If an animal is suffering its put to sleep.There are 4.7 million people in the world with dementia with 7.7 million more diagnosed every year. There are many more millions of carers struggling to care for them. Wouldn't it make sense that, once a dementia patient has no longer got any quality of life to euthanize them?
Consider this: My Mom suddenly became ill, became unconscious, was rushed to the hospital. Never really regained consciousness but could of been kept alive with fluids, lifesaving measures etc. But the doctor on call was adamant that we should take her off all medication, desist fluids, and let nature take its course. With morphine given at regular intervals to ease any discomfort she might be experiencing. Now tell me how that is any different than assisted suicide. I mean if you have the means to prolong someones life but instead cut off all fluids, medicine, nutrition and let them slowly die, whats the difference. I don't see one.
In this case I believe it was the right decision and my Mom would of had no quality of life if she had been allowed to continue treatment.
I know this is a very touchy subject and I've said it before and I'll say it again. You cannot decide this with a single brush stroke. Every case is individual. If you start making this a legislative decision across the board there is too much room for people to take advantage of the system and manipulate it for their own perhaps devious reasons.
There should be a board that decides individually for every case. Weighing the pros and cons of every situation and because that would probably be very expensive and require too much manpower I doubt that it will ever happen in a way that will satisfy everyone.
I know that there are people on this site who dislike the religious point of view but I have to say that I trust that God will decide when its time for me to die and it will happen when its supposed to happen.
Let me explain:
Assume abortion is legal where you are - then no issue over abortion can occur - it is applied equitably
BUT
Assume it is ILLEGAL where you are unless the foetus indicates a disability is present - IF you allow this then you have already crossed the divide as to whose choice it is because you have already said able bodied people or potential able bodied people have rights that disabled ones don't have. AND THAT IS THE ISSUE - because no-one has the right to decide life or death over another purely on society's definition of ability and disability - if they did then Stephen Hawking would not be alive today
Once you have that divide you can erode the edges by
not assisting disabled babies to take their first breath or
not medicating them when as babies they get sick...
then where do you end?
by sterilising disabled people to prevent continuation of genetic disorders?
then on to sterilising all disabled people or healthy people who have had disabled children?
perhaps send them away?
and where would we like them to go?
Auschwitz? Just a little food for thought people.
I am absolutely for the right to die with dignity and I have made no bones about it FOR ME, I also one thousand per cent would protect the rights of people who have chosen not to make that decision or to make a different decision, because I DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACT OTHERWISE nor would I want that right or responsibility
More disturbing still, to me - I had a patient on consult service with a disease that our field's literature supports as being compatible with a very good quality of life by certain measures of that - and a pulmonologist who happens to believe that no one should be put on long term ventilator support which this condition requires stated that he thought nothing should be done and would not even help a family get non-invasive ventilation that they wanted. I did not get to find out what eventually happened, but the family was able to exercise options to get into a different facility. Plus there have been high profile cases where brain death was wrongly diagnosed, and again families had to fight for the right to continue life support for a loved one.
People in this world who have the power to do so have killed other people for being annoying or inconvenient, and euthanasia for dementia opens that door wider than ever. I don't think anyone on either side of this debate is heartless though. It is not necessarily easy to advocate for the sacredness of human life when doing so becomes costly and burdensome to both a person who may be suffering and cannot have all suffering instantly and totally relieved and a caregiver who cares and has to watch and provide whatever support is needed and helpful until the natural end - and yet if we fail to do that, the value of all of our lives is at stake. Most of us at some point will become less able and less useful to society than we are today, and yet, that should not mean our lives should be ended actively or that we have less right to live on and get and give what we can in life than when we were at our most productive. As one person put it - "OK, I was made in the image of God - I have become disabled - does that mean I am not in His image any more?"
" FILE OF LIFE"
Medications; diagnosis; DNR-that's not what you want to eat when you get to the hospital; etc. is usually placed in a clear envelope. Emergency personnel are trained to seek this FILE OF LIFE out.
Mine just says: I WANT TO LIVE!
I have heard from some of the people that do home care how patients will try to secretly hoard a stash of pills in case they one day need them, as if they should be ashamed. I think to have to plan and execute that plan in secret or to have to ask a family member for help is what would cause the most harm to family left behind. If we felt free to discuss things with our family and health care team and put a plan into place openly then I think a lot of the guilt can be taken out of the equation.
Can I just flip this for a moment
If the doctors could keep your loved one alive for years but only through heavy medication and in a virtual comatose state in order that they can cash in on them living would you think this was OK? See this is where I really have a problem.
For me I am very clear no way Jose I don't want to live - that's my choice , but for others?..... I don't want to have to make those choices but there are things to be considered here.
I don't know how it works in the states but I wonder if the same end of life care plans are put in place for those with vast sums of money as for those who have nothing. If so then I feel a little better - if not then you already have the beginnings of a financially based euthanisation programme whether or not you actually agreed to one. And that is something I find abhorrent even though I approve and want for myself to die with dignity. Just give me the meds and let me go peacefully.
And here I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn into this debate again....
As vstefans and others point out, determining quality of life is very subjective and the trickiest part of this whole topic is who subjectively determines it?
Early in his dementia my husband would have eagerly signed up for assisted suicide. I'm glad it wasn't available. (I flatly refused to participate in that train of thought.) He had another nine years of mostly pleasant life with lots of high-quality episodes. He was mostly lucid (with lots of confusion) right up to his death, which occurred in our bedroom, with us holding hands.I am glad to have had those additional years with him, and I think he was too.
Death is such a permanent resolution. Life is such an unpredictable process.
I think having my loved ones hanging around my bed is cruel..
It takes a long time to get that image out of your head.. I've seen it waaay more than I wanted to...
I refuse completely to be told by professionals (who have no idea of the life I have led) what I have to endure at the end of my life. I don't WANT to be cared for my others and I believe that FOR ME I should have the RIGHT to die in a dignified way not to end up tied to machines that I cannot turn off. My life - my right.
No offence intended at all vstefans and I 100% uphold other people's views on their own lives but it just is not what I want and I truly believe that the individual should have the right to make decisions for themselves while they can.
he didnt do that . he wasted away and his body's biological mechanisms ( imo ) dulled his senses and caused his death to be tolerable if not comfortable .
comfort meds are a science , again ( imo ) . we were instructed when my mother died , since she was in a state of terminal agitation , that she was not to return to consciousness no matter how much liquid morphine that required .
her body was done but she didnt have to be there to endure the end of life .
it was a morphine overdose that ended her but she liked opiates so she went out gellin like magellan ..
like a pre exonerated felon ..
One women had terminal cancer, she drank the drink and within 5 minutes she passed peacefully in bed wirh her husband... Her choice..
That's what I would do... No suffering, while loved ones all hang around my bed staring at me waiting for my last breath..
No stopping death whens it's standing at the door...
Euthanasia is whole different ball game and although I approve of it wholeheartedly in some very specific cases - terminal and in extreme pain but not necessarily limited to that, I don't approve of it as a legal tool to rid a country of its financial pressures (however you choose to wrap that one up).
I believe in the right to die with dignity and I believe that if I am ever diagnosed with a terminal illness I should have the right to have a final party with my loved ones in my own country and that I should be allowed to die in my own country with, if that is the way my family agrees, my family around me although I would prefer to die alone, having given them all a last hug goodbye.
As for quality of life. While I can do for myself I have quality - when I can't just let me go because I don't want that for me.