurgeon reiterated the fact that until the blood clot in the ventricle dissolved over the course of the next month or two, we wouldn’t have a clear picture of Matt’s potential recovery. In his professional opinion, “It wasn’t unrealistic for Matt to regain independent living to some degree,” and, “We would be doing him a disservice if we did not give him a chance.” Even this favorable proclamation came across as stronghanded and offensive, especially to Mike.

Several days passed before we realized that, at any moment in time, the current physician demanding our attention, was not conveying the collective sentiment of the entire medical team. We were unwitting participants caught in the volley of deeply held convictions and personal interpretations from the various key providers in Matt’s care. One side served up, “Massive brain bleed. … he may be nothing more than a vegetable,” the other defensively retorted, “Minimal cortical ischemia. . .. it would be a disservice if you didn’t give him a chance.” Did they expect us to blindly align ourselves with the most persuasive rhetoric?

Hitherto, my family and I had naively placed confidence in the efficacy of daily rounds and behind-the-scenes collaboration. We trusted that the medical cohort had discussed controversial findings, weighed the varying schools of thought, and would then offer them up for our consideration—pros and cons. If that was their intent, it missed the mark. To us, they came across as dueling factions, and their apparent power plays were infuriating.  We were overwhelmed by the immensity of our dilemma and needed clarity, not confusion, and--the ability to make an informed decision.

In exasperation I broached the physician assistant, with whom we had frequent interaction, to be our intermediary. I laid it all out on the table—our utter vexation at the apparent lack of a cohesive group approach. I explained that it seemed like a high-stakes game of chess in which, we were mere pawns being maneuvered around by doctors doing their utmost to convince us of their expert advice. In indignation, I demanded and challenged the “team” to work together and present a unified front. In addition, I naively questioned, “If Matt’s body is frantically waging war against a major onslaught of medical problems how could they possibly, or even accurately evaluate his neurological status? Wasn’t it feasible that Matt might have a better chance to improve neurologically once the infections, extreme swings in vitals, and other issues were brought under control?” The physician assistant respectfully listened to my tirade and gracefully agreed to advocate on our behalf. Thankfully, in this regard, interactions with the physicians improved thereafter.