7 ms·

I took the parent to be saying something like "even if medically assisted suicide were available as an option without restriction, there is no point at which yo

I took the parent to be saying something like "even if medically assisted suicide were available as an option without restriction, there is no point at which you would decide to do it because the onset of dementia is so gradual." That is, it would be difficult to make the decision (for some/most people at least) while you were still having lucid moments where you could still have some quality of life. And by the point where you have completely lost it, you are no longer of sound mind to consent to a medically assisted suicide.

blagie 3y ago
I think one way to go is to do this early, with a clear bound. For example, one might set a rule that if they can: * no longer compute ∫x²dx * remember the capital of France; and * recall where they were born Then they have crossed that threshold. Personally, though I don't want to be killed. At least by my values, killing is not okay. I think there are much better things to do, such as: - Being frozen in Antarctica, in case medical technology improves in a century or two to the point where I can be revived and cured. - Go some place where I will surely die, but where I can still do some good (running a school for girls in Afghanistan when the US was there is a good example) - If none of that is possible, do something interesting and dangerous. For example, if my brain is going anyways, experimenting with drugs and dying by drug overdose seems like a decent way to go. And to be abundantly clear, that's my opinion and my values. I'm not trying to decide for anyone else. I don't think these sorts of decisions should ever be forced, mandated, or imposed. Footnote: Thresholds are hard to define. I did have one relative with complete loss of short-term memory who seemed to be having a wonderful life. They were happy, friendly, and told grand kids wonderful stories from decades past. It helped that they had a very easy-going personality. On the other hand, they didn't know how they got to where they were, or what we were talking about five minutes ago. They also didn't have any recent memories (e.g. if a relative had been married within the past half-decade or so, they wouldn't recognize the spouse). There was a point where I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have passed any reasonable threshold, but they seemed to be living a very full life surrounded by a big family who loved them. On the other hand, if my brain was where their brain was, I'm pretty sure I'd be completely miserable.
- jeromegv 3y ago
  How is going to Afghanistan and manage a school something you should once once you reach advanced dementia? You’d think that it would make some good? To whom?
  - vwcx 3y ago
    +1. Those girls don't need to deal with old Uncle Al failing to manage the basic day to day logistics of their school. Might as well dedicate your waning days to living out a Robinhood fantasy stealing for the poor until you're killed by the landed gentry.
  - blagie 3y ago
    That's something I do well before I'd reach advanced dementia. Part of the point is to never reach that stage.
- mindvirus 3y ago
  Flashbacks to high school Teacher: "Compute ∫x²dx" Me: "x^3/3" Teacher: "You forgot the + C!" RIP
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    "You forgot an infinite number of other answers!" /whipped for each one
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  If you're an organ donor, you'll do more good than any of those three options once you die, IMO.
  - blagie 3y ago
    Unlikely and irrelevant. Unlikely: Organ donor is only an option in some circumstances. It's more typical with young people and accidents than elderly. There's no age cut-off, but for example: 1) The organs need to be fresh (e.g. you died in the ER). 2) The organs need to be in good shape (e.g. not sick) Irrelevant: It doesn't solve the fundamental question of values and ethics. I am against actively taking a life, including my own. I am not against putting my life at risk, especially for a good cause.

blagie 3y ago

I think one way to go is to do this early, with a clear bound. For example, one might set a rule that if they can: * no longer compute ∫x²dx * remember the capital of France; and * recall where they were born Then they have crossed that threshold. Personally, though I don't want to be killed. At least by my values, killing is not okay. I think there are much better things to do, such as: - Being frozen in Antarctica, in case medical technology improves in a century or two to the point where I can be revived and cured. - Go some place where I will surely die, but where I can still do some good (running a school for girls in Afghanistan when the US was there is a good example) - If none of that is possible, do something interesting and dangerous. For example, if my brain is going anyways, experimenting with drugs and dying by drug overdose seems like a decent way to go. And to be abundantly clear, that's my opinion and my values. I'm not trying to decide for anyone else. I don't think these sorts of decisions should ever be forced, mandated, or imposed. Footnote: Thresholds are hard to define. I did have one relative with complete loss of short-term memory who seemed to be having a wonderful life. They were happy, friendly, and told grand kids wonderful stories from decades past. It helped that they had a very easy-going personality. On the other hand, they didn't know how they got to where they were, or what we were talking about five minutes ago. They also didn't have any recent memories (e.g. if a relative had been married within the past half-decade or so, they wouldn't recognize the spouse). There was a point where I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have passed any reasonable threshold, but they seemed to be living a very full life surrounded by a big family who loved them. On the other hand, if my brain was where their brain was, I'm pretty sure I'd be completely miserable.

jeromegv 3y ago
How is going to Afghanistan and manage a school something you should once once you reach advanced dementia? You’d think that it would make some good? To whom?
- vwcx 3y ago
  +1. Those girls don't need to deal with old Uncle Al failing to manage the basic day to day logistics of their school. Might as well dedicate your waning days to living out a Robinhood fantasy stealing for the poor until you're killed by the landed gentry.
- blagie 3y ago
  That's something I do well before I'd reach advanced dementia. Part of the point is to never reach that stage.
mindvirus 3y ago
Flashbacks to high school Teacher: "Compute ∫x²dx" Me: "x^3/3" Teacher: "You forgot the + C!" RIP
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  "You forgot an infinite number of other answers!" /whipped for each one
candiddevmike 3y ago
If you're an organ donor, you'll do more good than any of those three options once you die, IMO.
- blagie 3y ago
  Unlikely and irrelevant. Unlikely: Organ donor is only an option in some circumstances. It's more typical with young people and accidents than elderly. There's no age cut-off, but for example: 1) The organs need to be fresh (e.g. you died in the ER). 2) The organs need to be in good shape (e.g. not sick) Irrelevant: It doesn't solve the fundamental question of values and ethics. I am against actively taking a life, including my own. I am not against putting my life at risk, especially for a good cause.