11 ms·

I had an old teacher who died almost a year ago. Great guy, very sociable, knew everyone in the little town he lived in. Kept in touch with a lot of students.

• Freak_NL 1y ago
  It doesn't seem pleasant for the person themself either. Constant frustration, gaps in your memory growing ever larger, disorientation, loss — periodically augmented by brief flickers of recollection of what you used to be — and yet no one can legally end your misery, because you can likely no longer unequivocally consent to euthanasia or assisted suicide, even if you explicitly signed a declaration that you did not want to end up like this — legally, the current husk of your former self must consent, and it can't.
  • firesteelrain 1y ago
    It’s still absurd despite what you say that we are implying that we should euthanize another human because they have become difficult to manage due to illness. Where do we draw the line?
    • stavros 1y ago
      I think the implication was more "people should be free, when they're of sound mind, to choose euthanasia if they lose that sound mind".
    • cwillu 1y ago
      You can quite easily draw a line that society does not get to force someone to live a tormented existence in spite of their prior declaration that they do not want to be tormented. “It shouldn't be that way” is not an excuse to torture people through your moralizing indifference to the fact that it is that way.
      • rkomorn 1y ago
        I've wondered about this for my hypothetical future self. Currently? I'd say that I wouldn't want to live with dementia, but what if my "demented self" (kinda hate the phrasing, sorry) in the future wants to live, or doesn't remember they don't want to live? Do I have a say over the life of someone who doesn't remember they were me?
        • tirant 1y ago
          You don’t have a say over your future you because your future you is not the same person as you.
          • rkomorn 1y ago
            That's what I lean towards, too.
      • dotnet00 1y ago
        The entire issue they're pointing to is that deciding that someone's existence is sufficiently tormented is difficult and morally fraught.
        • pantalaimon 1y ago
  • LorenPechtel 1y ago
    Some places permit consent in advance, the person specifies the conditions but hands the evaluation of whether they have been met to the doctor.
• WA 1y ago
  Yeah but if you are in that state, you probably don’t give a shit and everybody else seems to be the problem. So how do you solve this? When dementia isn’t too far progressed, your life seems to be still worthwhile to live and once the dementia gets worse, it’s too late to realize this.
  • pflenker 1y ago
    You could express your wishes about how you would like to be treated in advance, while you are still clear in the head. That’s already possible for other situations, like when you are braindead and entirely dependent on machines to keep you alive, with no chance of recovery.
    • 0xEF 1y ago
      Having a living will is a great idea in general. My dad got a brain tumor and had no documentation on what he wanted do with his estate, in the event he became vegetative, etc. By the time he realized he needed one, it was too late for "sound mind judgement" and my mom had to go through this ridiculous legal process to ensure she held on to his assets and whatnot while she was directly caring for a dying man. Save your loved ones some grief, create a living will with a trusted lawyer, update it about once a year. It's worth it. There are so many insane snafus one can get into with estranged family members, the state/gov't, medical institutions, etc that make the situation even more difficult and stressful to deal with. Don't expect anyone coming out of the woodwork to act according to honor. They are vultures and know no such kindness.
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • atonse 1y ago
        You can create one with LegalZoom for very little money. It includes a one hour zoom session with an actual attorney to explain things. They make it so easy.
      • esafak 1y ago
• basisword 1y ago
  >> You really don't want to end up with dementia and related illnesses, it totally sours everyone's view of you. I don't think this is fair. I know several people who died with Alzheimer's and although their final years were very difficult for them nobody has a bad opinion of them. It's certainly a strain on the family but intimating that if you have dementia you better kill yourself or your legacy will be ruined is not ok.
  • h33t-l4x0r 1y ago
    Not to mention that you won't really care what people think of you because you'll be dead.
  • 0xEF 1y ago
    I think the suggestion needs more thought, but I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of making my exit before the dementia really sets in. I've directly cared for two family members who suffered from it (collective 5 years of my life, which I'd like to think gives me a pretty good view of what the disease can actually do to people) and I decided for myself that I'd rather be quietly killed than put my loved ones through what I went through as a caretaker. While also trying to work a full-time job and maintain my own sanity while I watched people I'd known all my life be destroyed, becoming tortured versions of themselves like something out of a body-snatchers horror film. We, the loved ones, made the decisions to keep them going and I wonder how fair that was to them. We tend to not want to let people go, choosing to sacrifice quality of life for the sufferer and those around them for, what, a few fleeting moments of possible clarity? The opportunity to say goodbye to someone who may or may not even understand what is happening? The events I went through with my family hurt us in ways that will not likely ever heal, despite effort on at least a few of our part, and it did leave me wondering if I would put my son or wife through that should something similar ever happen to me. I decided against it, seeing as I am at the age where these are very real possibilities. In the US, we have DNRs ("do not resuscitate") and living wills that offer prior directives, but something like assisted suicide is not allowed here unless some very extreme circumstances are met, because insurance companies and hospitals make more money from suffering people than dead ones. I'm a strong advocate of the right to die, but it is a decision that needs to be made some extensive consideration and documentation before one actually needs it.
• ignoramous 1y ago
  Jason Zweig, Kahneman's friend, wrote about this and many other thoughts Kahneman would have gone through in making the decision. As Barbara Tversky, who is an emerita professor of psychology at Stanford University, wrote in an online essay shortly after [Kahneman's] death, their last days in Paris had been magical... One afternoon, according to her online essay, she asked what [Kahneman] would like to do. "I want to learn something," he said. Kahneman knew the psychological importance of happy endings. In repeated experiments, he had demonstrated what he called the peak-end rule: Whether we remember an experience as pleasurable or painful doesn't depend on how long it felt good or bad, but rather on the peak and ending intensity of those emotions. "It was a matter of some consternation to Danny's friends and family that he seemed." https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/daniel-kahneman-assisted-suicide-9fb16124 https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/daniel-kahneman-assis... / https://archive.ph/fEWrc https://archive.ph/fEWrc, The Last Decision by the World's Leading Thinker on Decisions (March, 2025).
  • RickJWagner 1y ago
    I have to wonder if they could have had one more magical day. Or maybe two. Maybe in a different city, or with different friends. If he did “learn something new”, could he have incrementally improved upon it, using his brilliant mind? Could he have made one more wise observation? It seems he likely left something on the table.
    • jfengel 1y ago
      You're always going to leave something on the table. One of life's trickier lessons is learning when too much optimization becomes less optimal.
    • ignoramous 1y ago
      Kahneman's family & friends who knew beforehand apparently did object. You should read the piece by Jason Zweig, if you haven't. The decision was deeply personal and was most certainly not an endorsement of euthanasia. ... Kahneman's final email said: "Not surprisingly, some of those who love me would have preferred for me to wait until it is obvious that my life is not worth extending. But I made my decision precisely because I wanted to avoid that state, so it had to appear premature. I am grateful to the few with whom I shared early, who all reluctantly came round to support me." Kahneman's friend Annie Duke, a decision theorist and former professional poker player, published a book in 2022 titled "Quit: The Power of Knowing When to Walk Away." In it, she wrote, "Quitting on time will usually feel like quitting too early." She is frustrated by his decision. "There's a big difference between it feeling early and it actually being too early," she says. "You're not terminal, you're fine. Why aren't you taking the outside view? Why aren't you listening to people who will give you good objective advice? Why are you doing this?" Paul Slovic, a psychologist at the University of Oregon who befriended Kahneman more than 50 years ago, says, "Danny was the type of person who would think long and hard about things, so I figured he must have thought about it very slowly and deliberatively. Of course, those of us who spend our lives studying decisions, we think a lot about the reasons for those decisions. But often the reasons aren't reasons. They're feelings."
• Jolter 1y ago
  Not all Alzheimers patients get aggressive/angry. I know it happens, I’ve known one person who did almost exactly what you describe above. He lived with his partner of many years, and seemed superficially very cogent and together. It was just that he started to see insults and conspiracies against his person everywhere around him. Not until later did the cognitive and memory decline become apparent, giving him a diagnosis that explained his bad behavior. But my personal anecdata puts that man in a minority. None of my older relatives with Alzheimer’s have become aggressive or troublesome. Worry, anxiety and confusion seem to be much more common states of mind, which admittedly also doesn’t seem like such a fun way to spend your days.
• rolandog 1y ago
  I read your comment and it strikes me as a cautionary tale that can be used by bad people to justify or push for eugenics: "they took him; they said he developed Alzheimer's". As we're currently seeing happen: whatever is left unsaid in the body of the law can and will be abused by evil people to concentrate more power (even if the spirit of the law advocates for something kind). So, we have to normalize some sort of stress tests for laws... because you sure don't want to be dragged against your will because you're poor.
  • sillyfluke 1y ago
    Yes, there is a danger of that in general. I think someone made a movie in Japan about the subject, specifically because there is a culture of the elderly not wanting "to be a burden on the younger generation." Some said it hit closer to reality than science fiction because of that specific cultural characteristic in Japan. It also supports Kahnemen's position of pulling the plug when "the going is good" from a ethical point of view, since it leaves no doubt of intention.
    • netsharc 1y ago
      This was also mentioned in the debate about euthanasia in the UK; that it could lead to pressuring elderly relatives to off themselves. I can imagine the pressure might not even be explicit, it could be implied, and maybe not even consciously, but through behavior. Like a more subtle form of Shakespeare's "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?".
      • ipaddr 1y ago
        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wxq28znpqo.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wxq...
        • rolandog 1y ago
          Interesting article. I personally side with the opponents in this regard: > But opponents argue it's being used as a cheaper alternative to providing adequate social or medical support. I personally think that all attempts should be made to provide homeless and sick people with treatments, and they shouldn't be pushed in that direction if they do not want it. If we do not have the capacity to do so, then my view is that we are failing as a society to provide adequate care for all in their time of need. If a country is able to build dozens of city-sized data centers, then it is clearly choosing not to treat and house a certain part of their population.
• AQuantized 1y ago
  > You really don't want to end up with dementia and related illnesses, it totally sours everyone's view of you. This seems like such an absurd conclusion to this, as though the opinions of other people of you are what matter when you functionally lose your personhood and then die. Maybe a better focus would be that there often isn't a good way for a community to manage a person who suddenly becomes irrational because of an illness.
  • sillyfluke 1y ago
    The parent described someone who went above and beyond the norm of other members in his community in his constant positive interaction with his neighbors, collegues, and former students. It is highly likely this kind of person would give a considerable shit if he knew he would become a nightmare for the same community. There may be others reading in the thread who also can relate to the personality of the teacher and may care about their affect on others when they are "not themselves".
    • dns_snek 1y ago
      There's a difference between "I don't want the disease because I don't want to become a menace to others" (what you're saying) and "I don't want the disease because it would make me lose social status" (what the original commenter said).
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • wjnc 1y ago
        I am left wondering. Can’t people (in general) understand that Alzheimer’s changes a person fundamentally, irreversibly and forever until death follows? Many positive traits of personality disappear, the negative starts to dominate, I think mainly from fear and a subconscious awareness of what is being lost. That’s pretty much 101 of grieving when a loved one is struck with Alzheimer’s. The person has left. You continue caring for a body / a different person because of the relation you have to a former them. But please don’t connect the persons past deeds and being to the actions with Alzheimer’s. For myself: I hope for assisted suicide before Alzheimer’s. I value me for me. Not-me I don’t value, and Alzheimer’s does not improve not-me over me. But people who cannot separate me from not-me (with whom not-me loses status for me)… I don’t care about them! (Philosophical mood.)
• ZpJuUuNaQ5 1y ago
  >You really don't want to end up with dementia and related illnesses, it totally sours everyone's view of you. I completely agree that the disease is horrible, but your conclusion is bizarre. When you are in that condition, how anyone views you is the least of your worries.
  • supportengineer 1y ago
    Is your position that you don’t personally care how people remember you?
    • Noaidi 1y ago
      Many people think badly about the mentally ill act when they are suffering through an episode. Should they be allowed to die by suicide because what people think of them after they come out of psychosis? Should embarrassment be the bar we are setting for suicide?
    • ZpJuUuNaQ5 1y ago
      Yes, you are absolutely correct.
      • mynameisash 1y ago
        Do you also not care how people think of you now?
        • ZpJuUuNaQ5 1y ago
          Of course I don't. Life is a short, temporary experience, and I don't want to spend this time wondering what others think of me. It does not matter at all. I am nothing, just a briefly conscious lump of cells. I will die and turn to dust, just like about 100 billion of others before me. Nothing that I say, think, dream, experience, do, or how I act or look like will ever matter.
        • ipaddr 1y ago
          Live your life for you not for others opinions which are fleeting anyways.
• deafpolygon 1y ago
  I would say that this is a societal problem, not an individual one. Society needs to do better in taking care of people who do slip by the wayside, with mental illness and diseases like Alzheimer's.
• supportengineer 1y ago
  I agree with you, I would not want people to remember me that way. Folks I know who have passed on also wanted to be remembered when they were strong, not when they were ill.
• femiagbabiaka 1y ago
  A society that sours on you due to an illness that’s totally out of your control seems a little inconsiderate to put it mildly.
  • bityard 1y ago
    I don't think anyone was suggesting that it would be society's call to make.
    • femiagbabiaka 1y ago
      Well sure — I’m not talking about euthanasia, I’m talking about compassion towards the aging. An 80 year old who has dementia needs community more than ever. If you’ve been there for your community and their opinion of your turns when you age, what is the purpose of community?
• dbZJtFuAXUrVLmY 1y ago
  This comment really bothers me. I am not put off by the idea that the memory of a person is worth protecting, what I am put off by is the suggestion that death is a good option here, or that death is better than having lived those 3 years of life. The idea that when someone loses the capacity to retain their reputation and dignity it would be better for them and others that they were dead and that they have nothing good to offer is such a dangerous one and is just wrong. It applies to many people who are not near their end of life too. I am really pro assisted suicide as a way of shortening suffering when made as a conscious decision by people of sound mind, but comments like these make me very very uneasy.
  • bityard 1y ago
    > I am really pro assisted suicide as a way of shortening suffering You don't consider years of mental trauma on the individual and years burden and stress on loved ones to be suffering?
    • zigzag312 1y ago
      That's the issue with assisted suicide. A lot of old people bring burden and stress on loved ones at some point. How many old people will be guilt tripped into an assisted suicide because of this philosophy?
      • bityard 1y ago
        I don't see what that has to do with my comment, but okay: A lot less than are unwillingly bringing undue burden and stress to their family and neighbors because there is no legal mechanism to avoid it. Even fewer if we acknowledge that assisted suicide should be an option with a very high bar for those who would qualify. I wrote another comment about one way it might work.
        • zigzag312 1y ago
          I interpreted your argument that suffering that years of burden and stress on loved ones bring is a good reason for an assisted suicide. Or did I misunderstood you? Regarding your estimates, are you just making up a lot of assumptions or do you have any data backing up your relative numbers? In your other comment you seem to assume that anyone not agreeing with OP's suggestion doesn't have personal experience with close relative having a dementia. I'm very sorry for your loss. At least some others (me included) also have had this unfortunate experience, but don't agree. High bar is actually very hard to quantify. All old people are in gradual decline and are relatively close to their deaths. One alternative to your suggestion would be that a state would provide quality professional care for people with dementia. That way the things OP described wouldn't happen and the family of the patient wouldn't have to bear the financial burden of the disease. We are more advanced and richer that we have ever been in human history, but it seems like we are unable, as a community, to provide very ill people with quality care they need.
• dotnet00 1y ago
  This is such a cruel perspective, implying that he'd be better off dead, for what, 3 years of inconvenience to his community, despite the previous 80 years being spent contributing positively to it? You even literally show that he isn't solely remembered for those last 3 years of his life. We owe people like that care and understanding, not murder framed as mercy. It's always so painful to see old people around who are clearly living alone, forced to do everything themselves, having to ask strangers for help because they're afraid of being a burden, and their actual children can't find time for them. Only to now see people actually supporting murder because old people become a burden for a couple of years near the end of their life.
  • joelwilliamson 1y ago
    He’d be dead either way, the question is if having those three years were a net improvement to his life
    • dotnet00 1y ago
      By that logic we should invoke the death penalty for everyone who has been sentenced to life in prison and has exhausted all their appeals, or any seniors convicted of a crime. Their life probably won't improve anymore, and in the latter case they're going to die in a few years anyway, so might as well just lighten the load on society?
      • esafak 1y ago
        No, you'd let them decide if they want to die.
    • ipaddr 1y ago
      3 years living vs dying is a 3 year net improvement on life. Such silly statement. By your logic we should kill everyone at their peak.
      • ReptileMan 1y ago
        A beautiful woman dies twice as the old saying goes. While what you say is extreme there is a point in the decline past which there is no point of living. If you have something worth living for - cling to life and to 107 if you like. But if the only thing that waits you is to slowly decay and fade and lose yourself - what is the point?
• hhthrowaway1230 1y ago
  Sounds like LinkedIn story to me. Written by claude trying to drive a point home.
  • lordnacho 1y ago
    Not sure how to react. This is the second time in a month that someone thinks I used AI to write an HN post. All I can say is that I didn't, and thank you for implying that it was so well written that it could only have been authored by a machine that has all of humanity's cultural output to hand.
    • hhthrowaway1230 1y ago
      Sorry about that, will be more considerate in the future
• sebastianconcpt 1y ago
  This sounds like a big and somehow convincing but still rationalization. If you apply at scale the same logic with more sensibility you will also be able to rationalize a genocide because someone felt bad about something. What defines demonic inspiration? And here I don't say "demonic" metaphysically but philosophically.
• bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  >Instead he was that 83 year old guy who pissed off everyone, nearly blew up the neighbourhood, and drove like a maniac. I find the people who remember him as this guy somewhat contemptible though, so I guess my theory would be he wasn't remembered badly by anyone whose opinion mattered. But on the other hand I guess that's the way the world works.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• fsloth 1y ago
  I agree alzheimers turns everything to shit in every meaning of the word. I disagree it’s up to you to conclude it would have been better if he had been killed 3 years earlier (which you imply). In general you don’t have the right to such a statement. Now, if you were discussing _your own_ condition this would be a totally valid consideration IMHO. But you (almost) _never_ have the right to conclude from someone elses part when it’s their time to go. Assisted suicide is a humane option but ”I hope he had died with some dignity years ago instead of pissing everyone off” tarnishes the entire concept and is exactly the type of argument which stops assisted suecide becoming a more widely accepted option.
  • kayodelycaon 1y ago
    It’s basically getting rid of somebody when they become an inconvenience to others. Outside the bubble of HN, I suspect most people that talk about it as humane for the person actually mean humane for them. Many countries hesitate to execute criminals despite very clear criteria that could be used to justify it. (Many countries banned entirely.) Why would we have a lower bar for someone who hasn’t committed any crimes?
• teiferer 1y ago
  > it totally sours everyone's view of you. That's just as much failure of everybody as it is of him. This was dementia speaking and society needs to learn that. You wouldn't tell somebody with a broken leg to get it together and it's just their personality that they can't walk. Nor should you treat dementia like that. Yes, people seem to shift personalities and anger others. But those others need to understand that it's a medical condition, an untreatable and fatal one, so should have even more sympathy than with somebody who broke a leg (cause that will likely just be temporary). Not alienate the person and speak ill of them.
  • pardon_me 1y ago
    We are human. Unfortunately all of our experiences with others change our perception of them, no matter how much awareness of their motivations and our history with them. We can try to ignore it and have patience. Apologies can help but relationships will constantly change. It's certainly a failure point within us and something to be aware of to make effort towards understanding our own impact as you suggest. Sadly a problem with no full solution over long enough time periods.
  • randcraw 1y ago
    Imagine that the illness in question was unremitting and excruciating (unlike a broken leg), not only for you and the your loved ones, but everyone you come into contact with. And there's no hope it will ever get any better. That's what dementia usually becomes, and that inhuman level of misery can last for years until you finally slip away. No animal other than man would consider perpetuating that state of decline. An elephant would simply wander away to die, freeing their community from their struggle to simply keep breathing. I agree with Kahneman, at least that we all should seriously consider the cost of allowing that level of degeneration to consume us -- and more, the pain it inevitably will inflict on our loved ones -- and plan for it while we're still compos mentis.
• raw_anon_1111 1y ago
  My issue is, anyone with half a clue should know that a formerly nice respected man doesn’t automatically turn into a mean guy that “pisses them off” because he wants to be. They should have known that he had dementia and it wasn’t his fault. I’ve never been close to anyone who had dementia. My grandparents on both sides died with their mental facilities in tact and my parents who are 83 and 81 are independent and just as of 6 months ago passed a cognitive test. I can imagine if they started acting out of character and being mean to me or forgot who I was that I would be hurt, overwhelmed etc. But not pissed.
• swat535 1y ago
  This is a heartbreaking story to read. But I think that pushing for assisted suicide as a "fix" like you're suggesting misses the bigger picture. We have a responsibility as a society to support people through these diseases, not cut their lives short because it's tough on everyone else. The real issue is our broken systems for handling dementia and underfunded homes, overworked staff, no real community nets. Fixing that honors the full life someone led, instead of saying their value drops when they need help. Assisted suicide opens doors to abuse, like pressuring people who feel like burdens. We owe better to people like your teacher.
• pessimizer 1y ago
  > If he'd been run over by a car, or died of a heart attack at the age of 80, people he knew would remember him as that nice old guy who had a dog and made a lot of art, and was friendly to everyone. Instead he was that 83 year old guy who pissed off everyone, nearly blew up the neighbourhood, and drove like a maniac. I've really thought about this a lot after seeing a number of family members and friend's family members go through dementia, and it seems like it can go two ways: like this, which is how it went with my grandmother (whose hoarding behavior increased aggressively, and she started slapping people), or how it went with my grandfather on the other side (he became quieter and quieter, watched tv every day while understanding less and less of it, and when you caught his eye would repeat how much he loved you and how much seeing you "made an old man feel good.") It has something to do with how you feel about the nature of people in general, and whether you feel they are all suspicious and possibly conspiring against you, or that you think they are basically good and want the best for you. When you have all of your mind, you can beat the demons or the angels back with your reasoning enough to have the personality that you want. My grandmother was very loving, and my grandfather was very shrewd and practical. But when that higher function can't regulate you, what shows is if you were someone who taught yourself how to see the good in people, or someone who taught yourself how to see the bad in people. I suspect I'll end up like my grandfather, as much as I think of myself as like my grandmother. Deep down, I've always been crippled by the feeling that everyone is a wonderful person. My aggression and judgemental nature on a lot of things can really, embarrassingly, be interpreted as me looking for excuses for everyone's behavior.
• imtringued 1y ago
  So you're telling me Alzheimers is a death sentence? Also, what is the minimum nuisance that should lead to someone's death? Because that is the problem with the euthanasia obsession. At some point everything indirectly leads to euthanasia and society is not built for that at all. Everything you do might or might not lead to someone's euthanasia, which means you are liable for their death. Let's say we can predict school shooters before they shoot and give them an euthanasia to save lives. If bullying or encouragement causes someone to start shooting up a school, then the latent shooter will die before they do their shooting, but it also means that the instigator is a murderer themselves, because in the absence of instigation, no crime would be committed and no euthanasia would be necessary. Since it is probably not possible to assign liability of a euthanasia to a single individual, because multiple people contributed to the outcome, the liability will be shared. Ten people being involved means each has committed 10% of a murder, meaning that they should receive 10% of a life sentence. Are you ready to serve a cumulative year in prison spread throughout your life to account for indirectly causing euthanasia? Note that this problem isn't necessarily unique to euthanasia. The problem applies to any cure all solution. (Think of series like "Common Side Effects") If you punch someone's face in, but cure it with a blue mushroom, was it really a crime, since their face is intact? And yet, more punching happens as a result of the existence of the panacea, which is why there needs to be a punishment for making someone dependent on the panacea.
• AtNightWeCode 1y ago
  I think you are bit wrong. Once someone close to you dies you remember them by their legacy. Also, you just have to laugh at some of the chaos these elderly cause. They call you in the middle of the night being lost somewhere and you have to guide em home. Or help the cops guide em home. I am pro assisted suicide. Not sure about Switzerland but some countries allows it for young people with mental health problems. That I can't accept that.
• groby_b 1y ago
  > it totally sours everyone's view of you. That's the part that doesn't matter at all. Your life isn't contingent on others having a specific view of you - the rest of the world can, for lack of better words, go fuck themselves. What matters is if you want to live a life where you can't drive a car, you might poison yourself with your cooking, you lose your mental facilities, etc. That is the relevant choice here.
• p0w3n3d 1y ago
  What you say is "you don't want to end up with mental state because people will hate you" but TBH mental illness, though really harsh on environment, shouldn't be viewed differently than any other illness like broken leg. When person is riding a wheelchair you don't tell them "hey you're a pain in the ass because you drive so slow and cannot jump on the stairs" - we tend to give them hand, help by building ramps and lifts. The same should be with mentally ill. Places safe for them, mabe remembering aids software in a watch?
• Andrex 1y ago
  34M. I live with my mom who's had it for a few years. It sucks. It's so easy to forget who they were before the disease. This is them now and it's hard as hell. Simple things that take 1-step for us take 50+ steps for her. She doesn't readily communicate that she's hungry or thirsty or needs to use the bathroom, we have to constantly ask. She's always exhausted and walking around in circles but reacts aggressively to most suggestions to go to bed or take a nap (no matter how we word it). She can't focus for more than a few seconds, so she has no hobbies to occupy her time, and even the TV loses her interest after a minute at most. Her speech is one unbroken babble, and she gets annoyed if someone starts a conversation near her but doesn't let her interject. Not sure how much more my dad and I have left in us. The disease stripped everything from her and it's stripping everything from us. In-home care is the likely course but she hates all strangers and is always paranoid about anyone other than us being in the house. There's no good solution. Tell your parents you love them.
  • Remnant44 1y ago
    I've had just the smallest touch of this caring for my elderly parents, and you have my deep empathy. It's exhausting and really really hard.
• kcexn 1y ago
  I think the takeaway should be you really don't want Alzheimer's regardless of what people think of you. Think about what is happening from his point of view. The condition has fundamentally changed his perception of reality. You are trying to tell him that this perfectly cooked chicken is pink all-over when it clearly isn't. Everyone else has gone mad and he doesn't know why.
• singleshot_ 1y ago
  > You really don't want to end up with dementia and related illnesses, it totally sours everyone's view of you. Yes, the sixty-fifth worst thing about degenerative brain disease. Good observation.
• err4nt 1y ago
  This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I see that the man was Israeli in the original story and I don't want to presume a religious perspective, but I can share some thoughts from my own based on his story and yours. I've read the New Testament within a Jewish framework and one of the things it says, Rabbi Shaul says in 1 Corinthians 12:23 that those people in the community who are most embarrassing or cause us to blush, like the parts of our own body who are honoured or dignified by being clothed with underwear, likewise in the community are owed a special covering and to be afforded dignity by the other parts of the same body/community. Just something to think about in light of this story!
• zakki 1y ago
  I guess modern people need more empathy to their elderly. In Asian Village I believe they have more empathy if the elderly is having dementia. *no data though, just observing my village
• danielscrubs 1y ago
  I hear quite a lot of these stories from my parents. Are these kind of personality shifting diseases, like Alzheimers becoming more common? And if so, is it because we take better care of our hearts and don’t die as early as?
  • randcraw 1y ago
    Yes, I think that's right. The average age of death due to old age has climbed for over a century, probably due to greatly improved public health and personal medicine. https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy Because dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases take decades to manifest they've been especially hard to diagnose early and prevent or treat early, while cognition is still intact. Alas, I think that hasn't changed much in recent years, despite many scientists and businesses working toward that end. Partly that's because few academic researchers can pursue a theory long enough in time to fully assess its potential, especially in combo therapies. Nor can the big pharma corporations who not only suffer from the same difficulty in long-term funding, but prefer the ROI of continuing treatments for disease to that of quick cures (or lifestyle advice). These are nowhere near as profitable a pill the patient must take for decades.