Going Gentle Into That Good Night

[Triumph36]

Prolonging 'life' without mental capacity seems very heartless and cruel - almost more so than 'letting' someone die. My grandfather is seriously ill - every day it's another problem, and his mental faculties are rapidly deteriorating. I'm of the opinion that continuing to give him whatever's capable of prolonging his life is making everyone involved suffer more - he's barely aware of his surroundings (and is often confused by them), his back is in terrible shape, he can barely move - and the family grieves and worries over him constantly.

I'm hoping I go before I start to lose mental capacity, and that when I begin to, I recognize it. I know that's the attitude of the young, and it changes as one ages - but I don't see myself clutching vainly at the last straws of life.

[Dominic]

My Nana died last year at age 93 (I posted about it, too). I was actually relieved when she died because the last 3 years of her life were filled with medical problems, depression and dementia. I think she would've been better off living at home with my parents and dying peacefully than being stuck in a hospital being repeatedly revived and "healed."

She was a strong, funny woman who finally just became too exhausted by her ailments to have quality of life.

Anyway...it's a tough question...my sympathies to you and for your Nana.

Nanas are great!

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I think she would've been better off living at home with my parents and dying peacefully than being stuck in a hospital being repeatedly revived and "healed."

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. If we could find a way to allow self-euthenasia without falling into the suicide trap, I'd be all for it.

[Lottery Larry]

I've often had similar thoughts/questions about the overall value to large expenditures to save/extend life (young and old) when that money could be "better" spent on a larger group with better long-term viability.

It's a tough question to which I don't have a good answer for. If it costs $2M to save one life, is that life "worth" the investment when others will have to go through their own problems without benefit of that money?

Trying to integrate cost/benefit analysis with the lives of loved ones is probably a no-win scenario.

[Los Feliz Slim]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the crux of the issue is that many of us (particularly Americans, I would think) don't enjoy the idea that someone else (especially the government) might determine what makes financial sense for an individual or what's "worth it."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

From the start I attributed a position to Anacardo that I don't think he really advocates: the idea that the elderly/infirm are "supposed" to die. The idea that society as a whole might determine an individual's worth/right to life bothers me. Yet, I'm pro-choice. Going to have to think about that one.

Another thing I thought about was my back pain. I have two herniated discs, and there have certainly been times that if I were a caveman or something I probably would have been left for dead. But I want to live!

Medical update: reports of Nana's demise appear to be greatly exaggerated. The mass in her pancreas looks like it's just a cyst. She's not out of the woods by any means, but she's definitely got a chance to continue living and be physically able to care for herself.

[Osprey]

Not sure if it's still true, but for a while the British National Health serivce had age limits on dialysis for kidney failure. I think it was 55 years old, and then 65 at some point. They pretty clearly made the choice for who was going to live and who was going to die- but the British public has a very different concept of medical care from what the US public expects.

[BigBuffet]

My mother died two years ago in poor health at 86. She had a Healthcare Directive, which was the smartest thing she ever did. It prevented what could have been a multi-way family argument about her treatment.

She saw all three of us get married. She saw her grandchildren graduate college. She went knowing everyone was happy. She talked to everyone infividually before she died and said her goodbyes.

She had been going downhill for a few weeks. We got her a round-the-clock home nursing service for those weeks. The night before she died she was saying she "wants to go home" (meaning heaven). I said "you can go home anytime you want". The nurse and I were with her the next morning as she went. It was the most difficult thing I've gone through, but I knew she was going to be better off because of all the health problems she was having.

The last thing she needed was life extension with a bad body. I think most people, especially older people want quality first, then longevity. If you aren't healthy, additional years don't matter.

If one's medical problems can be solved without stressful operations or treatments, that may change a particular scenario.

But for most older people, treatments and operations are just too stressful and also questionable as to the outcome.

Cliffnote:
Get a Heathcare Directive and be very specific about what you do and don't want. Update it as necessary.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

I've often had similar thoughts/questions about the overall value to large expenditures to save/extend life (young and old) when that money could be "better" spent on a larger group with better long-term viability.

It's a tough question to which I don't have a good answer for. If it costs $2M to save one life, is that life "worth" the investment when others will have to go through their own problems without benefit of that money?

[/ QUOTE ]


Certainly the amount of pain a person may be in makes a difference.
Just because it's expensive does that mean we should really let somebody die just because the money will help other people in the long-run?


What do we think of mentally-ill or handicapped people?
Are they just not worth it too?

My ex-wife was a teacher in a multiple-handicap classroom.
I have no idea how she did it everyday. Some of these poor kids were not in very good shape.
One girl who was probably about 8 was shaken as a baby and would mostly just lie there and MAYBE occasionally move or offer a half-smile.
A couple of the kids with down's syndrome are handicapped enough where I very much doubt they could hold down even the simplest of jobs when they grow into adults. I could be wrong on that with them though, but certainly not with the girl who just lies there and can't talk or communicate really.


If we are judging life by ability to contribute anymore or even about being conciously aware as I think has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread then are we really that far away from saying these mentally and physically handicapped kids should just die too because they are just a drain on our society and resources and aren't really doing anything?

[Triumph36]

bob -

to me the fundamental life element is capable of experiencing laughter or joy - it's not my or the government's place to decide whether a person incapable of such things should not receive medical treatment - but were I ever in that state, I would want to go.

[Anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
As for diverting funds from elder care to cancer treatment for an uninsured youngster, it's a nice warm and fuzzy thought, but it's inimical to the very foundations of a free society.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hell it is.

It may be inimical to the foundations of a free market economy, but we've already decided that that isn't going to apply to health care anyway, by having a public health care system in the first place. Ideas like yours are what [censored] up our public health system so bad - the Birch-ish, puritanical insistence on saying that, since we have to take medicine out of the private sector, we might as well try to run it as much like the market as possible. No. That conflicts interests, priorities, and creates ridiculous scenarios, like the awful power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, the malpractice snarl, the culture of soaking, whereby it's in doctors' best interests to order the most elaborate treatments possible, the eternal escalating war fought between treatment, administration and litigation, etc. etc. etc. Nations with socialized medicine don't have this [censored]. They don't spend all their health dollars on insurance premiums and malpractice litigation. It's because they admit the obvious. Once we decide as a society that nobody will die for lacking the ability to pay for care, it's over. Health becomes a public good and should be treated as such, in the public sector.