When the Future Is Not Now: With Optimism Comes Hope

Listen to ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, “When the Future Is Not Now,” by Janet Retseck, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin. The essay is followed by an interview with Retseck and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Drawing on cultural history, Retseck explores a dying cancer patient’s persistent optimism.

TRANSCRIPT

Narrator: When the Future Is Not Now, by Janet Retseck, MD, PhD 

 The most optimistic patient I have ever met died a few years ago of lung cancer. From the beginning, Mr L was confident that he would do well, enthusiastically telling me, “I’ll do great!” As chemoradiation for his stage III lung cancer commenced, he did do well. Until he got COVID.

And then reacted to the chemotherapy. And then was admitted with pneumonia. And then c. difficile diarrhea. And then c. diff again. But whenever we checked in with him, he reported, “I’m doing great!” He could not wait to return to treatment, informing me, “We’re going to lick this, Doc!” Of course I asked him if he wanted to know prognosis, and of course he said no, because he was going to do great. He trusted that his radiation oncologist and I would be giving him the absolute best treatment for his cancer, and we did. In the end, weak and worn out and in pain, with cancer in his lungs and lymph nodes and liver and even growing through his skin, he knew he was not doing great. But he remained thankful, because we had done our best for him. Our best just wasn’t enough.

While it can overlap with hope, optimism involves a general expectation of a good future, whereas hope is a specific desire or wish for a positive outcome. Research has shown that for patients with cancer, maintaining optimism or hope can lead to better quality of life.1,2 As an oncologist, I am in favor of anything that helps my patients live longer and better, but sometimes I also wonder if there is any real cause for optimism, because the odds of living at all with advanced cancer are just so bad. From 2013 to 2019, the 5-year relative survival rate for people with stage III lung cancer was 28%. For stage IV disease, it was just 7%.3 Immunotherapy and targeted treatments have improved outcomes somewhat, but the chances for most patients of living more than a couple of years after being diagnosed remain low. Even with our best treatments, there seems to be more reason for despair than optimism. Yet here was my patient and his persistent optimism, his faith in treatment to give him a good future, and my hope that he was right, even when I knew he was probably wrong. What drives this belief in a good future, a better future, in the face of such a rotten present? Optimism as a word and a philosophy emerged in the 18th century in the work of German thinker Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. As it was for my patient, optimism served as a way to negotiate the problem of human suffering.

 Attempting to explain how a perfect, omniscient, and loving God could allow so much suffering, imperfection, and evil, Leibniz argued that God has already considered all possibilities and that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Leibniz did not mean that this world is some sort of a utopia; rather, the God-given freedom to choose to do good or evil, and even our vulnerable aging bodies, are good in themselves.4 If my patient were Leibniz, his optimism about his cancer could be explained by an acceptance that everything happens for a reason, his suffering somehow part of a larger whole, selected by God as the best possible way to the greatest good. 

But while Mr L did take his diagnosis and various complications in stride, a belief that it was all for the best did not seem to be at the core of his optimism. Nor, in the end, did he reject his optimism, as the French philosopher Voltaire would have him do. Voltaire famously skewered Leibniz’s optimism in his 1759 novel Candide, in which Candide, having been raised on Leibniz’ philosophy, is kicked out into the cold, cruel world, where not just he, but everyone around him, suffers horribly and unremittingly, such that at one point, he cries, “If this is the best of all possible worlds, what must the others be like?”

Whatever Voltaire’s satire in favor of empirical knowledge and reason did to Leibniz’s philosophy, it did not kill optimism itself. Scientific optimism, in the form of progressivism, the idea that science and our future could only get better and better, flourished in the nineteenth century. Certainly, life for many did improve with scientific advancements in everything from medicine to telephones to airplanes. With this brightness, though, came a deepening shadow, a tension heightened by the experience of chemical warfare and shellshock in World War I.

Instead of better living through chemistry, science provided the means for horrifically more efficient death. The assimilation of science to the service of evil soon culminated in the vile spread of eugenics, racism, and mass murder. Like Candide, pretty much everyone in the 21st century must be wondering if we do not live in the worst of all possible worlds. And yet, when it came down to it, what else could my patient hold onto if not optimism that science would save his life? As I continued to reflect on Mr L’s response to his illness, I realized that I had unconsciously already stumbled on Mr L’s type of optimism, or rather its popular culture archetype.

One day, when he was getting his chemotherapy in an isolation room due to his recent COVID infection, I passed by the glass window. I waved, and he waved back. Then, I put my hand up to the glass, fingers separated in the Vulcan salute. He laughed, and waved again. The scene, for non-Star Trek fans, is from the movie The Wrath of Khan. The Vulcan, Spock, too is in glass-walled isolation, dying of radiation poisoning, after having sacrificed himself to save the ship and its crew. He and Captain Kirk connect through the glass with the Vulcan salute, as Spock tells his friend, “Live long, and prosper.” Later, Mr L told me that he had never been able to do the Vulcan salute and that he was not especially a Star Trek fan, though he had watched it years ago with his kids. But he loved this private joke we had, flashing this sign to me whenever we met, laughing when he could not make his fingers part properly.

Star Trek epitomizes optimism for the future, arising as it did in the context of the Space Race to the Moon. Set in the 23^rd century, Star Trek reveals that humans have finally learned the error of their ways: nuclear warfare, racism, and poverty are all things of the past, as are most diseases, ameliorated by the advance of science. In the world of Star Trek, medicine is, if not easy, then at least almost always successful. In one episode, the ship’s doctor, McCoy, and Spock whip up an antidote to a deadly aging virus. Later, slung back to 1980s San Francisco in Star Trek: Voyage Home, McCoy, aghast at “medieval” 20th-century medicine, gives an elderly woman on dialysis a pill that allows her to grow a new kidney. In the world of Star Trek, cancer, of course, has been cured long ago. My patient’s optimism is realized here, in a future that regards 20th-century science as “hardly far ahead of stone knives and bear skins,” as Spock complains in another episode. Star Trek remains popular because, in spite of everything, there endures a deep desire for, if not the best, then at least a better possible world.

I’m an oncologist, not a Vulcan, and when it became clear that Mr L was not going to “live long and prosper,” I was frustrated and disappointed. His optimism could no longer sustain my hope. We were not in the idealized world of Star Trek, and I could not heal him with science and technology. Whatever the future of medicine might hold, our best possible treatments were still just “stone knives and bearskins.” Optimism, whether his, mine, or that of science, would not save him. The only optimism that seemed warranted was not for the future, but in the future.

At the family meeting to discuss hospice, Mr L sat in a wheelchair, weak and thin, on oxygen, wrapped in a warm blanket. As his family slowly came to realize that their time with him and all that he was to them—father, husband, bedrock—was moving into the past, he seemed to shift from a focus on the future to the reality of now. Gathering his strength, he dismissed their concerns about what his loss would mean to them with a sweep of his arm. Tearful, but not despairing, he instructed his children to support their mother and each other after he was gone. At the end, Mr L’s optimism became not about his future, but theirs. His wish was for them to embrace living their own best lives as they entered this new, not better, future, a future without him.

A few days later, I visited him in his hospital room while he was waiting to go home with hospice care. He was dozing in the bed, and I hated to wake him. Then he opened his eyes and smiled. We chatted for a bit, but he tired easily. As I prepared to leave, I tried to give him the Vulcan salute one last time. He shook his head and opened his arms. “Give me a hug!” he said. And I did.

I would like to thank Mr L’s family and the Moving Pens writing group at the Medical College of Wisconsin for their invaluable support.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. With me today is Dr. Janet Retseck, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin and the author of “When the Future is Not Now.” 

Dr. Retseck has no disclosures.  

Welcome to the show, Janet. 

Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, thank you. Thank you for inviting me.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's our pleasure to have you on. I like to start the conversation by asking authors what is on their night table or if they have a good recommendation for our listeners and colleagues. 

Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, I usually read three books at a time—one book of short stories, one book of nonfiction, and one novel. And right now I'm reading Elizabeth Hand's book of short stories, Last Summer at Mars Hill. I am reading Dr. Rachel Remens' Kitchen Table Wisdom because I work with The Healer's Art, and I found this book misplaced, and I thought, "Oh, my, I should read that." And I'm reading a novel called The Donut Legion by Joe Landsdale. And I bought this because I liked the title, and I am very hopeful that it involves a group of people using donuts to fight evil.

 Dr. Lidia Schapira: How interesting. I look forward to listening and hearing more about that.  

Let me start by asking a little bit about your motivation for writing this essay. I mean, we often write to process difficult experiences, and then what leads many authors to want to share it and publish it is that there is a message or that something was particularly impactful. And I was struck by the fact that you start by sharing with us that you took care of Mr. L, the patient, and the story some time ago, several years ago. So what about Mr. L sort of left a deep impression with you, and if there is one, what is the message and what drove you to write this story?

Dr. Janet Retseck: Mr. L and I connected right away when he came to my clinic. At that time, he did have a curable lung cancer, but everything that could go wrong did go wrong. Yet he had a dispositional optimism. He always told us, no matter what was going on, "I'm doing great,” just like that. When he died, I had a lot of grief around that. And at that time, I thought I would perhaps write about that grief and whether I had any right to that grief. And so I opened up a software that allows mind mapping, and I just looked at it last night in preparation for this interview. And on one side, it has all the things that I cared about and connected with Mr. L, and on the other, there's this bright purple line going with big letters "Do Better." 

Then I reflected again on our connection with the Vulcan “Live long and prosper,” and how ironic it was that that's what one of our connections was. And yet he was not living long and prospering, and nothing about that over-the-top optimism of Star Trek had happened at all with all the medicine that I was able to give him. And that's where it came together. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk a little bit about that Vulcan salute. My digging around a little bit led me to understand that it was Leonard Nimoy who introduced that and that it's really a representation of a Hebrew letter, Shin. So how did you and Mr. L come up with a Vulcan salute? What did it mean to you? It's very moving how you tell us about it and what it symbolized. And so I just want to give you a chance to tell our listeners a little bit more about that.

Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, there was a point during his chemoradiation when Mr. L developed the COVID infection, and radiation oncology wanted to continue with radiation, and he wanted to continue with chemotherapy. And everything we knew at the time, we felt it would be safe to do so because it's a pretty low dose. It's just radio-sensitizing. But anyone getting chemotherapy in our infusion center had to be in an isolation room. And this has a glass window. And I was walking past, and I saw him in there, and I kind of goofed around with him. The scene from the movie Wrath of Khan came to me, where Spock is in an isolation room, and Kirk connects with him through the glass. Spock is dying, and Kirk doesn't want him to die, and they give the Vulcan salute to each other through the glass. And of course, he couldn't quite do it. He knew what I was doing. He watched Star Trek in the past, but he wasn't especially a fan. But after that, that was our thing. Whenever he came in, he was trying, he was struggling to push his fingers apart. That was one of the ways we just connected with each other, to signal our affection for each other.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: There is a lot of affection here. When I finished reading it, I read it several times, but I just thought the word "love" came to mind. There's so much love we feel for patients. We often don't quite say the word because we have these weird associations with love as something that's forbidden, but that's what this feels like, and that's the origin for our grief. I mean, we've really lost a loved one here as well. Mr. L sounds incredibly special, even in that last scene where he wants his family to imagine a future without him. So tell us a little bit about your reflections from what you've learned from and with Mr. L about how people who have really no future to live think about their own future and sort of their presence or their memory for those who love them.

Dr. Janet Retseck: That's a very complicated question. For Mr. L. I think he was certain he was going to do well, that with all everything that we would be giving him, that he would survive and spend more time with his family and that's what he held onto. And I don't know that it was sort of delusional hope. We get every brand of acceptance and denial as oncologists. We have people coming in with their magic mushrooms, their vitamins, their vitamin C infusions. We have people going down to Mexico for their special secret treatments that have been withheld by pharmaceutical companies. We have people denying altogether that they are sick, coming in with fungating masses. But Mr. L was very different from that. His disposition was "Everything is good and it's going to be good, and I trust you 100%," and that's a big responsibility— is to take the patient's trust and to try to deliver on that. And in some way, my grief when he died was I could not do that in a lot of the ways the medicine world is at now. We break our patients' trust.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I sort of would push back a little bit on that.

Dr. Janet Retseck: As you should.  

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Good. I'm trying to do my job here and say that you shared that you both were disappointed by the limitations of what current medicine can offer, and that's I think where you sort of spin your sort of philosophical and very beautiful reflection on the future. It is my understanding that that's where the title of this piece also comes, that you and Mr. L sort of could bond over his optimism and over the sort of futuristic view that medicine can fix anything until you couldn't. And then you both sort of adapted, adjusted, accepted, and again bonded in a very different way through the bonds of affection and support in presence. So I would not want your readers to think that your heart is broken because you disappointed him because you couldn't cure him, but that your heart is broken, if it was, because you had such affection and respect for him. 

I agree with you that he seemed to be well served by his optimism and it was working for him until it wasn't anymore. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about how you think about that optimism and hope and acceptance.

Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, I should come clean and say I'm an optimist myself. I have to be, as an oncologist. Here we are starting at the very beginning with a patient, a curable intent, or is palliative intent, and we are giving these very harsh drugs, and I am optimistic I am going to do good rather than hurt the patient. And I tell them that right up front, this is what we hope will happen. Optimism really subtends to everything that I do, as well as an oncologist. So I don't mean to say we shouldn't hope, we should not be optimistic about what we can do now, but there's also that tension with the desire to do better always for our patients.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Janet, I was struck by your sort of teaching us about the origin of the word optimism. So, say a little bit more about what led you to go back to thinking about what the word actually means and how your patient illustrated this for you.

 Dr. Janet Retseck: Thank you for asking that. It was actually serendipitous because I had settled on the Star Trek motif for thinking about my relationship with Mr. L and Star Trek with all of its optimism about the future, and it just fits so well with Mr. L's disposition. And I thought I need to differentiate that from hope or wishful thinking or magical thinking because it is something very different. So I went to the handy dictionary and looked up optimism, and right there the first definition: optimism is a philosophy developed by Leibniz regarding the best of all possible worlds. In other words, this is the world that is the best possible one of all the possibilities, even with all the suffering and the evil and the pain that we have to deal with. And so I thought, well, maybe I'll learn a little bit more about this Leibniz. I'd heard the phrase ‘best of all possible worlds’ before.  

I did a little research and I found this wonderful article that I cite in my paper that described Leibniz and his optimistic science. And I thought, well, this is a real way in to thinking about Mr. L and putting into a larger context of optimism versus hope and optimism and its focus on the future. And really that idea of, not that everything that's happening to him is for the best, but it's the best. He got the best, and he very thoroughly believed that he was getting the best treatment, and he was. But my point was that even though it was the best, it wasn't enough yet. So where is that ‘enough’ located? And I think it is located in the future, but it's a future we can continue to hope for, and a future I think will come to pass someday. Someday we will not need to be oncologists, just like there don't need to be doctors who treat tuberculosis anymore.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So when my son was very little and he heard me very optimistically also talk about new treatments and so on, he said to me, “Mummy, the day that there's no more cancer, what are you going to do?” If somebody asked you the same question? What do you imagine yourself doing other than being an oncologist?

Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, I guess I would go back to being an English professor.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Tell us more about that. 

Dr. Janet Retseck: Now, I have let the cat out of the bag. So that little Ph.D. next to my name, I've decided to embrace that - that is in English. And as many people may know, the job market in English is not fantastic. And I've always had a bent toward science and medicine. And when I discovered that it was possible to go back and get my sciences, in part through sheer memorization, I decided to do that. Because what better way to spend ten years of my life than learning how to be a physician?

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So in the last minute of the podcast, tell us a little bit about your Ph.D. What is your area of interest, and have you taught? Are you planning to go back to teaching or are you currently teaching?

Dr. Janet Retseck: My Ph.D. is more or less in Victorian novel and interpretation, and I taught for 16 or 17 years, mostly community college, some at the Claremont Colleges, mostly composition, and I am teaching right now. This is what I love, being at the Medical College of Wisconsin. It is like I hit a home run coming here because they have a very strong medical humanities program. And when I arrived here, I was directly pointed to the directors of the medical humanities, “Look, here's a Ph.D. in English!” And I thought, “You mean I can do something with this here in medicine?” And so I connected with Bruce Campbell and Art Derse, who were instrumental in bringing narrative medicine to the Medical College of Wisconsin. So I'll be teaching a class of that in narrative medicine in the spring, and I do everything I can to teach the medical students and residents and fellows here at the Medical College of Wisconsin as a VA.

 Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, that was quite a surprise for me. I didn't know that. I knew, reading your essay, that it was beautifully written. Thank you. I was going to ask what your Ph.D. was in, expecting you to tell me something about some branch of science I know nothing about. But this came as a surprise. So I am so glad that you're doing what you're doing. I'm sure your patients and your future students really appreciate it and will appreciate it. So thank you so much, Janet. 

And until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. 

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  

Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experiences, and conclusions; guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. 

Show Notes: 

Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.

Guest Bio: 

Dr. Janet Retseck is an Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin.