The Geriatric's Right To Die?

[MA-Caver]

A geriatric couple in their 90's have decided to die together and thus refused food and liquid or other substances. Their son has intervened and failed.

By MIKAELA CONLEY

Aug. 18, 2011



At 92 and 90, Armond and Dorothy Rudolph's bodies were failing them. He suffered severe pain from spinal stenosis, a narrowing of the spinal column. She was almost entirely immobile. Both suffered from early dementia, according to their son Neil Rudolph. They wanted to die.
The Rudolphs, married for 69 years, decided to refuse food and water to end their lives. Although they lived in the Village at Alameda, an assisted living facility in Albuquerque, N.M., they maintained they had a right to die on their own accord.
Three days into their fast, the couple told their plan to staff at the facility. Administrators immediately called 911, citing an attempted suicide.
The Village evicted the couple, and the next day, the Rudolphs moved into a private home, where they again stopped eating and drinking. Ten days after he began the fast, Armond Rudolph died. Dorothy Rudolph died the following day.

Full story here http://abcnews.go.com/Health/couple-stops-eating-drinking-end-life-son-launches/story?id=14327416

Sad story indeed. Do the elderly have the right to determine the end of their life's journey? With this particular couple the quality of their lives were fairly rock bottom. Severe pain, immobility and suffering from dementia. Both of them knew the quality of their lives was not worth the pain. I think that the assisted living home that evicted them was not being sympathetic... probably more worried about being sued by survivors if they couldn't prevent their deaths. Yet they found a way and hopefully they were at peace with themselves doing so.

I guess the question is do they have the right? Suicide is illegal of course but when quality of life becomes intolerable, unbearable, cannot be improved (via drugs, living conditions, et al) then what choice would they have other than to live the rest of their days in pain, misery and loss of dignity?

In ancient times the elderly tended to wander off into the wilderness to die because they can no longer contribute to the welfare of their tribes/communities, or that their pain cannot be resolved. Now we have hospices and retirement homes and so forth.
It's a Kevorkian dilemma to be sure.

 

[elder999]

I guess the question is do they have the right?

Yes.

Suicide is illegal of course

Know anyone who's been convicted of it? Done jail time?

In ancient times the elderly tended to wander off into the wilderness to die because they can no longer contribute to the welfare of their tribes/communities, or that their pain cannot be resolved. Now we have hospices and retirement homes and so forth.
It's a Kevorkian dilemma to be sure.

I plan on pointing my boat at the horizon and GOING....if I live that long, anyway.....

 

[Big Don]

I plan on pointing my boat at the horizon and GOING....if I live that long, anyway.....

You can't Thelma and Louise off the edge...

 

[Nomad]

It could well be argued that the most fundamental right in how you live your life could be determining when and how to end it.

 

[sfs982000]

I think they absolutely had the right to determine how to end thier lives. Both of them were suffering, not to mention the suffering the surviving family members go through watching their loved ones suffer. I believe assisted suicide in certain cases is totally justified.

 

[granfire]

Along with this documentary of assisted suicide we had a while back I read an article about it. What struck me really odd in an unpleasant way was a pro-lifer harping on the 'right to live'
It made it sound like it was everybody's damned duty to hang on as long as possible, with no regard of the quality of life.

Why is suicide in our culture such a big deal?

I am thinking we are having a big problem: We make our elders hang on to 'life' that is no longer worth living. Would our pets suffer like this we'd end their suffering and congratulate ourselves how humane we are.

Both my grandmothers suffered from dementia in their later years, and failing bodies.
It was hard on both of them since they were strong, independent women.

 

[Blindside]

From my young perspective, I say YES.

From my 90 year old grandmother's perspective, who is in (relatively) great health and ability, she is adamantly in favor of that right to die. She survived her mother going through Alzheimer's and a husband through brain cancer, and many of her friends, she is speaking from far more experiene than I and can't imagine forcing her to hold on when she doesn't want to.

Quite simply it is her life, her decision.

 

[Sukerkin]

Can't be any plainer than that, Blindside :nods:.

If the time comes for me and my missus is no longer here, then try and stop me when life becomes worth less than peace. It's already full enough of pain, stress and suffering and I'm not even fifty yet!

 

[Buka]

We use Sodium Pentothal before lethal injection so the monster may die in peace like a king. We mercifully put down our beloved canine companions when there is no longer hope, so that they may not suffer. Yet society calls 911 when two ninety year olds, probably wonderful people their whole lives, wish to stop suffering.
Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Ken Morgan]

There comes a point when regardless of our diet and exercise, our bodies and minds with fail us. It is natures way of culling the herd. I plan on going kicking and screaming, but there may very well come a time when enough is enough, and that is a time each of us needs to decide for ourselves.

 

[Razor]

Suicide is illegal of course but when quality of life becomes intolerable, unbearable, cannot be improved (via drugs, living conditions, et al) then what choice would they have other than to live the rest of their days in pain, misery and loss of dignity?

Yeah, I think people should have control over their own lives/deaths. Out of interest, is suicide actually still illegal there? I thought that it was legal in most countries now, but just attracted psychiatric help.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I can understand the desire to end the suffering and go out with dignity, but...self-induced starvation? That does not sound like dying with dignity to me, but I can understand if there were no other options.

And I would agree with the majority about people having the right flat out, but let me ask two questions:

1) We can all nod our heads about the cute old couple who've lived their lives and now just suffer having the right to terminate, but what about the emo 20-year-old who feels like life is all despair? Shall we intervene there or let him follow his choice?

2) What about the senile, or amnesiac, or alsheimers, patient? Is it really his will to die? Perhaps that's not the case here, but recognizing the right to self-terminate will obviously lead (and has already, often enough) to those issues.

 

[Tez3]

I don't know if they are legal in the States but here we can have 'living wills' where it's placed on our medical records our preferences for how we want to be treated if seriously ill or unable to respond. We can have 'do not resusitate' put in if we wish.
Geriatric may be the correct medical term to describe old people but I think it actually sounds awful when talking about people, if I'm called that when I'm old I shall plant someone!

 

[cdunn]

I can understand the desire to end the suffering and go out with dignity, but...self-induced starvation? That does not sound like dying with dignity to me, but I can understand if there were no other options.

And I would agree with the majority about people having the right flat out, but let me ask two questions:

1) We can all nod our heads about the cute old couple who've lived their lives and now just suffer having the right to terminate, but what about the emo 20-year-old who feels like life is all despair? Shall we intervene there or let him follow his choice?

2) What about the senile, or amnesiac, or alsheimers, patient? Is it really his will to die? Perhaps that's not the case here, but recognizing the right to self-terminate will obviously lead (and has already, often enough) to those issues.

Interesting cases. A level of safeguard may be called for, because of the obvious irreversibility of the action, and the fact that these are both results from a form of illness. However, in the end run, an individual's life must be considered as belonging to the individual - Yet, there is something lacking; these individuals may not (or very well may!) be capable of providing informed consent to their own death. What must occur is the verification of that informed consent. A person who is not lucid should not be permitted suicide, for it is the end, and they are not capable of looking it in the eye and rationally choosing it, and there exists the possiblity of returning to a lucid state; whereupon the suicide may (or may not) be chosen against.


Tez, we can write living wills here, some medical facilities, particularly those strongly associated with the various churches, may choose to ignore do-not-rescusitate orders, as a matter of policy - the legality of this, I'm not sure of, but it happens.

 

[Tez3]

We don't have any medical facilities that are associated with churches, they are either NHS or private businesses.
This is how living wills stand legally here. It includes situations that are mentioned by RandomPhantom.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Death/Preparation/DG_10029429

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Why is suicide in our culture such a big deal?

Primarily because our laws are based on our morality, and our morality is based on religion. As I believe I have previously pointed out.

It begins in this case with the statement that human life has value, without qualification. That is a purely religious stance, and more often seen in the Christian faith than in any other. It is not a stance based on moral relativism, which would hold that human life has value, but the value can be quantified and in some cases, life ended because the value of a given life is no longer worth the cost. Examples might be putting certain criminals to death, making medical decisions based on cost, weighing the value of a person's contribution to society versus their damage to it, or personal end-of-life decisions regarding suicide.

The secondary reason is that the law, as it has been aptly described, is an ***. It is not subjective, it cannot be. Stop signs are meant to be stopped at. Even the ones placed where it makes no sense. There is no law, for example, that injects 'common sense' into a failure to stop at a stop sign law. Either one did or one did not stop at it. The law could not possibly care less if you were late for work, or there was no one around at the time, or that the sign was placed in an inconvenient or even dangerous place for a person to stop. Suicide is illegal. There is no qualifier in most cases to cover 'common sense' issues where most of us might agree that a person should be free to end their own lives. You want laws to be flexible, but they cannot be.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

We don't have any medical facilities that are associated with churches, they are either NHS or private businesses.
This is how living wills stand legally here. It includes situations that are mentioned by RandomPhantom.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Death/Preparation/DG_10029429

The States mostly have similar living wills that delineate when a patient wants to not receive further medical care (commonly called Do-Not-Rescusitate "DNRs" or living wills which dictate when the patient wishes to have life support removed), but they are very specific. A general "just send me down the river when I'm 90" will isn't going to fly, at least as far as I understand it. Such documents are usually only looked to in situations where the patient can no longer express their will.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The States mostly have similar living wills that delineate when a patient wants to not receive further medical care (commonly called Do-Not-Rescusitate "DNRs" or living wills which dictate when the patient wishes to have life support removed), but they are very specific. A general "just send me down the river when I'm 90" will isn't going to fly, at least as far as I understand it. Such documents are usually only looked to in situations where the patient can no longer express their will.

I believe that in most US states, a living will or medical directive that includes a DNR is asked about by the medical facility caring for the patient, and is regarded as the final word. As you said, it only includes what may or may not be done in the way of care if the patient is unable to otherwise respond or participate in decisions regarding their own treatment. Hospitals take these VERY seriously, although some religious facilities may choose not to admit non-emergency patients based on a DNR. They'd get in as much trouble (sued) for refusing to obey a DNR as they might if they failed to give lifesaving treatment for a non-DNR patient. Excuses to this would be emergency conditions where there is no time to reasonably determien whether or not there is a DNR in place.

 

[granfire]

Primarily because our laws are based on our morality, and our morality is based on religion. As I believe I have previously pointed out.

It begins in this case with the statement that human life has value, without qualification. That is a purely religious stance, and more often seen in the Christian faith than in any other. It is not a stance based on moral relativism, which would hold that human life has value, but the value can be quantified and in some cases, life ended because the value of a given life is no longer worth the cost. Examples might be putting certain criminals to death, making medical decisions based on cost, weighing the value of a person's contribution to society versus their damage to it, or personal end-of-life decisions regarding suicide.

The secondary reason is that the law, as it has been aptly described, is an ***. It is not subjective, it cannot be. Stop signs are meant to be stopped at. Even the ones placed where it makes no sense. There is no law, for example, that injects 'common sense' into a failure to stop at a stop sign law. Either one did or one did not stop at it. The law could not possibly care less if you were late for work, or there was no one around at the time, or that the sign was placed in an inconvenient or even dangerous place for a person to stop. Suicide is illegal. There is no qualifier in most cases to cover 'common sense' issues where most of us might agree that a person should be free to end their own lives. You want laws to be flexible, but they cannot be.

well, suicide is in many places no longer illegal. Though persons to attempt will be 'rescued' and send to psychiatric wards.
Which I don't see anything wrong with in cases of a mental reason.

However we are talking about quality of life.

And while you gave a good overlook as to the how, you still did not give a good reason for 'why' it has a stigma.

I suppose it's in the 'be fruitful and multiply' when a small band of people crossed inhospitable terrain in search of a home...but 6 1/2 billion people later?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

And while you gave a good overlook as to the how, you still did not give a good reason for 'why' it has a stigma.

I suppose it's in the 'be fruitful and multiply' when a small band of people crossed inhospitable terrain in search of a home...but 6 1/2 billion people later?

First off, old habits die hard. The fact that a social norm only makes sense in our agrarian past means nothing for why said norms wouldn't persist when they're no longer needed.

But if I had to take a venture as to why suicide is still stigmatized (and this is pure speculation, mind you), I imagine it's because the society doesn't want to acknowledge the reasons that lead to the suicide. As an example, I believe the highest suicide rate is among late teens and early adults? I could very well be wrong about that, but assuming that it's still true, isn't it much easier to stigmatize suicide than try to explore why this group or that group has a high suicide rate? Wouldn't that statistic indicate that maybe...just maybe...our ideals about how to raise kids may not be effective?

Basically, I suggest that it's kinda like avoiding a documentary of the health conditions in our favorite fast-food joints: sometimes, we just don't wanna look.