(04-02-2024 09:02 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 08:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Uhm, the idiom is "Cut off your nose to spite your face." If you cut off your face you have no nose to spite.

Thanks. I was half awake when I typed it. I know the idiom, although I'm the idiot who typed it wrong.

Quote:Alzheimer's takes its toll more on the caregivers than the patients and for those who try to manage it in the home the able spouse on more than few occasions winds up predeceasing the patient and the stress of care is a contributing factor. The same is true for dutiful older (think 70's) children caring for parents.

I could not disagree more. My dad didn't know who anyone was. Didn't know my mom, didn't know me, or my sister. He lived in a state of not knowing who anyone around him was, didn't know what they were doing to him, where he was waking up, and was constantly in fight or flight mode. It is every bit as hard on the patient as it is on the caregiver.

Quote:I find this issue to be extremely complicated as there have been people placed in palliative care who likely didn't belong there, but their heirs wanted them gone. I've also seen cases where people suffer inordinately when there was no hope for a cure and the outcome was going to be fatal anyway.

Euthanasia is not an option that the heirs should be allowed to take *UNLESS* it was put in a living will by the patient. It would have the same requirements as their last will and testament.

Quote:Suffice it to say in over 20 years of caring for people, many of which were near end-of-life situations, I would be forced to say that while I'm sympathetic to the ending of needless suffering, I see way too much crap in that system to trust it to act judiciously and appropriately and that should scare us all. I fear that any legal form of euthanasia, even if defined in a living will, is going to have too many potentialities for abuse.

Took the rest out because you essentially say you don't trust anyone to make that decision for you. But, in my dad's scenario, he would have had very strict guidelines that we couldn't bypass, just like in his living will for other issues (DNR, etc.). He asked me when I was about 20 years old that if he ever was in that condition to find a way to take him out. I wish I would have had a way that wouldn't have landed me in prison. If it were available to me today I'd have a living will in place that would put me out to pasture once I got to that condition.

Wow, you had a dad who had Alzheimer's and that makes you an expert. Each case is different and I've handled easily over 60 of them, among other issues. I'm truly sorry your family had to experience it, but it is different for every family. I had one case where when the wife walked by a mirror she flew into a rage and wanted to know why her (dutiful and loving husband) was hiding another woman in the house.? Before she died, he did, of a heart attack induced largely by a broken heart. She didn't know her children's names but knew they were her children. She had been born in Germany and before it reached her final stages she couldn't remember any English but she could speak Plattdeutsch. When I told her children she wanted to know their names, but could no longer remember speaking English and that what she was speaking was a dialect of German they had a connection and got a friend to translate.

Some patients suffer, some don't, but those who have completely lost all memories are confused and sometimes angry, but the family projects onto them all of the emotions and frustration they are feeling because they are family The woman didn't recognize her own reflection and it made her angry with her husband. But she didn't remember the tantrums and wouldn't have another one until she was in front of another mirror.

The stuff you wanted to pass by in my comments were the parts you didn't want to deal with.

People who have been through a great deal of it can't seldom have anything but a feeling of ambivalence about the options and mistrust of the system to some extent. It's simply the reality.

Believe me, people who have been there a number of times know who hasn't been. That doesn't lessen the pain of your experience or the profound sense of loss you feel, but your experience is as unique as everyone else's. And when you've been with many you know that whether your political beliefs are left, right, center or indifferent.

As I said, one size doesn't fit all.

I noticed you particularly avoided specific examples. How convenient of you to dismiss the reality of others and use only your one experience as the norm.

(04-02-2024 09:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Wow, you had a dad who had Alzheimer's and that makes you an expert. Each case is different and I've handled easily over 60 of them, among other issues. I'm truly sorry your family had to experience it, but it is different for every family. I had one case where when the wife walked by a mirror she flew into a rage and wanted to know why her (dutiful and loving husband) was hiding another woman in the house.? Before she died, he did, of a heart attack induced largely by a broken heart. She didn't know her children's names but knew they were her children. She had been born in Germany and before it reached her final stages she couldn't remember any English but she could speak Plattdeutsch. When I told her children she wanted to know their names, but could no longer remember speaking English and that what she was speaking was a dialect of German they had a connection and got a friend to translate.

Dad, grandfather, other grandfather had Parkison's, another uncle with Parkinson's. As I'm sure you are aware, with Parkinson's you get much of the dementia component as well.

Quote:Some patients suffer, some don't, but those who have completely lost all memories are confused and sometimes angry, but the family projects onto them all of the emotions and frustration they are feeling because they are family The woman didn't recognize her own reflection and it made her angry with her husband. But she didn't remember the tantrums and wouldn't have another one until she was in front of another mirror.

The stuff you wanted to pass by in my comments were the parts you didn't want to deal with.

People who have been through a great deal of it can't seldom have anything but a feeling of ambivalence about the options and mistrust of the system to some extent. It's simply the reality.

Believe me, people who have been there a number of times know who hasn't been. That doesn't lessen the pain of your experience or the profound sense of loss you feel, but your experience is as unique as everyone else's. And when you've been with many you know that whether your political beliefs are left, right, center or indifferent.

As I said, one size doesn't fit all.

I noticed you particularly avoided specific examples. How convenient of you to dismiss the reality of others and use only your one experience as the norm.

I didn't need your specific examples (which mostly were showing you don't trust people to care for you). I said the euthanasia option would have to be severely limited to specific circumstances spelled out in a living will. I have gone through it 4 times with loved ones, and many more with my friends' family members. It is awful for both the patients and the caregivers.

I'm sorry you don't believe you can trust people to have your best interests in mind (or, in reality, to carry out your wishes). I trust my kids, my sister, my mother, and while my dad was around I trusted him to make those decisions for me. The government should NOT have a say in my treatment. I've always been in favor of keeping the government out of healthcare. But I do believe a person who is suffering should have an option to be peacefully passed on. Thankfully my mom has since gotten her hands on a medication that, when taken in a high enough dosage, will allow her to pass on peacefully without having to live a life with no quality left. I hope by the time I'm at that age that we will have gotten some common sense laws that will allow me to end things my way and with dignity so that my family doesn't have to watch me suffer through a horrible disease.

(04-02-2024 09:47 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 09:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Wow, you had a dad who had Alzheimer's and that makes you an expert. Each case is different and I've handled easily over 60 of them, among other issues. I'm truly sorry your family had to experience it, but it is different for every family. I had one case where when the wife walked by a mirror she flew into a rage and wanted to know why her (dutiful and loving husband) was hiding another woman in the house.? Before she died, he did, of a heart attack induced largely by a broken heart. She didn't know her children's names but knew they were her children. She had been born in Germany and before it reached her final stages she couldn't remember any English but she could speak Plattdeutsch. When I told her children she wanted to know their names, but could no longer remember speaking English and that what she was speaking was a dialect of German they had a connection and got a friend to translate.

Dad, grandfather, other grandfather had Parkison's, another uncle with Parkinson's. As I'm sure you are aware, with Parkinson's you get much of the dementia component as well.

Quote:Some patients suffer, some don't, but those who have completely lost all memories are confused and sometimes angry, but the family projects onto them all of the emotions and frustration they are feeling because they are family The woman didn't recognize her own reflection and it made her angry with her husband. But she didn't remember the tantrums and wouldn't have another one until she was in front of another mirror.

The stuff you wanted to pass by in my comments were the parts you didn't want to deal with.

People who have been through a great deal of it can't seldom have anything but a feeling of ambivalence about the options and mistrust of the system to some extent. It's simply the reality.

Believe me, people who have been there a number of times know who hasn't been. That doesn't lessen the pain of your experience or the profound sense of loss you feel, but your experience is as unique as everyone else's. And when you've been with many you know that whether your political beliefs are left, right, center or indifferent.

As I said, one size doesn't fit all.

I noticed you particularly avoided specific examples. How convenient of you to dismiss the reality of others and use only your one experience as the norm.

I didn't need your specific examples (which mostly were showing you don't trust people to care for you). I said the euthanasia option would have to be severely limited to specific circumstances spelled out in a living will. I have gone through it 4 times with loved ones, and many more with my friends' family members. It is awful for both the patients and the caregivers.

I'm sorry you don't believe you can trust people to have your best interests in mind (or, in reality, to carry out your wishes). I trust my kids, my sister, my mother, and while my dad was around I trusted him to make those decisions for me. The government should NOT have a say in my treatment. I've always been in favor of keeping the government out of healthcare. But I do believe a person who is suffering should have an option to be peacefully passed on. Thankfully my mom has since gotten her hands on a medication that, when taken in a high enough dosage, will allow her to pass on peacefully without having to live a life with no quality left. I hope by the time I'm at that age that we will have gotten some commonsense laws that will allow me to end things my way and with dignity so that my family doesn't have to watch me suffer through a horrible disease.

Where did I say I didn't trust people to care for me specifically. You are setting up an argument which wasn't there, a strawman. I didn't say I couldn't trust my kids, another assertion of yours I didn't make. I do trust my kids and have a living will. But I trust my kids because they'll honor my wishes. My wife will as well. But I have also prepared them for the kinds of things they will run into with the institutions they'll be dealing with.

What I referenced were the real cases where sons and daughters didn't care for their parents but acted in their own self-interest and if you don't believe that is possible you haven't had enough experience with people under stress.

You are trying desperately to find an angle to use against what I said. Try dealing with the reality of the substance instead of assigning emotions to me I don't have. I have experiences. Parkinsons and Huntington's are terrible to deal with, especially the latter. You have experiences within your family. My experiences are across many families in the performance of one of my professions. And whether you realize yet or not, simply having a living will doesn't mean it will be followed. I think most are, but there are exceptions there as well.

And you would do well to remember what Voltaire had to say about commonsense. He said it was most uncommon. The longer you live the more you will understand my remarks. I think like most of us, I hope I live a great and healthy life and that my death is a quick surprise. None of us want to linger in pain. None of us want to have only a functioning brain in a paralyzed body, or very little cognitive ability in a healthy body. We all like being in control of ourselves and fear the loss of that.

There are some interesting studies that have been done which link type 2 diabetes to a greater incidence of Alzheimer's. And they believe there are some connections to pancreas and liver disease. The reason Alzheimer's was hitting so hard 20 years ago until now and why it hits women more than men is due to hormone replacement therapy that women once received for menopause. Like Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease there was a spread from contaminated brain matter and spinal fluid in the harvesting of hormone from an infected person. The traits can be inherited, but mostly come from contamination. Well, they've determined that the abhorrent protein which cause the plaque buildup in the brain which leads to Alzheimer's has its roots in a contaminated source harvested for hormone therapy which women in the late 60's until the 80's had in great number. For men HGH stands a risk of contamination.

If this proves to be correct, then eliminating those kinds of treatments should help curtail the incidence of it. We'll see.

(04-02-2024 10:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You are trying desperately to find an angle to use against what I said. Try dealing with the reality of the substance instead of assigning emotions to me I don't have. I have experiences. Parkinsons and Huntington's are terrible to deal with, especially the latter. You have experiences within your family. My experiences are across many families in the performance of one of my professions. And whether you realize yet or not, simply having a living will doesn't mean it will be followed. I think most are, but there are exceptions there as well.

You are trying desparately to bring up limited examples to say nobody can be euthanized instead of finding mitigations to protect the person but allow their wishes. I am well aware that the living will is not always followed, we had to go out of our way to make sure that not only the hospital had my dad's living will on file, but also kept it on him at all times so that if he were to have an incident he wouldn't be revived thanks to his DNR.

Quote:And you would do well to remember what Voltaire had to say about commonsense. He said it was most uncommon. The longer you live the more you will understand my remarks. I think like most of us, I hope I live a great and healthy life and that my death is a quick surprise. None of us want to linger in pain. None of us want to have only a functioning brain in a paralyzed body, or very little cognitive ability in a healthy body. We all like being in control of ourselves and fear the loss of that.

Yes, thus, I want an option so I don't have to live with zero quality of life.

Quote:There are some interesting studies that have been done which link type 2 diabetes to a greater incidence of Alzheimer's. And they believe there are some connections to pancreas and liver disease. The reason Alzheimer's was hitting so hard 20 years ago until now and why it hits women more than men is due to hormone replacement therapy that women once received for menopause. Like Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease there was a spread from contaminated brain matter and spinal fluid in the harvesting of hormone from an infected person. The traits can be inherited, but mostly come from contamination. Well, they've determined that the abhorrent protein which cause the plaque buildup in the brain which leads to Alzheimer's has its roots in a contaminated source harvested for hormone therapy which women in the late 60's until the 80's had in great number. For men HGH stands a risk of contamination.

If this proves to be correct, then eliminating those kinds of treatments should help curtail the incidence of it. We'll see.

I hope they can find causes and treatments for Alzheimer's and other dementias, but in the mean time if I am diagnosed with it I do not want my kids to have to deal with my care. If I'm diagnosed with any terminal condition I want to be able to take a dignified way out. Simple as that. The government should not be standing in the way of me being able to take a graceful exit from this Earth. I should be able to get a prescription to take that allows me to fall asleep and never wake up. I shouldn't have to go find a drug dealer with fentenol.

(04-02-2024 10:32 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 10:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You are trying desperately to find an angle to use against what I said. Try dealing with the reality of the substance instead of assigning emotions to me I don't have. I have experiences. Parkinsons and Huntington's are terrible to deal with, especially the latter. You have experiences within your family. My experiences are across many families in the performance of one of my professions. And whether you realize yet or not, simply having a living will doesn't mean it will be followed. I think most are, but there are exceptions there as well.

You are trying desparately to bring up limited examples to say nobody can be euthanized instead of finding mitigations to protect the person but allow their wishes. I am well aware that the living will is not always followed, we had to go out of our way to make sure that not only the hospital had my dad's living will on file, but also kept it on him at all times so that if he were to have an incident he wouldn't be revived thanks to his DNR.

Quote:And you would do well to remember what Voltaire had to say about commonsense. He said it was most uncommon. The longer you live the more you will understand my remarks. I think like most of us, I hope I live a great and healthy life and that my death is a quick surprise. None of us want to linger in pain. None of us want to have only a functioning brain in a paralyzed body, or very little cognitive ability in a healthy body. We all like being in control of ourselves and fear the loss of that.

Yes, thus, I want an option so I don't have to live with zero quality of life.

Quote:There are some interesting studies that have been done which link type 2 diabetes to a greater incidence of Alzheimer's. And they believe there are some connections to pancreas and liver disease. The reason Alzheimer's was hitting so hard 20 years ago until now and why it hits women more than men is due to hormone replacement therapy that women once received for menopause. Like Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease there was a spread from contaminated brain matter and spinal fluid in the harvesting of hormone from an infected person. The traits can be inherited, but mostly come from contamination. Well, they've determined that the abhorrent protein which cause the plaque buildup in the brain which leads to Alzheimer's has its roots in a contaminated source harvested for hormone therapy which women in the late 60's until the 80's had in great number. For men HGH stands a risk of contamination.

If this proves to be correct, then eliminating those kinds of treatments should help curtail the incidence of it. We'll see.

I hope they can find causes and treatments for Alzheimer's and other dementias, but in the mean time if I am diagnosed with it I do not want my kids to have to deal with my care. If I'm diagnosed with any terminal condition I want to be able to take a dignified way out. Simple as that. The government should not be standing in the way of me being able to take a graceful exit from this Earth. I should be able to get a prescription to take that allows me to fall asleep and never wake up. I shouldn't have to go find a drug dealer with fentenol.

On your last statement it's always going to be an individual decision if you make it outside of the law. That option has been going on for centuries. Even insurance policies allow for it, just not within 7 years, or whatever is now the time limit is now for the policy to remain whole.

As to your first cropped quote, again you assign something to me that I didn't say. Where did I say nobody should have that choice. In fact, I gave examples where doctors "allegedly" a word used for legal purposes, forget to write down their application of usually 2 drugs, a muscle relaxant and an opioid. The heart simply stops. I distinctly stated I had little problem with this.

You shouldn't crop people's posts to quote them. Let the reader see the whole post.
It is a frequent technique of dissembling trolls and not something I tolerate on the main board. And it is inappropriate to assign your words to a poster with which you hare having a discussion. The speak for themselves. Three times you assigned things to what I wrote which were only in your mind and not mine. And in doing so you assign motives and feelings by insinuation which weren't part of the argument and I find that offensive and disingenuous.

It's enough to say you believe euthanasia is a personal choice and that I would be open to it if not for abuses that are already in the end-of-life hospital setting, which is an issue mind you wholly different than personal choice. I remain open, by experience, to the idea of doctor assisted end of life. I merely noted that it has to be independent of corporate hospital profit motives and govern regulation. If left solely up to the Doctors who know what the patient is suffering it could be much more trustworthy and part of patient / Dr. confidentiality. Get government involved and it becomes political, and agenda driven regardless of the side. Get corporate hospitals involved and it will become either a profit or liability issue.

I figure you are still pretty young by my standards, and your label and dismiss tactics belie that. I'm guessing mid 30's to mid 40's. Let people's arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Rebut what they say, not what you project. Engage their full argument and not just the points you pick and choose. You'll gain their respect and will be heard more clearly if you do.

(04-02-2024 10:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I figure you are still pretty young by my standards, and your label and dismiss tactics belie that. I'm guessing mid 30's to mid 40's. Let people's arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Rebut what they say, not what you project. Engage their full argument and not just the points you pick and choose. You'll gain their respect and will be heard more clearly if you do.

I disagree. I want to be able to quickly look and see what part of a novel of a post someone is responding to rather than have to read back through 17 paragraphs to see what the person is responding to.

^^^ (JR's post)

#greatAdvice

(04-02-2024 10:59 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 10:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I figure you are still pretty young by my standards, and your label and dismiss tactics belie that. I'm guessing mid 30's to mid 40's. Let people's arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Rebut what they say, not what you project. Engage their full argument and not just the points you pick and choose. You'll gain their respect and will be heard more clearly if you do.

I disagree. I want to be able to quickly look and see what part of a novel of a post someone is responding to rather than have to read back through 17 paragraphs to see what the person is responding to.

No, you just want to respond and dismiss rather than engage. Obviously, you never had essay exams but did acquire TLDR disease from social media. And more hyperbole (17 paragraphs) because you have no argument other than you want your choice. Now that's something I got in one sentence in each of your posts. But out of respect I read your entire posts and responded to them.

You simply didn't want to engage other possibilities except for your conclusion and technically what you attempted to do by label and dismiss are violations of the rules of this board are they not? Engage the argument and don't belittle the poster.

(04-02-2024 11:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  No, you just want to respond and dismiss rather than engage. Obviously, you never had essay exams but did acquire TLDR disease from social media. And more hyperbole (17 paragraphs) because you have no argument other than you want your choice. Now that's something I got in one sentence in each of your posts. But out of respect I read your entire posts and responded to them.

I read them. I chose to respond to the parts I directly responded to and not anecdotal stories that may or may not have every single possible detail needed to fully understand the situation. But I did give you my anecdotal stories and why I have my views.

Quote:You simply didn't want to engage other possibilities except for your conclusion and technically what you attempted to do by label and dismiss are violations of the rules of this board are they not? Engage the argument and don't belittle the poster.

My line of work requires I find a solution, and mitigate risk. That is what I said should be done in order to allow your scenarios to not play out in a legalized euthanasia world. I don't believe in saying no just because someone may do something bad. If that is the case then you have the same argument for gun prohibition, among a whole host of other things we are afforded by the constitution.

As far as belittling you, I did nothing of the sort. You brought up examples where family members may have forced their parent(s) into a premature death. I surmised you don't trust the people who would be involved in that decision in your life, to which you corrected me. I responded to direct statements by you, I took out the parts that I took to be anecdotal and not essential to the discussion (and stated that I removed them).

(04-02-2024 11:43 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 11:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  No, you just want to respond and dismiss rather than engage. Obviously, you never had essay exams but did acquire TLDR disease from social media. And more hyperbole (17 paragraphs) because you have no argument other than you want your choice. Now that's something I got in one sentence in each of your posts. But out of respect I read your entire posts and responded to them.

I read them. I chose to respond to the parts I directly responded to and not anecdotal stories that may or may not have every single possible detail needed to fully understand the situation. But I did give you my anecdotal stories and why I have my views.

Quote:You simply didn't want to engage other possibilities except for your conclusion and technically what you attempted to do by label and dismiss are violations of the rules of this board are they not? Engage the argument and don't belittle the poster.

My line of work requires I find a solution, and mitigate risk. That is what I said should be done in order to allow your scenarios to not play out in a legalized euthanasia world. I don't believe in saying no just because someone may do something bad. If that is the case then you have the same argument for gun prohibition, among a whole host of other things we are afforded by the constitution.

As far as belittling you, I did nothing of the sort. You brought up examples where family members may have forced their parent(s) into a premature death. I surmised you don't trust the people who would be involved in that decision in your life, to which you corrected me. I responded to direct statements by you, I took out the parts that I took to be anecdotal and not essential to the discussion (and stated that I removed them).

I was a professional why should I assume that what happened in cases I was aware of would be the reality in my own family? I can go back and pull the other condescending remarks and your attempt at labeling which is the first place you make the inference that because I witnessed such things that I must somehow fear them. And actual work experiences in the field of care for people near the end of life is not anecdotal. They are real. And certainly, more representative than your family experiences where your family as a unit would tend to respond similarly in each case because that's who they are. One example extrapolated to the whole is anecdotal and also a fallacy in logic. My car is red therefore all cars are red. I said there were children who couldn't give enough help who felt guilty and those who gave no help who should have felt guilty. And the motives vary by family, and this is still anecdotal in relation to the whole scope of cases everywhere, but far more representative than most examples given on any forum on this site. One thing a professional learns to try not to do is to take their work home with them. Sometimes your mind will be some cases but separating that from family is crucial. What happens to family X has no bearing upon what happens to my family unless family X shoots me. I did have a couple of touchy situations one involving a battered woman and another a suicide threat where guns were brandished, but usually it wasn't that eventful.

Freedom is in finding your own solution and mitigating your own risk. It is not found in having someone do it for you. And again, you assumed, errantly and in a number of posts, and have not listened well enough to hear me say, I understand your position and why you think that way, but one big rule doesn't fit all cases. Legalizing or keeping it illegal presents just as many problems either way. The problem is in one size fits all for something as personal as this. I argue for getting the corporations and government out of it and trying to find a way for doctors to make the evaluation when there is a request by the patient. Find a way to do that and you have a solution.

Getting government out of it altogether and distancing the hospital by absolving their liability in these events, would go a long way toward giving the physicians the space they need to help these patients with these decisions. And I said as much in the first post. You ASSUMED an oppositional position that I didn't have. I gave the conditions under which I believed it could be acceptable. You only saw opposition. That's your problem not mine. The solution has to eliminate the government from the rights of the citizen and give the hospital cover for liability to get them out of the equation and to make this a matter between the patient and Doctor where the patient can sign a waiver of liability for the Doctor and make the choice. But we are a long way from that happening. And sadly, palliative care takes time.

And for the record the reason I gave personal experiences was to establish the reason I am ambivalent about the matter as there are good reasons to allow it and good reasons not to. After those experiences I said exactly what I did above and that was the solution I offered. I just don't see government getting their butts out of any of our business because that would mean surrendering a bit of control, which government under either party is wont to do.