Unsettling Place(s) at the end of life

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113536Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Place of death is associated with a ‘good (or not so good) death’.

  • Critical considerations of space and place of dying and death have been limited.

  • Site of care and death is influenced by sociocultural and political factors.

  • These factors inflect actions of patients and families, as well as professionals.

Abstract

Critical considerations of space and place at the end of life have been limited in the social science literature. To address this gap, we draw on empirical data from two interrelated but separate qualitative Australian data sets to critically examine dying in relation to considerations of space, place and affect. These studies share the primary aim to better understand and articulate end-of-life experiences, with one using video reflexive ethnography and the other semi-structured interviews with patients. Challenging the broader valorisation of particular places of dying and death (e.g. home, hospice, hospital), we critically explore the meanings and affects of space and place and how they are rooted in normative expectations. Drawing on participant accounts we interrogate simplistic concepts of home versus hospice, or hospital versus community, developing a critical social science of the intersections of space and place at the end of life.

Introduction

An interesting paradox of palliative care policy and practice is the lack of critical analysis of space and place. This is despite place – particularly place of death – being central to the cultural imaginary of a ‘good death’. Death at home has, for some time, been considered ‘successful’ and the idea that the majority of people prefer to die at home is commonplace in policy and practice in Australia and beyond (ACSQHC, 2013; Department of Health, 2008; Robinson et al., 2016). Hospital deaths, are in contrast, often presented as technical, impersonal, and even inhumane (Illich, 1976; McNamara and Rosenwax, 2007; Seymour, 1999), and ‘place’ has thus become a proxy measure of quality of palliative care services (Maimoona et al., 2019).

Given this injunction toward place, medical and palliative care literature on death and dying has in turn tended to focus on such matters as: preferences for place of death (Arnold et al., 2015; Gomes et al., 2013; Higginson et al., 2013); the conditions that underpin whether or not preferences for place of death are met (Bell et al., 2010); and whether or not specialist palliative care services promote death and dying at home and/or reduce hospital admissions (DiMartino et al., 2014; Luckett et al., 2013; Seow et al., 2014). This body of work has been largely driven by the rhetoric of choice within dying. In other words, extant scholarship has tended to reinforce the idea that individualised, autonomous choice will make possible the kind of deaths people want (Borgstrom and Walter, 2015).

The aforementioned (and decontextualised) imaginaries of death and dying evade the growing complexities of such influences as stretched healthcare systems and the political interests involved in (re)locating care beyond the state (Gott, 2014). These influences, to a large extent, drive an agenda of ‘ageing in place’ and home-based care (Wiles, 2004). This shift is accompanied in many OECD countries, with an agenda to reduce length of hospital stays and minimise use of hospital beds by transferring care to the home (Williams, 2002).

Further complicating the spatial dimensions of dying, studies of death and dying ‘at home’ have tended to privilege home as the physical dwelling place (Visser, 2019). Home has often been imbued with meanings associated with attachment, nurturing, comfort, peace and the associated assumption that this attachment is one that is inherently supportive and adaptive (Milligan, 2018). Home, it is assumed, is where ‘natural’ dying can occur surrounded by one's family and supported by community (Horsfall et al., 2011). Within such framings, places for/of dying and death are seen as bounded fixed entities in which social events and processes occur (Collier, 2013).

Although the study of space and place has much to offer research in the study of death and dying, this has not been fully realised (Williams, 2002). The aim of this paper is to explore differentially positioned people's (i.e. patient, family, health care worker) experiences of end-of-life care in relation to space and place. Our central argument is that by foregrounding space, the multi-dimensional character of lived experience (at the end of life) might be captured in a way not otherwise possible. This, in turn, might mean greater attention to matters of most importance to people who are dying and their families.

Section snippets

Intersections of space, place and affect at the end of life

In thinking about the importance of space, place and affect at the end of life, we will first foreground some of the logics underpinning these concepts. The meanings ascribed to place and space have long been debated. Place is often seen as a particular lived space, and local, bounded and ‘fixed’. According to Tuan, place is a “concretion of value, it is an object in which one can dwell” (Tuan, 1977 p. 12). In other words, place is space that has been ascribed meaning (Tuan, 1977). This is in

Methods

We examined data from two previously separate studies (see Table 1 below). The connectivities between these studies were established when they were independently presented at a special session titled Space, Place and Wellbeing during the 18th International Medical Geography Symposium (IMGS) in 2019. We recognised synergies in our findings that our independent analysis of separate studies had not brought to light. This led us to jointly analyse our data from these studies through the conceptual

Death and dying: a political space

Often, it was not a question of ‘home’ itself, but how Government (in this case the Australian Government) was perceived to ‘prefer’ home as a place of care. This was, as reflected in the interviews, read as not about the superiority of home as a place for dying, but the desire to reduce costs for health services. In this sense, ‘home’ was viewed as becoming (increasingly) a politicised space inasmuch as it was a personal/private environment as this participant expressed:

Participant: I think so

Discussion

The findings of this paper extend previous work on space and place at the end of life. First, they are aligned with our own and others' studies showing that home as a concept, at the end of life, can only be understood in terms of its dynamic, emergent and relational properties (Williams, 2002). Further, our findings challenge simplistic ideas about home versus hospice, or hospital versus home, in care, dying and death. We have further emphasised the problematic of injunctions toward home as

Credit author statement

Aileen Collier: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Data analysis, Writing-Original draft preparation; Writing- Reviewing and Editing. Alex Broom: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Data collection, Data analysis, Writing- Original draft preparation.

Declaration of competing interest

None.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Australian Research Council who funded both studies. We also wish to thank all participants of our respective studies. Our thanks also to reviewers who, through their constructive comments, contributed to the quality of this manuscript.

References (55)

  • ACSQHC

    Evidence for the Safety and Quality Issues Associated with the Care of Patients with Cognitive Impairment in Acute Care Settings: A Rapid Review

    (2013)
  • J. Agnew

    Space and place

  • E. Arnold et al.

    Preferred place of death for patients referred to a specialist palliative care service

    BMJ Support. Palliat. Care

    (2015)
  • L. Bondi et al.

    Introduction: geography's “emotional turn”

  • K. Brickell

    Mapping’ and ‘doing’ critical geographies of home

    Prog. Hum. Geogr.

    (2011)
  • M. Brown

    Dying Epistomologies: an analysis of home death and its critique

    Environ. Plann.

    (2001)
  • M. Brown

    Hospice and the spatial paradoxes of terminal care

    Environ. Plann.

    (2003)
  • I. Burkitt

    Emotions and Social Relations

    (2014)
  • M. Cardona-Morrell et al.

    Non-beneficial treatments in hospital at the end of life: a systematic review on extent of the problem

    Int. J. Qual. Health Care

    (2016)
  • V.A. Crooks et al.

    Places and spaces

  • A. Collier et al.

    The meaning of home at the end of life: a video reflexive ethnography study

    Palliat. Med.

    (2015)
  • A. Collier

    Deleuzians of Patient Safety: A Video Reflexive Ethnography of End-Of-Life Care. (PhD)

    (2013)
  • Department of Health

    End of Life Care Strategy for Adults

    (2008)
  • L. DiMartino et al.

    Do palliative care interventions reduce emergency department visits among patients with cancer at the end of life? A systematic review

    J. Palliat. Med.

    (2014)
  • B. Gomes et al.

    Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review

    BMC Palliat. Care

    (2013)
  • M. Gott

    Avoidable for whom? Hospital use at the end of life

    Palliat. Med.

    (2014)
  • S. Hauge et al.

    The nursing home as a home: a field study of residents' daily life in the common living rooms

    J. Clin. Nurs.

    (2008)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text