You can’t open a paper or turn on the news, it seems, without hearing what a disaster the Baby Boomer cohort will cause as they age to healthcare, nursing homes, family financing etc.
As someone who spent a lot of years caring for someone who needed a lot of care, I was stunned at the number of people who would confess, immediately upon leaving the sick room, in hushed tones, something to the effect of…‘I’d rather someone end my life, than live needing constant care from others.’ I was always shocked by how urgent they needed to own this conviction, to the point of blurting it out to the damn caregiver! (There were days I was tempted to blurt back, STFU!)
But it made me think about all the other end of life arrangements we make. As a society we have no problem with Power of Attorney for our money or our end of life choices. We’ve clearly made our peace with Do Not Resuscitate orders.
We routinely euthanize our pets and believe we are acting compassionately. And I’ve never met anyone who thinks living years with Alzheimer’s is a great idea, or a pleasant way to go. And it’s often torturous for the family and care can be bankrupting.
So why isn’t there any movement by, this large and influential cohort, to address this issue? Who’s going to act against it? Power of attorney for Alzheimer’s, the so designated person gets to decide when it’s time to ‘put them down’, as it were. Using whatever merciful pharmaceutical the Dr’s think best. Healthcare catastrophe averted, nursing home disaster averted, etc.
But is it so much different than POA over end of life interventions? I don’t think it is.
Maybe put in some easy ‘opt out’ triggers for the squeamish, but if everyone involved, (elder, survivors, spouse, family, Dr ), are all on the same page, then why not?
(Perhaps I should have begun with a thread asking if anyone would want such a choice or not! Ooopsy!)
You’re jumping a bit far ahead. In most places, assisted suicide is still a crime. And if it’s a crime to kill somebody who ask you to kill them, then it’s inevitably also going to be a crime to kill somebody whose attorney asks you to kill them.
Even if we get over that hurdle, there are pragmatic issues. It’s obviously unsatisfactor to have the decision made by anyone who has a financial interest, or a potential financial interest, in the estate of the patient. On the other hand, what stranger is going to take on the responsiblity of making such a decision? Who, exactly, would be a suitable attorney to appoint?
I wasn’t thinking of an attorney, actually, but a trusted, and clearly a willing friend. And it’s not like they have to give you the shot or whatever just make the decision, like a do not resusitate order, sort of.
Not wanting to get caught up in nomenclature, but any person to whom you grant a power of attorney is, by definition, your attorney, whether or not he’s an attorney in the professional sense.
Plus, the point of granting a power of attorney is that you give somebody authority to make a decision on your behalf - a decision thatyou could in theory make yourself. You may set out parameters within which he is to make the the decision, and you may give him guidelines to follow when making the decision but, in the end, you are asking him to make a decision. And since, in this case, the decision is to kill you (or have you killed), it’s not a decision that many people would be happy to have to make and, arguably, not a decision that it is fair or reasonable to ask someone to make.
Not in the US. Here, the holder of a POA is the agent. Attorney-in-fact is rarely used (outside a few jurisdictions) except in quotes from very old cases because of the confusion with attorneys at law.
OK. Jurisdictional differences. Where I come from, your agent may, but doesn’t necessarily, have any discretion about what he does on your behalf, but your attorney definitely does. Hence the nomenclature matters.
But we shouldn’t get hung up on nomenclature. I still think that what the OP advocates is an arrangement under which someone else gets to decide whether should be killed on the basis that, if you were mentally competent, you would wish to die. And it seems to me that that’s a lot to ask somebody to decide.
I don’t think I am asking that. Any more than a do not resusitate order is asking someone to decide to pull the plug. You’re asking someone to follow your wishes, I think. Clearly it would need to be someone willing.
It always seems to me when conversation turns to caring for a changed, angry, combative parent most people say they’d rather someone do the merciful thing than to torture their loved ones with their care. If you could lay your wishes out, while still of sound mind, designate the decider, and discuss it with your Dr, why not?
Because, like it or not, there is a big difference between “do not rescusitate” and “kill”. You’re talking about taking somebody who’s neither dying nor terminally ill, and killing them. That’s hugely different from not subjecting them to medical treatment which they have indicated that they don’t want.
And there’s this dimension; a person who is dementing may still be able to express a fear of dying, and a desire to live (or, at least, a desire not to be killed). Do you suggest that the view expressed by a demented patient should be ignored and the patient should be killed anyway if, before becoming demented, they give a “kill me if I’m demented” directive?
I don’t see that the answer can possibly be “yes”, since on any view killing somebody who is actively expressing a wish not to be killed is not assisted suicide; it’s murder. On the other hand, if your answer is “no” then whether a demented person is killed or not is ultimately controlled, not by the advance directive, but by the decision they make while demented. And if we don’t think they are capable of making any other decision while demented, allowing people to rely on this decision as a defence to what would otherwise be a murder charge is hard to justify.
Elbows, the Criminal Code of Canada is not in synch with most people’s opinions. Changing it will require people putting pressure on their MPs.
The Conservative federal government is opposed to permitting euthanasia. The general reasons are that permitting euthanasia would make it possible to kill elderly and disabled people who don’t want to die, and that it offends religious values.
Presently, Quebec is studying the issue (although it does not have any ability to change the federal law).
In Ontario, it is common for a Power of Attorney for Personal Care to include clauses that direct the designated Attorney (usually a family member or close friend – rarely a lawyer) to pull the plug if there is no reasonable possibility of regaining any quality of life, and for palliative care to include pain relief even if the medication shortens the person’s life. Palliative sedation is as close as one comes to euthanasia in Canada – knocking out a person to relieve pain and then letting them pass away from whatever it is that ails them.
From B.C., a case on euthanasia has wound its way through to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it will probably be heard this year: Lee Carter, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, et al., 2014 CanLII 1206 (SCC), <http://canlii.ca/t/g2pwg>.
I expect that one of the last social changes the boomers make in Canada will be to advance the legalization of euthanasia.
And, how do we judge when the dementia is enough to trigger this action? Today may be a bad day, but yesterday or tomorrow may be better. When Aunt Sally can’t remember that it’s Tuesday (Hell, I forget some times,and I’d like to think I have a bunch more good years, being in my 40s). When Grandma doesn’t recognize her grandkids? When someone’s personality changes (how much? In what direction?) When they exhibit poor judgement (HA! That would lower the world’s population fast)