People with terminal illness badly need mental health support. My wife was one

Ct Scanner

Our oncology team were amazing: they left no stone unturned. But her mental health problems remained untreated.’ Photograph: View Pictures/UIG via Getty Images

My wife died a few months ago from cancer after battling it bravely for almost three years. The physical symptoms were so tough: pain, nausea, loss of mobility, and others too distressing to talk about here.

But the suffering she endured from the moment she received her diagnosis, until she entered the hospice where she ended her days, was almost entirely down to the difficulty she had coming to terms with her disability. It was the deep depression and rampant anxiety that very quickly spiralled out of control that made her life – and the lives of those closest to her – so difficult.

She was unwilling to go outside – not even to sit in our lovely garden, not even to listen to the birds. She cried every day, sometimes all day. She couldn’t eat, couldn’t read a book, didn’t know what pleasure felt like. In the last year of her life, all she could do was sit silently on our settee, watching dreary daytime television.

It’s astonishing to think that just a few short years before she had been a vibrant, highly intelligent and outgoing person. She loved the garden, her allotment, loved design. In 2016 she started to feel terrible pain in her back, and by early 2017 we found out it was cancer which had spread to her spine. You don’t need to be a genius to anticipate the impact that would have on anyone’s mental health.

And yet, shamefully, she never saw a psychologist or a psychiatrist, she never had a serious mental health assessment. Yes, she was offered counselling and cognitive behavioural therapy by Macmillan Cancer Support, the hospital and our local NHS services.

But the waiting lists could be months long, and the people who delivered the therapies were often inexperienced or just not knowledgeable enough about terminal illness. She would only get a few weeks of therapy, as if somehow her problems would magically go away, only for her to go straight back on the waiting list.

Not that the sessions helped anyway. She’d leave a CBT session clutching leaflets she was supposed to go away and read – an impossible task for someone who was often too stressed to even look at a newspaper. “Go and do some gardening,” one of the sheets said: not a very sensitive thing to say to a disabled woman who loved gardening but would never be able to do that again.

She was only offered antidepressants a year or so into her illness, but steadfastly refused to take them until she was admitted to a hospice. It was her choice, of course, though in the hands of an experienced psychiatrist she might have made a different decision or had different options.

Our oncology team were amazing: they left no stone unturned when it came to trying to find ways to help Sarah’s physical symptoms. But her mental health problems remained untreated; she never had a chance of seeing the hospital’s overstretched psycho-oncologist.

I make no criticism of our dedicated and caring NHS clinical staff. They are not to blame for a health culture that has always been more interested in the physical than the psychological, though the result of that imbalance is often tragic, especially when it comes to people with terminal illness. And this deficiency is unlikely to change without more scientists and funding bodies devoting time and cash to researching new therapies to support the mental health of those with terminal illness, or evaluating existing ones. I am not aware of a single project that is looking at what’s effective when it comes to NHS provision for the psychological needs of the dying.

When she was in the final weeks of her life and when her physical symptoms were at their most pernicious, Sarah finally, strangely, found some peace, even though she couldn’t feed herself, talk, walk or sit up. Maybe it was the medication, maybe it was the caring and experienced hospice staff, but her mood did seem to lighten a little and she died peacefully, surrounded by people who loved her.

When her physical symptoms were at their worst, she paradoxically suffered the least, and that I believe is because her psychological needs were finally – at least to an extent – addressed. It’s so sad that she never experienced anything remotely like that in the three long years which preceded her demise. We can only hope that there are doctors, nurses, scientists and politicians who feel strongly enough to put time and energy into finding ways to help these most vulnerable of people, and make the suffering go away.

 Mike Addelman is a former journalist and now works as a communications professional in higher education

Pollution, populism and presidentials…

… will these define the 2020s? This has been a turbulent decade across the world – protest, austerity, mass migration. The Guardian has been in every corner of the globe, reporting with tenacity, rigour and authority on the most critical events of our lifetimes. At a time when factual information is both scarcer and more essential than ever, we believe that each of us deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.

We have upheld our editorial independence in the face of the disintegration of traditional media – with social platforms giving rise to misinformation, the seemingly unstoppable rise of big tech and independent voices being squashed by commercial ownership. The Guardian’s independence means we have the freedom to set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Our journalism is free from commercial and political bias – never influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This makes us different. It means we can challenge the powerful without fear and give a voice to those less heard.

None of this would have been possible without our readers’ generosity – your financial support has meant we can keep investigating, disentangling and interrogating. It has protected our independence, which has never been so critical. We are so grateful.

You’ve read 101 articles in the last four months. More people than ever before are reading and supporting our journalism, in more than 180 countries around the world. And this is only possible because we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.

As we end 2019 and enter a new decade, we hope you will consider offering us your support. We need this so we can keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. And that is here for the long term. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable.