Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

Although I live in a rather liberal country, the choices are still rather limited. The general approach for people with dementia who are accepted in a care home is palliative care: focus on their well-being, not on extending or shortening life. But there is some room for movement, although the final decision is always in the hands of the responsible physician. For example, as family (or personal representatives) you may indicate that you wish that the administration of antibiotics should start as soon as an infection is suspected or delay it as long as possible, instead of it being administered only to relieve discomfort. We decided for palliative care. But still I felt that there were moments, when choice were made to extend her life. Not with respect to medical treatment, but with respect to feeding her. She was given special high-energy drinks and especially in the last half year, a lot of effort was made to feed her. For example, when she was too tired during a meal time, they would try to give it at another moment. Yet, I felt that I did not have the moral right to interfere or to even bring up the issue. I have respect for the manner in which the decisions were made by her physician and the people who took care for her. Although it was hard to go through the experience, in the end I was at peace with my decision to not to interfere and basically let the professionals make the decisions. But maybe my situation was much easier than yours, because my wife long ago had lost the faculty to know that there were any decisions to be made.

From someone who's been on the other side of the story (albeit nowhere close in severity) I can tell you that this is a philosophical debate that you might have with yourself for years and not really reach a solid and stable conclusion. Because it will change depending on your state. Like promising never to drink again during the worst drunkenness or hangover.

On one hand that low quality of life may be the worst thing you ever experienced and there's the distinct risk of going even lower. On the other hand we have no idea what lies on the other side - nothing or something that may be better or worse. And of course there's always the sliver of hope that all goes well and giving up on life too soon is a waste.

In cases where we have to make hard decisions like this, I find some solace that they have made their decisions ahead of time so that we only complete their requests.

I don't envy you at all in this. The same thing happened to my dad, except the life-saving measures failed, and the doctors said there was nothing else they could do. They gave my mom an 'out', since it was not her choice.

To me this proves there exists a threshold at which no life is better

I think it might be helpful to have distance to your feelings. To understand that unlike your thoughts, your feelings have direct purely biological source. You might find it easier to suffer through them, like you can suffer through limping.

I hope I'll never get depressed so I won't have to find out whether that makes any difference.

I mean I get that people make their own choices. I just am confused that more people aren’t interested in having a death of their choosing. Or even consider it. Like, I have a song that I would like to hear as I’m dying. I want to think and reflect on things and feel safe in spite of the incoming end. I am convinced that with a better cultural mindset we could make death a happy, celebrated, communal event that people look forward to in a bittersweet way. The way most people die to me sound sad for all involved, including the dying.

I'd say don't bet on it.

The changes to life expectancy and quality of life from early low hanging fruits (most of which weren't even that advanced, like clean water, washing hands for surgeries, basic antibiotics, etc.) dwarf later developments such as heart surgery, bionic limbs, and advanced drugs (aside a few important breakthroughs for people affected with specific conditions).

A more realistic outlook is whether you think you might eventually get out of the coma -- which does happen.

Perhaps I'm just unimaginative, however I can't really fathom a world in which it would make economical sense to cure the ill rather than simply prevent people getting sick. Economically those with illnesses and/or genetic conditions (myself included) unfortunately seem like a bit of a lost cause.

And until then your whole existence would be confined to perpetual pain. This is the stuff of nightmares.

.-.. . -

-- .

-.. .. .

Could be useful.

*Cannot format it properly sorry.

3. Patient's affirmative consent (antedated if need be)

I too am happy to live in a country with a humane policy towards voluntary end-of-life, but this is not a clear cut case where euthanasia would apply: this is a patient with at least some consciousness left, but that no court would find competent to make decisions, and with no known relatives (up until the reporter found one).

The question then becomes not only whether the required conditions for euthanasia apply, but also whether the state-appointed legal guardian has the mandate to make such a fundamental decision on behalf of the patient. Personally speaking, granting that kind of power to a government representative is not something I'm comfortable with.