My mother in law died at home (in the same room in which she had been born sixty years prior in the middle of WWII) and despite the twice-daily visits from the Diakonie nurse to change dressings and feed her (German home visit paid for from church tax) the burden of caring for her in her final months fell harshly on her two youngest daughters.
Compare that to my paternal grandmother who could see the writing on the wall and moved herself into care so her kids wouldn't have to deal with it. As her vision and hearing decayed, and then she started to lose her short term memory she told me she realized she was just hanging around to get a letter from the Queen which she decided was pointless so offed herself* before she became unable to do so. She told me that she couldn't have done that at home -- too hard on her (by then senior citizen) kids.
* (Unfortunately euthanasia was not legal in South Australia so she had to starve herself to death at 98).
The problem is that it deputizes your loved ones as stand-ins for professional medical staff. End of life care is hard for the professionals, don't put it on your loved ones.
Sadly we aren't given a choice. My Mom's mom went from perfectly reasonable to dying at home amazingly fast in hindsite - 3 to 6 mos. I think.
My Dad's mom lived to be 90'something but the last 20 years were in increasingly assisted living. I don't think she even knew where she was the last couple years of her life.
That said - dying at home is work for family no two ways about but.. I think it helps with grieving in some ways. I was there for a lot of that time and it dispelled any illusions I might have had about what was going on. It made me think that dying is an incredibly inwardly focused thing.
I feel like more people should consider euthanasia. If caring for you is a huge physical and financial burden, and you're basically waiting to die anyway, why not just get it over with?
I'm pro right to die, but it's complicated. If we start killing people "because you are a burden to your family," that's a rather ugly slippery slope that flies in the face of most moral and legal precedents that say "Love and legal obligation mean staying to the bitter end and never faltering in your duty."
Most people with something terribly wrong are holding out hope for some new breakthrough -- some new drug or therapeutic treatment -- that will finally fix them. A lot of people can't quite commit to euthanasia because "what if they find a cure a week later?"
I think I should have the right to say "Nope. I'm done with this crap." I don't think other people should have the right to decide "Well, if you conveniently die now, we can still afford that vacation....um, I mean, we hate seeing you suffer! That's what I mean!"
I don't think there is a euthanasia bill passed or even on the table in the entire planet where "we start killing people because you" is acceptable.
That's just plain FUD.
They are all, "The patient, being of sound mind, jumps through a large bunch of legal hurdles to be permitted to exit peacefully and painlessly."
> "Most people with something terribly wrong are holding out hope"
We're talking about people inches from death here. If they had hope they would be in hospital. They no longer have hope, only pain.
> A lot of people can't quite commit to euthanasia because "what if they find a cure a week later?"
A lot of people want euthanasia as a barrier against fear... "There have been some terrible days, and I'm certain I'm dying, and as I die, it will get worse. If it gets intolerable, I can opt out... it's not intolerable today, so I can hold on another day."
There aren’t laws with that explicit purpose, but it does seem to occur. I don’t actively seek out and follow this topic, but I remember a few news stories where I shook my head:
- https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-45117163 29 chooses physician assisted suicide because she was terminally mentally ill
- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/world/europe/doctors-belg... a case where doctors were acquitted, but charged by a family member, of eeuthenasia a 40 year old who was depressed and autistic. Other family members supported the death.
Also has another story of “ In the Netherlands, a doctor was acquitted in September after having been accused of failing to secure proper consent from a 74-year-old patient who suffered from Alzheimer’s and had been administered euthanasia by the doctor.”
I think this is an issue where the risk of abuse or misuse is very great. The accusation in the above case is that doctors did not attempt to treat the depression and instead allowed the patient to choose death. At 40.
Depression and Suicide is serious. I don’t want to go down a path where there’s some suicide checklist that includes “ok then, off you go” rather than trying to treat depression and help the patient.
I don’t think it’s FUD to discuss this and think about it with others. It’s important and not clear cut.
Technically attempting treatment should be part of that checklist.
Just like palliative treatments, this is ultimate last resort of exclusion.
Presuming there is any reason it's depression, and one of the risks of depression treatments is increase in risk of suicide. Could lead to the same end, or even kill the patient anyway with other side effects. And when do you decide "garbage" therapies like counseling or socialization fail?
In the case above, the problem is that treatment requires the person to be committed, and person committed is declared not of sound mind. That's the catch-22 of euthanasia laws. You would have to change the part "of sound mind".
And then the doctors could be sued anyway, because some alleged treatment was missed. Either you trust the doctors made a diagnosis correctly or not.
No, it's not FUD. It's called conversation. I was engaging the point made that "if you are just a burden to your family..."
There doesn't need to be legislation in the works somewhere on planet Earth for it to be a valid point to say "Yeah, that's a super bad reason to agree someone should die and here's why."
I stated up front I'm pro right to die. I have a Dread Disease myself. I'm abundantly familiar with the other side of the equation of "I want to check out now, thanks. I've had enough."
I did touch on that aspect in my comment. My Dread Disease is why I think I should have the right to decide "No, seriously, I've had enough. I want out and this is the only way out of this torturous prison called my defective body."
Yep, parts of Australia just approved a euthanasia bill and its full of so many restrictions there is next to no way it can be abused. I think the tl;dr is you have to have a terminal illness that will kill you in 6 months and which is causing you pain and you have to consent to it.
> I'm pro right to die, but it's complicated.
> I think I should have the right to say "Nope. I'm done with this crap."
This is a pretty standard way of staking out a position on this topic but I think it is quite misleading.
Laws regarding euthanasia have very little if anything to do with limiting the actions of someone who wants to die or protecting their "rights". After all they can't be prosecuted after they have passed.
Without some special provisions, a doctor or anyone else who assists in someone's death could be prosecuted for criminal homicide. And once you've carved out that exception you also have to devise a way to protect an individual from being killed by someone under the pretense of lawfully assisting with their suicide.
So it isn't really about the "right to die" but instead is about regulating homicide. I know that sounds strange, but there are several legal principles that could be described as "regulating homicide". For example committing homicide in self-defense or in order to protect someone or as part of a lawful military action.
There is the idea of "negative rights". These are rights that don't require the actions of a third party in order to be satisfied. For example, the right to not be assaulted only requires that other people not assault you. And the right to ownership of private property only requires that other people not take your property.
On the other hand a "positive right" can not be satisfied without active participation of someone else and if that right is to be guaranteed it may require that someone else be forced to do something. For example, the right to an education requires that schools, teachers, books, and other materials be provided.
The conceptual problem with positive rights is that they can only be guaranteed by infringing on someone else's negative rights. For example, the right to an education requires the forceable collection of taxes in order to fund the education system or perhaps the forceable assignment of careers to ensure enough teachers and administrators. Most people are willing to find a middle ground but that only goes so far as can be seen when people complain about high taxes or wasteful government spending.
The difficulty with your position is that it creates a situation where someone might have to be forced to kill someone despite their wishes. Let's presume that the law has been adjusted to permit someone to assist in your suicide without putting themselves in jeopardy of being prosecuted for murder (and relaxing the law like this has its own dangers). You still need to locate a person who is willing to help you. What if you don't know any such person? What if everyone you ask says that they don't want to participate? Can you assert your right and demand that someone be forced to assist you? Since you are asserting there is a "right to die" it only follows that your desire for assistance can't be denied, someone must force someone else to assist you.
The way out of this conundrum, in my opinion, is to realize that there is no such "right to die".
> Can you assert your right and demand that someone be forced to assist you?
I would say, the proper interpretation of rights such as "right to education" or "right to die" is that nobody may stand in your way of exercising them, not that others must be coerced into provisioning roles.
(The coercive aspect is an interpretation taken by collectivist societies with regard to certain expensive needs.)
Ok, but then you don't need any special "right to education". You just need all usual individual freedoms (property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc.)
We could just call that "liberty". There is no need to argue about some nearly-infinite list of "rights to X" when that is all covered by the simple idea of being left alone. But the moment you say that you in order to excercise your "right to X" someone is obligated to provide something to you, then you are back into the coercion game again.
Even if you have all sorts of freedoms, those freedoms by themselves don't allow you to attend and get a diploma from an institution that has not accepted you as a student. An institution could reject applicants for unfair reasons, and that would be one area where education as a right could be used as an instrument for intervention.
(Unfair reasons would be ones that have nothing to do with academic placement or ability to pay: right to education doesn't have to mean that a school has to take everyone who applies, and those who can't pay tuition.)
Of course freedoms don't guarantee an outcome. That isn't what freedom is about. In your example it assumes some higher authority that intervenes to ensure that you get what is your right. What about the person you are replacing in that incoming class? For you to get the spot that you deserve someone else has to lose their spot (assuming there is a finite capacity). Wasn't their "right" just violated?
As a thought experiment you can simplify this a bit more by thinking about an even more basic necessity. Food. Is there a "right to food"?
That sounds like a positive right to me. It can only be guaranteed by someone else doing something for me (i.e. providing me with food). So why should I have to pay for my groceries? Shouldn't I be able to just go somewhere and get all the food I need because it is my right? If you say that I need to pay for it, then it certainly doesn't sound like a right to me, that just sounds like commerce.
Once you drop the requirement that someone else provide the food to me, then I would argue you aren't really talking about a basic "right" at that point. Certainly it is a necessity to live, but that doesn't mean that the universe will magically provide that necessity to me nor does it mean that someone else should be forced to provide it to me.
Disagree. Yes, anyone can commit suicide. But doing so without medical assistance usually involves leaving a huge, traumatic mess for our fellow humans to deal with. For the good of all concerned, including the about-to-be deceased, reasonable self-euthanasia should be supported.
(An additional benefit is that it would help identify people who are suicidally depressed for not-reasonable reasons, and get them help, or at least someone to talk to.)
Dying of cancer in a hospital leaves a huge traumatic mess for people to clean up too. Chances are they're cleaning up for you for days and weeks, and the trauma of dying is still going to crush your loved ones. One day of scrubbing blood vs weeks of changing bedpans, catheters, and cleaning up other messes.
That’s already about a minimum cost and minimum suffering exit. Many people’s choices are extreme pain or so drugged on opioids they effectively take an early exit either way. Adding a 3rd choice is really not about giving up hope, that’s long gone at that point.
Maybe the euthanasia is better left un-codified. It's not difficult to obtain the means for relatively comfortable suicide -- and people do it left and right, mostly for reasons of mental illness -- so it's not like people are being oppressed by not having such a "right".
"It's not difficult to obtain the means for relatively comfortable suicide"
Except that so many people botch their suicides, and then have to live a life that's really worse than death. Or they try again, some fail again. And again. And again. Each time with agonizing, terrifying, miserable results.
They usually have to hide their attempts, too, so they can't be surrounded by loved ones, can't talk about their plans or feelings with loved ones, and can't be in a familiar place for fear of being stopped.
Sometimes other people are unintentionally harmed as others risk their own lives to stop them, or the chosen method (such as running out in to traffic) inherently endangers the lives of others.
All this misery and terror could be avoided if there was a legal way to end one's own life safely, reliably, comfortably, without stigma, and with dignity.
It's not so much that it's difficult as that it requires a certain amount of sustained, intelligent thought, and some people probably can't really reason it out. Methods that absolutely cannot fail and that aren't too awful for the subject and survivors aren't initially obvious. Thus the large number of failed and awful suicides.
(Source: Have been suicidal in the past and cracked this nut.)
It's also hard to get good info precisely because helping someone or encouraging someone to kill themselves can get you charged with something -- or make you feel at fault, even if you don't get charged with something. So most people don't want to provide that info by any means whatsoever.
I generally agree that random individuals shouldn't be providing this sort of information. Rather, I think there should be a considered, bureaucratic process, perhaps with a waiting period, and with that, most people should be allowed to peacefully self-euthanize.
I occasionally wonder how many people with something terribly wrong sort of secretly commit suicide by "accidentally" screwing up their meds or something.
I hear there's a semi-established tradition where a medical practitioner explains to you how much a lethal dose is for a self-administered or a caretaker-administered pain medication (typically with old people, a bottle of morphine), and repeats this explanation a couple of times, and well...
I have decided years ago and I do not see this changing significantly that once my mortgage is paid down -- which is approximately in eight years -- I just want to die, I will be 53 by then. By then the so called "bucket list" will be empty. I am living alone and this I can't see changing any time soon. Do not think I am suicidal or depressed -- I have three international trips booked for this year already and so on. I am just utterly practical. Nothing frightens me more than living with a slowly fading mind in a much more rapidly failing body.
Canada where I live has allowed medical assistance in dying since 2016 doesn't allow for this. I do not expect to be terminally ill and so I can't just decide, not even if I make a declaration ten years beforehands, that I want to end it in dignity and without pain. You can't. You can extend it far beyond where life is enjoyable, it is indeed the default expectation to do so but ending it, that's not allowed.
First, I really hope you reconsider as there are so many people you can help in the world.
But I’m very curious your motivation to pay off your mortgage before death. What is driving that? I always thought mortgage payment was a stress as it is to me. But if I were to die then I wouldn’t need to care about mortgage. If anything, I would pay less mortgage and spend more liberally in my final 8 years. Perhaps 4 or even 5 international trips.
That’s pretty admirable and I understand now how an intact, debt-free house is a great gift.
It’s probably not possible to have a direct conversation with your nephew for whether he would prefer a house or more than 8 years with his uncle, but I think if you explore this concept you might be able to determine his preference and that could lead to extending your plan by a few years.
One of the things I really found helpful from family members, and I have an uncle like this, is the life advice I’ve received. I didn’t get financial help, but being able to run through scenarios and ask about business and life plans has been super helpful. Another person in my life died and left letters to be opened in case of certain events. Those letters are helpful, but very different from being able to learn from and interact.
I respect your view (and share your fear of decay), but please don't rule out depression; you might not be able to accurately diagnose yourself. A clergyman friend once said, after someone committed suicide, that depression is a disease that can be fatal.
I sure hope that you’ve talked some 65+ year olds who are loving their life. Suffering is not the same as evil. With old age typically comes suffering. But my great grandma lived to be a 102 and loved her life to the end.
This could be a case of moderate anosognosia? Living alone can be terrible for mental health.
I know a guy around your age after a divorce decided to move in with some younger roommates in SV, even though he had plenty of money to live alone. He did this to stay socially engaged.
EDIT: I recall there have been a few studies where people became more satisfied with their life as they aged. I hope this is the case for you.
Yeah. See, I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes not long ago (AFTER I made the decision on when is the show over) and I can fully maintain a non diabetic blood sugar level with just diet and for the time being , I am doing so. It however greatly limits one of the biggest enjoyment in my life, namely food. THAT is the future -- as I age , more and more things I could do I won't be able to. I bought a rolling carry on for the first time today because I recognize running around with a stuffed backpack is not cutting it any more. Already I needed to limit how much I can sightsee on foot. All this. I am SO not interested in walking this path down to the bitter end.
It depends on the condition in question. Some conditions have a life expectancy lower than age 53 and someone that age is deemed elderly for that subpopulation and can be suffering horribly.
Assisted suicide is illegal throughout most of the USA so it's not even an option. Also, many people just aren't in a rush to die. Whatever your beliefs, one thing for certain is that it's a permanent and irreversible transition of some kind. It's unsettling, at least on primal levels.
Agreed. Life is only worth living if I am "me". A mere collection of cells undergoing biological processes is not "me", and the idea of being trapped inside a broken body is genuine nightmare material.
yes but the line is not assisted suicide or not. it's "unnecessary care or not", at least in france. I don't know how it is in the us considering the cost such care would entail..
> I feel like more people should consider euthanasia. If caring for you is a huge physical and financial burden, and you're basically waiting to die anyway, why not just get it over with?
Most of the elderly (about 6 people) with whom I've spoken are disgusted at even mentioning something like this (70-85 year old men and women from western Europe). This sentiment may change as new cohorts age out.
Right? There are so many means to quick and painless suicide. Everyone talking about a "right to die" demanding government legislation makes no sense to me.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm saying that even if euthanasia was accessible, many of the people the article is talking about wouldn't be able to legally consent to it anyway.
I'm absolutely pro euthanasia. When I'm old I would definitely not want to be a burden on someone, nor would I want to live like a disabled. I feel there is no dignity in it.
However, I'm seriously worried that this opinion might change once I'm at that point.
I see that you created the account in 2015.. that is a looooong time and only 34 karma? You must be a level 50 Troll by now.
On an extreme example:
Being 5 years old, having cancer, being in intolerable pain, and having no certainty that this torment will end sooner rather than later is a topic well worth discussing.
Another aspect is the impact to the loved ones. No father wants to see their child die. No father wants to pull the plug on their child. But no father wants to see their child screaming in pain for months and months and months.
Please put aside the cost of the bullet, US elections, politics and process this instead. And if you can, please rejoin the dialogue using your love, not your hate.
I've had the privilege of seeing my parents take care of two of my grandparents in my parents' home after my grandparents couldn't take care of themselves any more. (In one case, for their final week, in the other case, for over 5 years.)
I look forward to taking care of my parents in my home whenever they get to that point.
> I've had the privilege of seeing my parents take care of two of my grandparents in my parents' home after my grandparents couldn't take care of themselves any more. (In one case, for their final week, in the other case, for over 5 years.)
> I look forward to taking care of my parents in my home whenever they get to that point.
I am living this privilege and wouldn't trade it for anything. But something in you changes the first time you have to help your parent out of clothes they pooped in and into the shower. I wasn't prepared for it when it happened, but I believe it has made me stronger (and if anything, dealing with an adult with a decaying mental state feels like good practice for dealing with a teenager). I am so thankful to work in tech where my physical presence is not a necessity and so I can be more present with my family, but sadly this is not true for too many.
If you're going to do long-term care, make it easy on yourself. It can quickly become extremely taxing both mentally and physically.
It may become a challenge to get the help you need - either time or finances.
Spend money early on helpful tools. It is easier than you realize to get things like patient lifts, stair chairs or helpful beds. Older folks use them for a time and sell them for a pittance or give them away.
A good bed can help with reading, sleeping and snoring, and there are some amazing ones that transform (as cool as autobots and decepticons) from beds into chairs that can roll around.
Same here. I just hope we can get assisted suicide for more situations to help ease the passing. I wouldn’t want to occupy my kids’ time if there’s no hope of independent living again.
Just keep in mind that if you just disappear your family won't be able to get a death certificate for at least 7 years if they don't find a body. With out a death certificate they won't be able to collect life insurance, inheritance, or deal with the estate.
Exactly that. Your family will have to deal with a lot of bureaucracy. I am also in favour of settling your affairs, make a last round saying your farewells and end it in a "clean" manner. Disappearing in a forest will get you to the missing persons list. Then if/when someone finds you it will be a whole new ordeal for your loved ones, DNA tests, burials etc. Why upset them 1-5-10 years later?
Just went through this with my dad. Fortunately he was financially able to be in an assisted living facility which gave me and my sister much needed assistance and help during the process. As mentioned in the article, hospice covers very little.
Unfortunately nursing home or assisted living costs $200-$800 per day depending on the place you live and the assistance needed. If your loved one doesn't qualify for Medicaid, they are responsible for that. Medicare does NOT cover it, contrary to what many think. The only option for many is to drain their savings until they are destitute enough to qualify for Medicaid. One could argue that one reason you save is to take care of yourself in old age, but when the draining of savings actually happens it adds to the emotional toll.
Long Term Care insurance is an option if you plan ahead, but it has become VERY expensive and hard to get now that the LTC providers have realized that their actuarial tables were way off years ago.
I don't support/agree with all his opinions, but I've watched the "Dave Ramsey - Financial Peace University" and one of the things he insists on (at least I picked up on that) is to make sure you slowly invest on a package that would cover you at old age. Especially if you don't have kids to be a burden on.
I recently had to go through the passing of my grandfather. In addition to having Parkinson's for the last 5 years of his life that progressively got worse, he also had stage for rectal cancer that was inoperable. He had a DNR and also an advance directive about prohibiting aggressive medical intervention. He ended up with pneumonia and refused to be ventilated to clear the mucus. He told me and my grandmother after an extremely bad night in the hospital that he was, "ready." I called family from all around to come say good bye, We were planning on doing in home hospice but his condition was deteriorating and I couldn't manage it on my own. We ended up taking him to a very nice hospice center, they stabilized him enough for everyone to get to say their last good byes and then he passed a few days later.
Just a thought, but here it is.. humans were living for far less years. We used to die at 20-30-40, 50 at best for thousands of years. Then hygiene, healthcare, comforts kicked in and we ended up living up to 100+.
I think that "in the past" our species didn't have to worry about "senility" (and what comes with it) because people were dying while their brains were still at full capacity/capability and it was only the body that was "failing".
The jump from the lifespan of 50 to 90 to just a few decades must have made a huge difference in the appearance of this "new problem" of having 3-4 generations being alive at the same time.
I remember a Great-grandparent was a very rare thing. Now with people living up to 100 and people having kids at an earlier age, we get to see it far more, and this will most likely continue.
Really the problem is that the care facilities are few and far removed, the other being that old people really prefer the familiar.
Alternatively that live in professional care is really expensive, and for good reason that it takes a big toll on people performing it in addition to special skills
I'm very familiar with the concept of in-home hospice, and personally it resulted in one of the most horrifying experiences in my entire life. I would not wish it on anyone.
Extremely biased article, bordering on propaganda. Not everyone dying is an ongoing expensive burden, and care facilities aren't miracle cures. Many people need somewhere to rest on their way out.
> Not everyone dying is an ongoing expensive burden
An increasing amount are. Dementia is increasing. People live longer and wind up with strokes or extreme feebleness.
Having had a parent with Alzheimer's, if I go that direction I will make sure to end my life. Why would I ever want to subject my family to taking care of me with something that cannot even hope to be slowed down let alone cured?
> How can someone relating their personal experience be "biased"?
Aside from all stories we tell being biased there are many ways a story I tell about my experience can be especially biased. Exaggeration, omission, conflation, and then there’s outright deceit. There’s also the possibility that what I believe is real is not [0].
I don’t like assuming the worst or accusing people, but I certainly don’t think that all personal accounts are completely neutral. People usually tell stories with some motive and I think it’s valuable to be politely cynical, a bit.
> Exaggeration, omission, conflation, and then there’s outright deceit.
That's not bias, that's lying.
For what it's worth, the author's experience certainly matches my own (working as a paramedic). There are a lot of people out there who have significantly underestimated how hard it is to care for a loved one who is slowly dying.
Compare that to my paternal grandmother who could see the writing on the wall and moved herself into care so her kids wouldn't have to deal with it. As her vision and hearing decayed, and then she started to lose her short term memory she told me she realized she was just hanging around to get a letter from the Queen which she decided was pointless so offed herself* before she became unable to do so. She told me that she couldn't have done that at home -- too hard on her (by then senior citizen) kids.
* (Unfortunately euthanasia was not legal in South Australia so she had to starve herself to death at 98).