>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: josh sapan is here, the president and ceo of amc networks. the network has made cable-television a destination for high quality, scripted shows. amc made a name for themselves with the critically acclaimed series, "mad men," and the other one, "breaking bad." their brands also include ifc and sundance. their expanding boundaries of the cable television industry. he was an early champion of video on demand. for his newest venture, the

documentary series, "take five" will debut on sundance. the first five installments america on justice in will air on may 17. i am pleased to have you here. let's talk specifics. what is "take five."? josh: we have a new streaming service. charlie: hbo does it, hulu does it. [laughter] josh: that took care of the explanation. it is a streaming service, thank you for explaining. it is called sundance now. it arguably perhaps the biggest reservoir in collection of documentaries that man has amassed. charlie: you have curated a collection. that was actually a cable

channel called discovery, formed on that idea, way back when. josh: exactly right. it is perhaps the case that the cable channel with ads to support it is not the right formulation for the world's greatest documentaries that may have not mass appeal, but may have great importance. to that end, in addition to this collection which we are adding feature films as well, we did our first original series. the notion was to do something interesting in documentaries and timely. so what we did, we try to create, if i can say it this way, what might be the op-ed page of today and tomorrow by putting it in the hands of five filmmakers, and enough money to make five-minute films on one subject. charlie: the same subject? josh: the same. filmie: five great

makers, and say go make a mov ie. a you take five film makers and say this is the subject. josh: the subject is just in america, what does that mean to you? we did that. we took five documentarians and we at amc put ourselves in the hands of creators. we said, go do it. we will juxtapose all five and put them out on the streaming service and a world can see that these individuals think justice in america means. charlie: you have seen the evolution we have seen -- i mentioned streaming. you have a deal with hulu. i have a deal with hulu. everyone does. [laughter] charlie: my point is, in fact, we have all begun to love streaming. we love the idea of "house of cards." we can watch all of those episodes in a splurge of we want to. -- if we want to. what happened? what did the internet bring?

josh: i think that the internet did bring -- to focus on this, streaming services, and notably, perhaps most notably, the word "binging" is associated with it because all of the service -- episodes are available day one. the internet also brought homemade material that was not professional. it was idiosyncratic in the form of youtube. charlie: very powerful. josh: it is interesting, however, because it is the rage -- i would call it. the new technology in the new format. streaming. we see services develop. at the same time, i think there is extraordinary material on broadcast television. charlie: what are you doing with hulu?

josh: we have an arrangement with hulu today in which we essentially syndicate. they are a partner. the material that we make, for the most part, later goes to them, in about one year's time. if you want to see the later episodes of "fear of the walking dead," you will see them on hulu about a year later. hulu did just announce, however, they have not announced to their partners are. they made some news that they are going to offer a package of video services. they have not declared who will be in the package. charlie: who are the examples? josh: you have to ask them for the final word. the rumor is they will offer the price point may be in the range so people have said of the $30 or $40. it would be a collection of broadcasting. charlie: thinking about a quote from somebody that said, 80 we -- maybe we have too much

original programming -- does that have resonance with you? josh: no. i don't think so. it has been said frequently. i think it has been said because the old regime of tv, the old regime, which did not have streaming and did not have cable, and did not have all of these apps. and did not have the ability to buy streaming services was that to select all material was limited. in that regime or organization, the economic system perhaps did not support as much material as there is today. i think the system is evolving. many people who have netflix or hulu or amazon also have cable. it is now supporting more options. people have shown an appetite for it. i actually think it is a moment of great diversification and

abundance and creative brilliance. charlie: enough talented people to feed this monster. josh: i think big time. the appetite is there. charlie: there was a piece in "deadline." you are quoted as saying people and television are all in one business television are all in one sense competitors. they are all interested in some of the material we are. they are all direct competitors, they are all competitive to a degree in so much they might have a show we would want on. are they drafting off the same economic opportunities, no, they are all different. what did netflix accomplish, other than a subscription model as a genuine revenue contributed? josh: that is primarily what they accomplished. the way they got there was interesting. i do think that is interesting they deserve full credit for having, not only done that, and

designed it, and implemented it. but done it with an interest. when "house of cards" which became their signature and "orange is the new black" which were defining. i do think they develop material that was important. they took advantage of the technology. charlie: they got everyone's attention it was announced they would spend $100 million on a original production. "house of cards." josh: there is material and all of the services and channels that we or i would envy. we are now, and we are competitive writ large, but we are also companions. one in every two households more or less in the u.s. subscribes to netflix and nine out of 10 have cable. they are sitting side-by-side. people are doing both. charlie: factor in how many

young people i know who say, i don't have a television in my house. all of the television they watch is either on their pc, if they still have one, their ipad, or their iphone. all the television and watch. -- they watch. josh: there is no question there is an increasing interest in a reliance on devices that are not in the living room. and anchored -- it will be interesting to see when those younger people start to have families. whether their behavior changes. charlie: what are we waiting for in television? what is the great thing that will somehow transformed beyond everything we have talked about in this conversation? josh: that is a big question. i have the privilege of asking myself that question and saying it is professionally something i should require myself to answer. it is as much fanciful as serious.

i think there is, as with many things, probably not in truth, one answer. charlie: evolutionary rather than revolutionary? josh: an interesting response is whenever technology changes, when you get a little machine and a little screen, you get channel capacity that allows you to a watched or hundred -- to watch 400 channels when it used to be four. the content adapts. you see new forms of stuff. cat videos. the shows he referenced were aided by people being able to not only watch on linear but also on-demand. what is most interesting about

what comes next is what technology comes next and what form, and what creative genius adapts to make that technology come alive. charlie: clearly one thing is going to be -- video is everything. fair to say. josh: yes. charlie: it is clearly, if it is not, it is a close second, it is clear that video somehow video and search are coming together. so that everyone is organizing it for us. here is what fascinates me -- it is the possibility of virtual reality as a storytellers tool. josh: i have seen virtual reality. it is just, it is hard to find words to describe how engaging, inviting, and mesmerizing it is. i do think it will give birth to experiences and actually content

experiences and formulations that were, did not make sense before and were not imaginable. charlie: here's what i'm going to do, i promise, i have this show, we havethis nothing but a table and an interesting person and average questions. what it is is that the viewer likes it. i tell them, you are sitting at the table. you are at the table. therefore you are part of it. not really. but that is what i want them to think. so they are there. virtual reality will give you a better way to communicate that. you can sense that. and however you look, you can focus just on you. watch your hands. you can watch from above. it is amazing. josh: i went to a demo of one of

the technologies, i was literally falling off the cliff and felt in danger and threatened. charlie: for a moment your brain says -- if i go there -- josh: correct, it is thrilling. charlie: you do not know when it will come, but you cannot wait. and you know the velocity of change in the world today is such that it is not that far off. josh: no, it is not that far off. we have had success putting money and resources in the hands of the best creative people who can take that new technology, whether it is nuanced and modest or radical and bring to the world the next great incarnation. charlie: i just think -- what i love about what the internet has done in terms of everything we have talked about, certainly with youtube and whatever apple wants to do, and what you do, it

is the democratization. josh: yeah. charlie: people have access to a place they can create. you can see it. they can raise money. they can watch cats. they can do a thousand different things. they can tell stories. the story might be a minute or five or two hours. people with talent have a place they can raise money to make it and have a place it can be shown. it might not be a hollywood release, but it shows your drive, creativity, and possibility. josh: we are with our five till makers. we had a forum where they stimulated a panel and there were talking about their phones. -- films. i went on twitter in a panel was trending. it was having the desired effect of actually -- it was on the subject of justice in america. it was creating an immediate

social dialogue around that subject. it was actually thrilling. it was breathtaking. charlie: it would be great if that could intrude into the political debate, wouldn't? josh: i think it should. charlie: when you look at what you have done over there, is your favorite program "walking dead," "breaking bad," "mad men." josh: oh, god, it is hard to answer. charlie: don't give me a cliche about your children. josh: [laughter] i would answer it this way, i would say that "breaking bad" was breathtaking. and "better call saul," with vince gilligan, the prequel of "breaking bad" which was what happened with his characters before hand is beautifully nuanced and rare. each note is true.

it resonates, at least for me, wonderfully. we also financed and movie that took 12 years. we made "boyhood." for me, it is a high point. maybe it is just an exercise and professional patients. charlie: thank you for coming. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: john watson, the chairman and ceo of chevron, among the world's largest oil companies. oil prices began a steep decline from $100 a barrel to a low of $26 this past february. production shortages in nigeria and canada has contributed to a resurgent archivist bring with oil hovering near $50. they are also navigating the increased regulation and andronmental policies renewable energy future. i am pleased to have john watson of the table. -- at the table. welcome. let's talk about oil and renewable and where the progress is being made and what chevron

is doing. tell us the dynamics of the fall and rise of oil prices. john: well. at its simplest it is supply and demand. told is thatot demand is predicted. it is not told that supply comes online in big chunks. the industry does many long projects. if you get supply and demand off as you build new capacity, if the economy does not grow as fast, or you have disruptions in supply you can get big excursions up or down in price. that is what we saw recently. we had over the last five years we had production that went off-line in many locations in the middle east. prices went up. the industry responded, built new capacity, we got off as the economy slowed down and as saudi arabia and iran returned supply. we have seen prices respond downwards. we can have big excursions. charlie: let me understand

clearly what saudi arabia did. did they ever reduce the supply that they were providing? john: not in a recent past. they were producing about 9.5 million barrels a day. just as prices were falling, they actually increased production. charlie: with what intent? jon: i think it is been a long strategy on their part to hold market share. if you look at their experience in the past, they would cut production, significantly. in fact they cut production about 75% if you go back 30 years. what happened was other suppliers filled the void. what they have concluded is that they want to maintain their market share over time. and so, they are going to continue to produce. they're going to let others make up that surplus. charlie: some would argue they wanted to drive it out of business. john: i don't think that is what the case is. i think they are saying, we have

low-cost supplies of energy and we will put it on the market. remember opec used at 50%, now they have one third. charlie: so 50% to 33%. john: that's right, and they have no intent on cutting production. saudi arabia is sitting there saying, why should we cut production. charlie: other countries not involved, iran and iraq. john: they are both resuming production. iraq is coming out of a long history of supply being curtailed and iran under sanctions. so, they are getting what they feel is their fair share of production. saudi arabia is saying we are a low-cost source of suplly, we will also produce up to our capability. charlie: and libya? john: very sad circumstance in libya. charlie: a failed state without central leadership. john: most production is off-line. charlie: what did the rise of shale oil do to the oil market?

john: it surprised the oil market would be the first thing. what it really shall be market is there a fairly resilient source of supply available on short notice. much of the oil produced are the long cycle time projects i talked about. what the shale business -- they showed in a short amount of time through the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling we can grow production rapidly if we have the right price environment. charlie: what is the percentage of the national revenues of oil? how significant is the oil contribution and natural gas to the russian economy? john: it is very significant. you should think of the russian economy is largely a petro state. most of the revenue is from oil, some from natural gas, most of it from oil. charlie: is brazil a petrol? john: they have a diverse economy. they have troubles today, but they are a large oil producer. they have the potential to grow production more with some of the offshore discoveries they have had. charlie: venezuela? jon: they technically hold the largest reserves in the world.

venezuela is also facing their own internal difficulties. charlie: they have the largest potential reserves in the world? john: we are the only american company there right now. some of the other companies have left. --found a way too charlie: why did they leave, why did you stay? john: it has mostly been about fiscal terms with the government. we work hard to maintain relationships. charlie: with the successor? john: we deal in long cycle times. we work across the specter. charlie: in the government today, your relationship is fine? john: certainly -- charlie: because you have an existing contract? john: we do have an existing contract. one of the things is we do not -- that distinguishes an -- we do notany adopt an ideology, we work with whatever government is in power. it is illegal of for us to do business, we can do the business according to our standards.

-- legal for us to do business, we can do the business according to our standards. we will do business in many different countries around the world regardless of the political ideology. charlie: where is new oil being discovered? john: with shale oil we found it in all -- old oil fields. we are also seeing oil discovered increasingly in the deep water. i mentioned brazil earlier. we have discoveries in the gulf of mexico, east and west africa. there is oil to be discovered. the arctic has potential longer-term. charlie: what is the difference in chevron and exxon mobil? other than a higher market cap? i think you are second? john: we and shell our about the same. that is correct. there are a lot of differences. we are both in the oil and gas business. we operate in different areas. we emphasize different things.

we have our own way of doing business, they have their own way. they are a fine company. we are a little bit different, mostly from a portfolio point of view. charlie: what do you mean? john: we have more business in upstream, they have more downstream, chemicals. we have business here in the u.s., they do as well, they have big business in russia, we are in other countries. geographically, and we emphasize different segments. charlie: what is your commitment to alternative energy sources? is that a business you leave to others? or is it research and development you do everyday with the revenue you have in order to see and make sure? john: it is a mix right now. we are the largest producer of renewables thanks to the geothermal business in indonesia and the philippines. we spend a lot of money doing research on advanced biofuels. that has proved to be a tough

nut to crack. for everyone in that business. charlie: when someone says, what is the future of fossil fuels? what do you say? john: fossil fuels, if you think about the last 150 years, all the advancements in living standards, everything we enjoy, light, heat, transportation -- by land, sea, and air -- everything that we value is coincident with fossil fuel. new york would be dark without fossil fuels. fossil fuels are important now and will be important for many years to come. charlie: many years means? john: for the foreseeable future. that is not mean we cannot develop other forms of energy. renewables have their place, nuclear has its place. there will be new technologies that will be developed over time that hopefully will bring us other forms of energy. they do have to be competitive. from a price point. for the time being, it is going to take natural gas, it is going to take nuclear, coal, renewables, all of those things in order to meet the supply.

remember the developing world needs all of his energy to raise living standards. they aspire to the things that we have. charlie: do you worry about instability in the middle east? john: certainly. we have seen disruptions in north africa and the middle east in the last few years, of course there is concern. there is also an interest in coming to reasonable agreements so we avoid conflicts. avoid conflict in the future that might disrupt supply and importantly disrupt the drives to improve the standard of living throughout the middle east and elsewhere. charlie: is the united states energy independent? john: the u.s. has -- is blessed with energy. while we still import some oil, we are now starting to export natural gas. i would say there is not an energy crisis in that sense. we have abundant supplies available. we have the potential to produce more. charlie: as you know, people will make the argument understandably is that we have been hostage to the middle east because of the need for their oil.

john: i don't view us as being hostages. every country has their own competitive advantages. the middle east happens to have oil. if you think about it, we have many sources of oil available. i don't see, in a broad sense, there is any shortage of oil. there are risks. most of those risks that we talk about are aboveground risks. there is plenty of oil. if you think about the three largest producers that i mentioned earlier, russia, saudi arabia, and the u.s., those three countries together are only about one third of the supply. there are a lot of other supplies of oil they can be made available. charlie: what about australia? john: australia is a place of big business for us. in our case it is natural gas. we have two big project coming online over the next two years that will contribute lng to asia. charlie: you have worked in one place? was at chevron all your life?

john: i joined chevron out of school in 1980. i never thought i would spend 36 years with the company, but i have been given different opportunities over time. i loved it. i stayed. charlie: can you say to the american global population that we have done everything we can. everything that we can to address climate change and environmental issues? john: oh, no. there's a lot more we can do. in fact i think today we are largely talking past one another on policies. charlie: explain that. john: we have a tendency to talk about one issue at a time. we will talk about we want low energy prices one minute, we talk about lower carbon sources in another. we don't talk about an integrated policy. a couple of examples -- germany, japan, and the u.s. are shutting down nuclear power plants. i'm not in the nuclear power business, but if your biggest

concern were climate change and down?ld you be shutting because of the perceived risk? it is slightly different in each country. the point is, if carbon emissions are the biggest concern, we should be trying to enable nuclear power. we should be trying to enable natural gas. new york state does not allow hydraulic fracking. they do not want pipelines across the land. those of the principal sources of energy, nuclear power and natural gas that will try to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. charlie: keystone pipeline, does it make a difference? john: pipelines in general make a difference. it is the safest way to move oil and gas. they are literally millions of pipeline. we can operate them safely we have to make sure the standards are high and we do it well. to me it has been unfortunate that with a great ally that we

have north of the border that we have not allowed a pipeline to bring oil that is needed in the u.s. it seems like it is not the right policy if you believe in low prices, if you believe in promoting economic activity in the country. charlie: how would you assess president obama in terms of how he has been as president both in terms of environmental protection, in terms of trade. in terms of wanting to -- commitment to paris, and the kinds of records that came out of paris? john: we have some differences in opinion, but there is common ground. there are two areas. one on trade. i would to the university of chicago. i believe in free trade. i believe in the free -- the trade agreements. we have been a supporter of those. charlie: so was the president. his party was not.

john: we will see. where some of these agreements go. charlie: the likely candidate for the democratic party is not. john: that is what we say today. in general there has been bipartisan support for trade. charlie: what happened? john: i don't know. i don't think we have done a good job, by we i mean business and in politics we have not done what we can to show americans the benefits of free trade. the administration i support them on trade. the administration has supported and affirmed that hydraulic fracturing can be done safely. there are some positives. i will say, right now, charlie: the administration is against the pipeline. john: right now there have been some decisions -- there are a lot of relations at businesses right now. charlie: give me an example. john: and oil control rule in the gulf of mexico. has put in 100 new

practices in the last five years to improve drilling safety. with very little engagement with industry, they rushed new provisions. methane regulations. the cost of these methane regulations is disproportionate to the benefit at any reasonable price on carbon. these are two recent examples. in general i would say the power has shifted towards regulators. i think that is a risk for the economy. i don't think it is a coincidence, charlie, we are seeing subpar economic growth. one of the common themes when i talk about -- charlie: regulations are causing the subpar economic growth? john: i think it is the burden whether you talk to bankers or health care executives. charlie: but most people suggest it is not regulation, some people -- most people say it is demand. china's demand has gone down and that has hurt growth in the world economy. john: there is no one thing. what can that united states do ourselves? we missed an opportunity over

the last eight years for meaningful tax reform. we missed an opportunity -- charlie: why did they not take the opportunity? john: we didn't see it. john: we didn't see it. the priorities early were were on putting cap on trade and in a health care law. charlie: was that bad? john: certainly be cap entry position was. how much is the tax and where should it be applied? the average american lives paycheck to paycheck. why would you want to increase the cost on that individual? if you think about the u.s. economy, we are four times as greenhouse gas efficient as china. why would you want to add a get -- additional costs? we are one of the only large industrial countries that has reduced greenhouse gas emissions thanks to natural gas replacing coal. why would you want to add cost to the consumer?

add cost to business. business will simply move if you add cost. that is what is happening in europe. they are a step ahead of us in the sense that consumers are complaining about energy poverty. that is a new term being coined in europe. the businesses are very concerned because their electricity costs are three times what they are in the u.s.. why would we want to go down that path? charlie: let me ask about the status of the lawsuits involving your company in latin america? john: you are referring to a case in ecuador where a new york trial lawyer attempted to defraud my company out of $19 billion. fortunately we were able to prove in a new york court, in a civil case that rico statutes were violated. extortion, wire fraud, basically a racketeering enterprise attempted to defraud my company. we continue to fight that.

there are cases in progress in several jurisdictions where they are attempting to collect on the claim. thus far we have been successful both in international court and in the specific countries. charlie: it is an ongoing battle? john: it is. we have been able to succeed every step so far. there is risk. we have been able to manage it. the courts have supported us. that is important. charlie: think you for coming. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: paul was a rising neurosurgeon at stanford when he was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2013, less than two years later he died. during his final 22 months he wrote tirelessly about both the struggle and joy he experienced leading to his death. he asked questions such as what does a meaningful existence comprise? how might that calculation involved when death is near? his thoughts on this and more are in "when breath becomes air." his widow is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at stanford. i am pleased to have her at the table. welcome. >> thank you. charlie: "when breath becomes air," i love that title.

lucy: is a paraphrasing of a elizabethan poem. the first line is "by in life what is in death." he drew it from that. i remember he read a lot of poetry during the time he was ill. with a lying in bed and he was reading this poetry anthology and said, i think i have the title. i still have that anthology. charlie: he found out he was a writer because when he wrote about impending illness, he knew he could do it. the response said, this is special. that is before the driven obsession to write a book. lucy: he, as a young person had dreamed of being a driver -- writer. he was a voracious reader. endangered in english literature in college, he became a nurse to surgeon ultimately

because he was very interested in mortality and what it means the human. at first he approach that through literature and philosophy and then made his way into medicine. when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer it was late stage. charlie: stage four? lucy: that is right. he wrote a piece in the new york times and he got a huge response. he was really surprised by it. charlie: what do you think it was about it? lucy: i think part of the reason he was surprise was that he felt like he was talking about his singular experience and the disorienting feeling of facing the uncertainty with a new illness and sort of, how do you make sense of how much time you have left? it turned out it was not a singular experience to talk about suffering or specifically illness. he just had tons of responses. charlie: i was struck by, he wanted to know how much time he had left. insisted on it. lucy: tried. [laughter] charlie: i understand it now.

he said, if i have 10 years left, i will go back to teaching or medicine. if i have 10 days -- it is different. doctors do not tell patients that. lucy: you cannot be so precise. charlie: unknowing. lucy: exactly. when doctors say six months, it is the median. half of people less, but half of more. his doctor really exhorted him to instead focus on what was valuable and meaningful. it turned out that was much better advice. no matter how long you have left. charlie: what did you learn? lucy: i think i learned how brave he could be and how brave we made each other i had an idea of how strong-willed he wasn't curious he was an smart, i had no idea how brave he was. of course as he was dying, i was

pregnant. the book was growing. our child was growing. after the diagnosis we decided to have a baby. charlie: why was that important? lucy: it was something we had always planned towards the end of his presidency. -- residency. during that time he was diagnosed. we turned to each other and said, is this still something we want to do? i had asked him and we were sort of worried about each other. he knew i would need to raise the child of my own. so did i. i asked him as well and i said, if we have a child, won't to be painful to say goodbye? both of us felt it was very enriching for us in the family to have a child. now it is up to me to help shape her going forward. charlie: back to cambridge and stanford -- might he have become a writer and not a doctor?

lucy: maybe. like i said, he had this plan to be a neuro surgeon, neuroscientist for a few years and then write. he dreamed of being a writer, and then he was diagnosed with cancer. he was in the twilight years of his life. just a few years. writing became more -- for most during that time. charlie: how does your life change? part of what you just said. what do you want to do? lucy: i think when he was diagnosed it was so much more disorienting then he realized it would be. he had been through, taking care of families facing a long-term illness or brain damage, he had some sense of what that was like. when he himself was diagnosed, even having the experience of having cared for other patients

and families, he did find it so disorienting to sort of have the -- it's a change of identity. you need to sort of keep -- you don't see your future stretching out the way you thought. you need to sort of keep shifting goals and priorities based on your changing prognosis or your advancing debility. it was disorienting at every stage. you sort of have to keep asking yourself questions. charlie: was it harder for you than him? lucy: he said it was. i don't agree. charlie: where was religion? lucy: paul had grown up in a very christian household. he writes about it in the book but he became an atheist initially and then came back. charlie: as a man of science. lucy: that's right. he had done all of this research and narrow science and won researcher worth. he actually says his religious feelings have stayed the same. hadn't his religiosity

, heen greater or less was most comforted by poetry and literature. charlie: there are people reading the book with a great sense of -- who are extracting something a loved one dealing terminal illness. what do you say to them? this is what he has to say to them, but you have the epilogue. what do you save to them today -- say to them today? lucy: to me, the thing that was helpful and important is to not be afraid to name things. whether it is a strong emotion or the pain of going through this or the pain of facing uncertainty. for us we talked openly about it. charlie: an example? lucy: i am, when he was first diagnosed, maybe one example is what i mentioned about the conversation about deciding to have a child and asking dark questions about what that meant.

oursayying -- saying worries and accepting those. there was a moment after he was diagnosed were he said, don't worry, everything will be ok. i said, i know, i don't know what ok means yet. charlie: what did you think it meant? lucy: when he said everything will be ok, he didn't mean i'm going to be cured and not going to die. charlie: he also said he experienced love with you like he never felt before. during this period. lucy: we were really in love. it is sustaining. it is sustaining still. i still feel this great love for him. i feel so proud of him. those emotions continue. it has been sustaining. charlie: what did he say when they delivered the news. lucy: it is funny because we got it in a unmediated way where we looked at the scan together. no one said aloud the news. we looked at the cat scan. we saw.

charlie: they showed you. lucy: he turned on the hospital computer and he typed in his own name. he pulled up the scan. he had access. we looked and it was very clear, both being doctors we could see it in his spine and lungs and liver. it was not a gradual understanding. it was dark, looking right at the organs. i think we did have that feeling, we knew what it meant. we had that feeling of, it is on us. we immediately understood the task. we will need each other. we need to go through this together. we need to make sense of this, somehow. charlie: cried a lot? lucy: mmhhm. charlie: how was the decision after that to have a child? considering every aspect and saying, we have to do this.

lucy: we both have the instinct to do that. we both knew that was potentially crazy and that would invite other risk or pain. again, i think no one has a child because it is easy. you have a child because it is meaningful to you or you think you can impart a good life to that child. i think we both felt that was still true. we have a really loving community and family. we need them. we knew we had them. charlie: looking back, what would you change within the realm that you could have done different after this diagnosis? lucy: that is a good question. huh, i am not even sure. i really need to think about that. i am sure there are things.

i think i don't feel a lot of regret, which i am grateful for. charlie: regret about a life -- a life not lived? lucy: yeah, he suffered, but he found meaning. that is comforting. charlie: what was the meaning he found? lucy: i think he, because he found purpose. whether it was having the child or writing the book, he really did feel driven. one of the reviews of the book that it was crackling with life. it is funny because he really was crackling with life. he was dying, his body was collapsing, but he was really engaged in life. i think that is -- that brought a lot of comfort. there something about grief that i might change or share about myself in the future. it is funny because paul died exactly 14 months ago today.

it is so helpful to talk about him. charlie: cathartic. lucy: often times when somebody dies, people often stop saying their names or they are afraid they will make you more set by -- sad by talking about it. what i have learned is you are thinking about it anyway. saying the person's name or mentioning it is actually connecting. charlie: it is interesting you say that. because i think that people that i have known who have been living with terminal illness, they like to talk about it. they like to talk about it. what they do not like is a sense of we are avoiding this. we cannot talk about this. is there a purpose for you and your life as a doctor from this experience? lucy: sure. you think a couple of different things. one is my empathy for patients and my really wanting to help

understand, wanting to understand their values and experience, and help guide them through an illness has been deepened. and then i think, for me it has been meaningful to be engaging in a bigger conversation about dying in america and the ways in which we are helping each other do that, and the ways in which our not facing that is causing trouble. that has been an exciting piece that i did not anticipate. it has been great. charlie: what was hardest? lucy: the time since he died. my own identity. i think sort of reentering my work and life.

i am learning -- our daughter is 22 months -- how to be a mom. i am learning how to be a widow at the same time. moving forward without paul. in many ways with paul. with the book. there are sort of these dichotomies to get used to. it has been disorienting for me i think now more than four. -- more than before. charlie: what do you owe him? lucy: i am so compelled to share this book. to share it with people. little things like helping decide on the way the cover would look. it has felt high-stakes. i want to do right by him. charlie: and it is abraham. why did he write the forward? lucy: i love the forward. charlie: me too. lucy: he is a writer at stanford he was a very kind person. after paul decided to write the book, he met with him to ask his advice. they met for one hour and the

doctor wrote this beautiful physical description of him. he is a master diagnostician, reading the description i said, he really knows what he is talking about. he humbled himself in the epilogue. he writes this beautiful essay about paul and reflecting on paul. it was so kind. charlie: the book was dedicated to katie. your daughter/ here, one more time, is the the title -- "you that seek what life is in death now find an air which once was breath. old names gone, until time and bodies that souls non-. reader then take time while you be, but steps to your eternity."

the epilogue -- "two days after paul died, i wrote something for katie. when people die people tend to say wonderful things. please know that all of the wonderful things people are saying about your dad are true. he really was that good and that brave. reflectors on his purpose often think of lyrics from pilgrim's progress." "he will fear not what men say, he will labor night and day to be a pilgrim. paul's decision to look death in the eye was a testament to who he had always been. he had wondered about death and whether he could face it with integrity. in the end, the answer was yes. i was his wife." very good. lucy: thank you for having me. charlie: the book again is "when breath becomes air."

thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ .

mark: they were violent clashes that at a migrant camp in greece today on the side of the border near macedonia. throwing rocks at authorities. they also lobbying -- lobbing tear gas to try to get things under control. there were no of reports of violence that. a new risk assessment from the world health organization on zika says the chances of an outbreak are low to moderate for an outbreak. high likelihood that it could spread in only three european regions.