Many people in our society are now living into their late 80's and 90's, but it is also apparent that a large percentage of them have chronic illnesses, injuries and conditions that make life miserable and often virtually intolerable. Then you factor in the massive and heroic utilization of resources for their care, the dramatic toll taken upon the caretakers, family and person in care. I know from personal experience that people are bankrupted, suffer from mental distress and illness, are "stuck" in facilities which provide a low standard of minimal care, and express a desire to end their lives, praying not to wake up the next day. Would it not be more humane to allow euthenasia and release those who suffer the most intensely from their pain and torment? What would you prefer if you found yourself in this situation? Unfortunately many of these human beings are in our society deemed legally disabled from making such a decision for their own care.
Part of the problem is people like my in laws think there is no end to what can be done . My MIL would be shocked when a 96 year old friend would die of pneumonia . No matter how many times I explained to her that even with antibiotics the immune system has to fight off the infection . Old immune systems can fail . So I think doctors feel they have to offer everything , especially to that generation that saw such rapid advances in health care in the last century .
I think one of the "problems" is that doctors are not honest with patients and families and they continue to "treat"
I do not think doctors are taught how to accept that death in inevitable and that continuing to treat no longer does the patient or the family any good.
I think the doctors are taught to "heal /cure" and to acknowledge that there is noting more that can be done may be seen as a "failure". No one likes to fail.
I think a rotation in Hospice care, Hospice referral and Palliative Care should be included in the Medical School Rotation just as ER, Surgery and other disciplines are.
FIL and MIL had their major crisis in 2020 but thanks to well over 1.5m in Medicare, they are still here
Obviously he is getting good care or he would not be entering year four of his nursing home life. His body refuses to shut down but it is time for him to finally go.
I really don't know what the solution is because it is a slippery slope. I just wish he'd just stop eating already.
As far as I am concerned, I hope to be able to take my own life when I'm ready.
His plan was take a pile of pills , he waited too long , couldn’t open the bottles . So his daughter ( the nurse ) opened all the bottles for him and left the room .
This is a complex issue that is not just about costs or corporate greed keeping people alive, or a labor shortage, or a religious/spiritual issue, or a legal liability issue. It's a combo of all that and more.
Once we start down a path of "who should be kept alive" can easily turn into Utilitarian thinking, which is a slippery slope. Who would be next after the terminally ill and very elderly? People with disabilities who can't hold a job? People who can hold a job but require all sorts of assistance just to live "independently"?
I'm with lealonnie1, that we stockpile our own meds, chug some of our favorite booze and do it on our own when we are ready. However -- being "ready" is the tricky part. We all talk a big game about shutting down our lives on our own terms and timing, but even Alva didn't do it when she got the 2nd breast cancer diagnosis at 83. People naturally want to live and it takes a lot to change that and by then it is often "too late" for us to put it into play. Much like in the movie, "Still Alive".
My problems with the medical profession are more about medicating to keep people alive, with no hope of improvement and no enjoyment in life. In earlier times, it was easier for people to fade away without medication. For families with limited finances, it was common for bed-ridden grandma to turn down being spoon fed so that there was more for the children, and just gently fade away.
Too many suffer for too long . Modern medicine can be great or cruel at times .
There is a crisis of how to care for the number of elderly who need help ,
When I graduated college my first nursing job was at a rural hospital . It was during a nursing shortage. We had a number of nurses for a while from the Philippines. They were paid a lot of money to come to the US and their rent was paid for as well . I wonder if that will happen again as well as bringing CNA’s from other countries to fill the gaps . It will raise the costs .
The only reason why our elderly get poor care is plain old money-grubbing and greed on the part of insurance companies and care facilities. Care homes do not have to be the disgusting, miserable places they are and get top-dollar at that. Homecare workers should be considered professionals and they are not. Most homecare agencies will hire anyone and send them into a client's home flying blind with zero training and zero agency support. These problem could be easily remedied, in fact every problem with American healthcare could be easily remedied if all healthcare became non-profit. No investing in nursing homes where shareholders getting a pay day. No ripping off Medicare and Madicaid. If all of it was non-profit they wouldn't cut every possible corner from care quality to food quality to housekeeping, if there was no profits to be made.
I can't say if whether or not people are living too long because every person is an individual. If greed and profit was taken out of old age, the elderly would not be a bankrupting burden to themselves, their families, and our Medicare and Medicaid system.
Take the profit-making out of healthcare and you take the problems out of it too. In past times when many women didn't work outside the home, they would have the care of an elder put on them and that kept many out of care homes. This wasn't fair or right, but it's a fact. What can happen is our government and insurance companies need to make a different approach towards a willing family caregiver. Not a family caregiver program where family member becomes a 24 care slave to a needy elder for tiny monthly stipend that's a joke really. Pay a family caregiver half of what a nursing home collects per resident. Insist that they complete CNA homecare training (that the state will pay for) before they can become a paid family caregiver to an elder. Offer paid respite to them.
There are so many ways aging can be a kinder and easier that don't include killing the person.
I don't enthusiastically support euthanasia as the answer. Often, the person suffering is unable to make this decision, and a loved one must play God and decide, basically, to kill someone.
I think we need to seriously review how the medical community treats every illness, with the goal of keeping a person "alive", but without consideration for what the result will be. We've been conditioned to think "being alive" is the most important thing; more important than quality of life.
100 years ago, when an elder (or young person) became seriously ill, they were kept in their bed, with family around, until they died. They weren't rushed by ambulance to a hospital to be operated on, medicated, have breathing tubes shoved down their throat or nose, and kept barely alive, even when unresponsive. When the heart rhythm slows or stops beating, we add more medication or crush their ribs trying to pump and re-start the heart. Doctors automatically try and "fix" everything. But everything should not be or can not be fixed by medicine.
There have been times when I regret the decision I made 11 years ago, to take my husband to the emergency room when he suffered a stroke. I had no idea at the time what was wrong and just wanted to make him better.
I decided after he came home, bedridden, partially paralyzed, unable to communicate, unable to eat, in diapers, the man I knew and loved was already gone. It was the saddest time in my life. I cried every day wishing he would come back. I knew if he were to suffer another stroke, in his current condition, I would not rush him to the hospital, but would instead hold him and let him know how much he is loved, as nature takes its course.
Ironically, now removed from all the stressors in his life, his body is remarkably healthy. No pain, good blood pressure, no sign of disease. He just can't do anything. He lays in bed watching TV, or I get him out to his recliner in the living room, which is a major feat for me, to watch TV in a different room.
He still can't eat, can't walk, his only verbal communications consist of one or two word mumbled commands to indicate he wants something. He often says a word un-related to what he actually wants. I have to guess. Mostly, he just yells repeatedly for "help" or calls my name. I recognize it could go on like this indefinitely. He could out-live me.
We have a DNR in place, and he is on Hospice. I worry about losing hospice care for him. I worry I will have a heart attack, or fall and break something, and a week or more will pass before anyone comes to check on us. Our life is a very sad situation. We are simply surviving. We are not living. Not meaningfully.
The one argument I haven't seen, but has crossed my mind, is at what point does it become a narrative about what it is costing the insurance companies to keep treating patients? If there is an option for a medically assisted "out"? "Sorry, Mr. So-and-so, we will no longer treat your chronic condition, because there is no hope for improvement, but we WILL spring for MAiD...so your choice is to continue treatment on your own dime or ingest medication to commit suicide".
You would like to think that sort of thing won't happen, but as MAiD becomes more commonplace and acceptable in the medical profession, I can see the insurance companies considering their bottom-line profits to the exclusion of any other considerations. You are already seeing Medicare Advantage programs denying treatments and procedures that traditional Medicare would approve; is it such a leap to envision a world in which all treatments are denied to a patient with an incurable condition because the patient now has the "out" of a medically assisted (and presumably pain-free) death? And how many of those patients would accept the medically assisted suicide, not out of fear of a painful death, but out of concern of financial ruin of their families should they try to continue treatment that is now being paid for out of their pocket?
There are "problems" with them.
Finding a physician that will allow this, and write the prescription is difficult.
Seeing a therapist is also a requirement.
And the BIG hurdle is that the person is the one that has to physically take the medication.
That means the person must be aware and able to make the decision when to take the medication. NOT going to happen if the person has dementia.
That means the person must be physically able to ingest the medication. NOT going to happen in the case of a person is incapacitated with ALS or with any paralysis that limits the use of the hands..
And if a person is not able to take the medication by mouth that limits as well.
Signing a POLST (goes by other names in some States) limits what can be done to keep a person alive. You can elect to not have CPR done. You can elect no intubation or IV's, or Tube feeding.
The kicker here is that you must appoint a person as Health Care POA that is in agreement with your wishes and they can not let family members step in and prevent them from following through on your wishes.