I'm curious about caregivers' thoughts about assisted suicide. One of mom's friends from Switzerland talked about having friends that planned their death this way. It is legal in some countries.
A wrench in the works for Death With Dignity options is dementia. When you lose your cognitive abilities, how can anyone else say that what you previously chose (e.g., to die when X stage was reached) would be your decision when the time actually came?
Just putting this out there in a theoretical way. Seems like a problem for many who would otherwise choose DWD options. Beyond having it as a legal option, don't you have to be able to consent at the time and participate in the administration of it yourself? Wish I had more time for this discussion but I appreciate knowledgeable insight into this.
Yes you are completely right about this. The only way to deal with it that I have come up with is to stop life-prolonging medication, as I said a couple of posts away. Stopping the statins is letting nature take its course, not actively terminating life. It's not so different from the Hospice approach.
I take the blood pressure and cholesterol drugs, DH doesn't. If we both want to go, perhaps we just swap drugs - the opposite drugs would be bad for both of us.
I should be able to decide for MYSELF if I want assisted suicide. To even suggest the government should get to say when I die bc of dementia or bc I'm considered a financial burden on the system is beyond LUDICROUS. The government already has too much say in my life and tries to dictate way too many aspects of it, to suggest they should have MORE say in it is gob smacking me in the face right now.
We live in freedom based society and enjoy such rights. Never, ever suggest those rights be taken away from us!
Are you seriously advocating euthanasia for everyone who can't afford to pay for care Sighopinion? What about that local kid who has a TBI because of a car accident, is he exempt because he is young? After all he'll probably need care for 50 more years, a lot longer than any seniors with dementia. Or that woman who has MS and needs a NH at age 50, is her life worth while? - MS is progressive and she'll only keep getting worse. I'm troubled about the people who say I'd rather be dead than have dementia (or any other life altering physical or mental condition) who nonetheless do adapt and even find peace and happiness, does that life have no value just because it doesn't resemble the life that preceded it? And who gets to make that judgment?
Cwillie, ‘euthanasia’ is a term that was polluted by Nazi murders, not good to use now. All the systems for medically assisted dying that I’ve heard of have many built in safeguards, and have to be requested by the person involved. Anyone who is suggesting otherwise hasn’t done much investigation into it, and is best ignored.
Medically assisted dying is now legal in most Australian states, after a long battle against opposition, mostly by the Catholic church. It is restricted to people with a terminal illness who choose it themselves, with many safeguards (counseling, time lapses etc). It can’t be chosen in advance, you have to request it at the last minute.
This does not give much leeway for dementia or other ‘quality of life’ decisions. There is still a problem where nursing homes won’t opt for palliative care by agreeing to stop medications that simply keep people's bodies alive (particularly heart and blood pressure drugs, which are what prolong life for many many people after 90).
Religion here has opposed abortion, divorce, remarriage after divorce (though now first marriages are often ‘annulled’ for quite curious reasons), sex outside marriage, and same sex relationships. An iron grip on personal decisions about death is the last battle ground.
Medical assistance in dying (MAID) has been legal in Canada since 2016 (I see Tothill has already mentioned that). I believe that those who are terminally ill should have the option of a dignified exit, I'm a little more hesitant about the direction activists seem to be taking things now. I am vehemently against any case of someone making this decision for someone other than themselves and for that reason am very troubled with the idea that people with a dementia diagnosis can choose this to take place at a later time - there can be a lot of years between loss of legal capacity and advanced end stage dementia and a lot of grey area in judging quality of life.
Is it really that gray of an area? Dementia is progressive and the cost associated with prolonging such a life largely amounts to nothing. If someone wants to use their own funds so be it, but to use state and federal aid to maintain such a life does not make sense from a cost perspective.
I mean if it it was legal I would gladly take the life of my LO with dementia even though they desperately want to live because they simply do not understand the gravity of their disease and the indignity they will face in the future.
Dementia is not pretty for anyone and prolonging the suffering for all parties involved seems cruel and unusual. Should someone's right to life come at the cost of others be it family or tax payer dollars?
Granted I get I have my LO placed, but I did so because I had no other options. The options for care for those with dementia are often not pretty for anyone. We also cannot afford as a society to keep flipping the bill to pay for such care. My LO is 66 with no other underline health issues, I do not know the contracted rate for their LO let us low ball it to 5k a month that is 60k a year. My LO can easily live another 10 or 15 years so that is anywhere between 600k to 900k. Their social security is only $1100 they have no assets so the community will be flipping the bill. Cases like this only go to increase already inflated medical care costs.
As dark as it may sound I think once someone requires government assistance for a terminal illness that means they have forfeited their life and the merciful thing to do is allow them to die with dignity.
Medical Assistance in Dying MAiD is legal in Canada under certain circumstances. I know two people who have taken advantage of their right to choose when to die.
I know my Mum will choose it if she loses control over her body or her mind.
I've never understood why body autonomy is even a discussion. This country wastes so many brain cells on keeping people from having the final word on what happens to their life and body.
I feel it should be legal everywhere and we also should be more open and honest when it comes to certain illnesses like dementia or ALZ. They should 100% be approached as a terminal illness they are akin to end stage cancers.
Doctors and families should not be afraid of talking about the harsh realities of such illnesses and prolonging life for those with such illnesses that have no realistic means to treat the core illness should not be encouraged by any means.
The burden certain illnesses put on the healthcare system and families should be considered over the rights if the person that is ill with a disease that cannot be treated. We can manage symptoms but the core disease itself still in effect.
I as an old nurse am all for it. We don't have it anywhere yet, in so far as assisted, but do have "right to die" in some states. Still difficult to access with some MDs still hesitant to participate. But things will change when we are clogged with old folks and our low birth rate currently means we cannot support them nor is there enough to care for them. Politics often follow necessity. I have zero fear of death. I have quite a lot of fear about debility and suffering. So I am a fan of hospice and of the right to die. Do know that most who access the medication here do not TAKE it. I think it is a comfort to know that they CAN. We can hang on through a whole lot to watch one more episode of Sister Wives and munch down one more bag of chips.
Just putting this out there in a theoretical way. Seems like a problem for many who would otherwise choose DWD options. Beyond having it as a legal option, don't you have to be able to consent at the time and participate in the administration of it yourself? Wish I had more time for this discussion but I appreciate knowledgeable insight into this.
I take the blood pressure and cholesterol drugs, DH doesn't. If we both want to go, perhaps we just swap drugs - the opposite drugs would be bad for both of us.
We live in freedom based society and enjoy such rights. Never, ever suggest those rights be taken away from us!
I'm troubled about the people who say I'd rather be dead than have dementia (or any other life altering physical or mental condition) who nonetheless do adapt and even find peace and happiness, does that life have no value just because it doesn't resemble the life that preceded it? And who gets to make that judgment?
This does not give much leeway for dementia or other ‘quality of life’ decisions. There is still a problem where nursing homes won’t opt for palliative care by agreeing to stop medications that simply keep people's bodies alive (particularly heart and blood pressure drugs, which are what prolong life for many many people after 90).
Religion here has opposed abortion, divorce, remarriage after divorce (though now first marriages are often ‘annulled’ for quite curious reasons), sex outside marriage, and same sex relationships. An iron grip on personal decisions about death is the last battle ground.
I mean if it it was legal I would gladly take the life of my LO with dementia even though they desperately want to live because they simply do not understand the gravity of their disease and the indignity they will face in the future.
Dementia is not pretty for anyone and prolonging the suffering for all parties involved seems cruel and unusual. Should someone's right to life come at the cost of others be it family or tax payer dollars?
Granted I get I have my LO placed, but I did so because I had no other options. The options for care for those with dementia are often not pretty for anyone. We also cannot afford as a society to keep flipping the bill to pay for such care. My LO is 66 with no other underline health issues, I do not know the contracted rate for their LO let us low ball it to 5k a month that is 60k a year. My LO can easily live another 10 or 15 years so that is anywhere between 600k to 900k. Their social security is only $1100 they have no assets so the community will be flipping the bill. Cases like this only go to increase already inflated medical care costs.
As dark as it may sound I think once someone requires government assistance for a terminal illness that means they have forfeited their life and the merciful thing to do is allow them to die with dignity.
I know my Mum will choose it if she loses control over her body or her mind.
Of course the right to die should be legal.
Doctors and families should not be afraid of talking about the harsh realities of such illnesses and prolonging life for those with such illnesses that have no realistic means to treat the core illness should not be encouraged by any means.
The burden certain illnesses put on the healthcare system and families should be considered over the rights if the person that is ill with a disease that cannot be treated. We can manage symptoms but the core disease itself still in effect.
I have zero fear of death. I have quite a lot of fear about debility and suffering. So I am a fan of hospice and of the right to die. Do know that most who access the medication here do not TAKE it. I think it is a comfort to know that they CAN. We can hang on through a whole lot to watch one more episode of Sister Wives and munch down one more bag of chips.