Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know this will really stir up some people, so let me first explain what I mean by "incurables". Simply put, I mean those people who are "brain dead" with zero chance of recovery short of a miracle and those people in Stage 7 of Alzheimer's Disease who are over 85. I also would probably include those who have zero quality of life and who are in constant torturous pain, and who have no realistic hope of ever getting better, short of the aforesaid miracle.
Stage 7. Late or Severe Dementia and Failure to Thrive. In this final stage, speech becomes severly limited, as well as the ability to walk or sit. Total support around the clock is needed for all functions of daily living and care. Duration is impacted by quality of care and average length is 1 to 2.5 years.
Why over 85 and not before? Because I realize that there might (hopefully) some day be a cure, but people over 85 are a few years beyond the age of normal life expectancy, so they are actually "living" on so-called borrowed time, anyway.
I also want to clarify that I am not talking about actually putting anyone to death, but just letting them die naturally, while providing them with whatever is needed to prevent discomfort.
(Btw, I am 63, so I am not a young person who just wants to get rid of burdensome old relatives, and I also currently have no relatives with dementia. My personal view is just that I would much rather be allowed to just mercifully die rather that spend the last years of my life as just a human "shell" or someone in unrelenting torture.)
So, again, my question is what is the point of artificially keeping "incurables" alive, and why should we do so?
I know this will really stir up some people, so let me first explain what I mean by "incurables". Simply put, I mean those people who are "brain dead" with zero chance of recovery short of a miracle and those people in Stage 7 of Alzheimer's Disease who are over 85. I also would probably include those who have zero quality of life and who are in constant torturous pain, and who have no realistic hope of ever getting better, short of the aforesaid miracle.
Stage 7. Late or Severe Dementia and Failure to Thrive. In this final stage, speech becomes severly limited, as well as the ability to walk or sit. Total support around the clock is needed for all functions of daily living and care. Duration is impacted by quality of care and average length is 1 to 2.5 years.
Why over 85 and not before? Because I realize that there might (hopefully) some day be a cure, but people over 85 are a few years beyond the age of normal life expectancy, so they are actually "living" on so-called borrowed time, anyway.
I also want to clarify that I am not talking about actually putting anyone to death, but just letting them die naturally, while providing them with whatever is needed to prevent discomfort.
(Btw, I am 63, so I am not a young person who just wants to get rid of burdensome old relatives, and I also currently have no relatives with dementia. My personal view is just that I would much rather be allowed to just mercifully die rather that spend the last years of my life as just a human "shell" or someone in unrelenting torture.)
So, again, my question is what is the point of artificially keeping "incurables" alive, and why should we do so?
Incurable is a sliding metric, and it's a very subjective term. Everybody's definition of "incurable" isn't the same.
On one end of the spectrum, you have some people that wouldn't pull the plug on a vegetable, then you have people like me on the other hand that would grind the majority of our prison population into dog food if given the choice. Like most things, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
That's how my father died here in MN. He was given a choice of life support and intravenous feeding for the rest of his life or no more food or water. He chose the latter.
It took him nine days before he passed away. But he never once requested food or water and didn't appear to be in any pain.
I believe it was more difficult for us family members than it was for him. A person wouldn't put a family dog down that way.
I was thinking of starvation when I wrote "discomfort". So, yes, when I said doing whatever was necessary to prevent discomfort, I was definitely including nutrition and water in that!
(I debated using the word "pain", but I thought discomfort was more of a broad term, which is what I wanted.)
Personal experience. Family member had dementia, couldn't speak, couldn't walk, didn't recognize people, had to be bathed, fed. Forgot how to swallow food in his mouth, choked a lot even on liquids, lost 30 pounds on a thin frame. Tube feeding suggested to family; placed tube into stomach, fed liquid nutrition. Family figured he wouldn't be alive much longer.
But, he immediately gained 20+ pounds and lived another 2 years.
I know this will really stir up some people, so let me first explain what I mean by "incurables". Simply put, I mean those people who are "brain dead" with zero chance of recovery short of a miracle and those people in Stage 7 of Alzheimer's Disease who are over 85. I also would probably include those who have zero quality of life and who are in constant torturous pain, and who have no realistic hope of ever getting better, short of the aforesaid miracle.
Stage 7. Late or Severe Dementia and Failure to Thrive. In this final stage, speech becomes severly limited, as well as the ability to walk or sit. Total support around the clock is needed for all functions of daily living and care. Duration is impacted by quality of care and average length is 1 to 2.5 years.
Why over 85 and not before? Because I realize that there might (hopefully) some day be a cure, but people over 85 are a few years beyond the age of normal life expectancy, so they are actually "living" on so-called borrowed time, anyway.
I also want to clarify that I am not talking about actually putting anyone to death, but just letting them die naturally, while providing them with whatever is needed to prevent discomfort.
(Btw, I am 63, so I am not a young person who just wants to get rid of burdensome old relatives, and I also currently have no relatives with dementia. My personal view is just that I would much rather be allowed to just mercifully die rather that spend the last years of my life as just a human "shell" or someone in unrelenting torture.)
So, again, my question is what is the point of artificially keeping "incurables" alive, and why should we do so?
There's a Huge difference between incurable and Vegetable STATE with ZERO hope to recover.
But having said all that, until and when courts/States/Politicians ALLOW Right to Die legislation.. It will always come down to Family willing to allow " Pull the Plug" or removing extraordinary support systems that maintain a vegetative state.
But, one must allow, loved ones of anyone in such a state to come to terms with saying goodbye or allowing loved one's to come and say they goodbyes... Nothing, ever should be rushed, nor should any Insurance Company cut off fundings for Family's to decide before they are ready. Sure they can give notice of parameters, BUT Certainly no ( from Insurance Company> to as of this date.. like> ALL services will NOT be covered type thing!
I've dealt with this personally and professionally, so get the conflicts amongst family, both close and other's who have had no contact for many decades. I personally recommend, that ALL aging adults take the time to consider just how they want to live and circumstances when it's "Enough is enough". Next most important detail.. have a Living Will.. and make sure your closest ( Executors`Administrators of your Estate) KNOW too! Above all.. Have a WILL!!
I after almost 48 years of directly dealing with end stages of life.. strongly suggest having these discussion long before mental state or lack thereof sets in. Don't let the parasitic types take over your affairs because it more often than not has disaster affects!!!
I think the debate question is an extension of 'when is it appropriate to allow the dying process to proceed without intervening (other than palative care)?'
The above posts suggest there are differing ideas about when it is appropriate to intervene and when it is not. Certainly fits my experiences. Sometimes the next of kin want the dying process to continue but the patient cannot competently address the issue, so the law requires that I save the patient. I've also been to a hundred scenes where the family insisted I save a patient whose condition is clearly incompatable with life (our term for dying) and, despite our best efforts, Mother Nature won.
The most trouble I ever got into was when we saved a DNR patient by accident - the attending medical tech didn't know she was a DNR and called 911 when she started the dying process. We arrived, saved her and took her to the hospital, where the next of kin went nuts on us.
Other side of the coin - I actually had a patient beg me to kill her once, unbeknownst to her family. I saved her instead and resolved her respiratory issues.
We've made great strides in this issue with advanced directives and living wills in the last two or three decades. Some states have protocols for paramedics and ERs that now allow us to acknowledge, honor, and respect the dying process while providing comforting (palative) but not life-saving care. One of my last calls before I retired was just such a call. The rescue crew, ER and family handled it with great professionalism and grace.
However, what the OP suggests is taking the debate into the realm of where the patient is not competent to advocate for him or herself. That is scary ground for me because a health care provider is technically (and legally) bound to perform as an advocate for the patient. If the patient I met for the first time three minutes ago, and whose history I only know from bystanders at the scene, can't tell me what they want, am I really competent to make that decision for them...?
Ugggh. Scary. Open to ideas, so I look forward to the debate.
I also want to clarify that I am not talking about actually putting anyone to death, but just letting them die naturally, while providing them with whatever is needed to prevent discomfort.
This is a very common thing. Hospice, like others have said. People die at home, in their sleep, etc. frequently with no medical intervention. Living wills and medical PoAs make end of life decisions like ventilators, etc.
I believe in the right to die. Tough question without a simple answer but for someone to loose there life savings laying in a hospital bed until they are drained dry only to be moved to a lesser facility and wither away is inhumane.
Incurable is a sliding metric, and it's a very subjective term. Everybody's definition of "incurable" isn't the same.
On one end of the spectrum, you have some people that wouldn't pull the plug on a vegetable, then you have people like me on the other hand that would grind the majority of our prison population into dog food if given the choice. Like most things, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
I can also take the example of my father. At around age 60 he had a massive heart attack and stroke from which all the doctors agreed he would not recover. He would be in pretty much a vegetative state in a nursing home. Except he did recover and after about a year he was able to live well and independently until his death at age 82...about 20 years after he was declared "incurable".
Are you speaking of someone who is on a vent and has a tracheotomy,a NGT or gt,and who is not alert?
There is a difference between a brain dead patient and someone who is in a Persistent Vegetative State.
I believe Terri Schiavo was in a PVS state.
Science does not know if someone is in a PVS state or not,because the patient cannot answer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
