I remember visiting my grandmother with my new girlfriend when grandma was bedridden and nearly blind. She wasn't always lucid, but she was this time -- we had a nice talk about things in the past, she got to meet my girlfriend (who is now my wife), but during a lull in the conversation, she said "Johnny, I don't know why I'm still here, I just want to leave but my body won't let me".
That led to a long conversation of mortality with my gf and both of us promised that we'd help each other out if we got into that state and were ready to leave. I hope by then it's legal.
My grandmother was fairly irate that she recovered from pneumonia and grandfather did not. She kept asking when she was going to die and was very straightforward about the entire ordeal. She said something along the lines of 'all my friends are dead and I've lived long enough.'
I wonder how your family took this? I had a similar experience with an elderly person on my wife's side of the family. At that time of our lives, I couldn't understand how someone could refuse medical treatment and seem to yearn for death. Now that I'm a decade older, I see that her actions were not without reasonable cause...one might even say they were courageous and bold. She was simply done. She'd lost a child earlier in her life. She loved her family but everyone was well off and content. She didn't like doctors and hospitals. She was in near constant pain from arthritis. And she was just...done.
It was a mixed bag as far as reactions. Some family is religious, some incapable of expressing emotion, some work in healthcare and have seen death enough to accept it.
Living in pain with no personal hope is a big gap. Having others force their idea on you about what you should accept as 'things to live for' seems more depressing than anything to me. It's always harder on the living because we are selfish in wanting a person to stick around who does not want to.
Having recently had a grandparent with advanced Parkinson's pass in a relatively peaceful and dignified manner after contracting pneumonia (compared to the living hell of their primary ailment), I've personally seen the truth in that colloquial name for it - the "old man's friend". Definitely one of the better ways to make an exit, especially when one is past the point of being able to articulate a will to die.
I have personal experience with someone like this. For many years, my wife’s mom would declaim “if I ever end up in a hospital in a coma with no hope of recovery, just pull the plug; that’s no way to live”. We would all just nod and move on to the next topic of conversation.
Tragically, later in her life, she had a fall and ended up in the hospital in a coma, with the doctors saying they were not sure if she would come out of the coma. She did, with big chunks of her memory gone, but her first lucid communication was sheer panic at the idea someone might pull the plug. It took a while to reassure her that no one was going to pull the plug.
That incident has stuck with me all these years. People make bold statements about how they would behave in a crisis, and much of it is nonsense, the lack of an ability to truly put yourself in that situation, coupled with other factors like pride.
Likely, when the author gets to the inevitable stage in his life, he will change his mind, and he won’t be a different person. Instead, if at this time he retains enough cognitive ability and memory, he will say “what a fool I was”.
Well there's also many examples of people who pulled their own plug when the going got too laborious and they saw the writing on the wall. He could end up being one of those people. Not everyone changes their tune regarding this matter. Some grab a pistol; some jump out a window.
> No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun – for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax – This won’t hurt.
> Likely, when the author gets to the inevitable stage in his life, he will change his mind, and he won’t be a different person
He likely will have a different opinion because he's a different person. The person living in the old folks' home is simply a different person, and is satisfied with different things in life.
It's impossible for relatives to make these decisions. It's also almost impossible for the people involved to make these decisions.
I know someone who was put into the situation of having to decide whether her very elderly mother, who was in a coma, should be put through emergency treatment, or allowed to die.
She made what she thinks was the wrong decision - but of course there was no right decision. No normal person could ever find that choice easy - which is why we try to leave it to doctors who aren't personally involved.
I also know someone whose mother had a severe stroke, which left her unable to move or speak. She's absolutely convinced her mother was trying as hard as she could - unsuccessfully - to tell her she wanted her suffering to end.
End of life is unbelievably traumatic for everyone. Unlike most life changes we get almost no warnings about what can happen, and no preparation for it.
>>End of life is unbelievably traumatic for everyone. Unlike most life changes we get almost no warnings about what can happen, and no preparation for it.
End of life is the one absolute guarantee. If you are not aware that your life (and that of everybody you care for) will end at some point, you are delusional.
Preparing for the end of life has been big business for almost as long as humans have walked the earth.
Religion is completely predicated in providing the assurance that there is something beyond death. The growth of cryo freezing of bodies is in the hope that somehow you will be fixed of whatever killed you and you will be able to return to life.
Death does not have to be traumatic. What is traumatic is unexpected death. There are many stories of the death of sombody both old and young after extended decline being a relatively calm event.
The best thing you can do is to be open about your death with your family and friends. You don't have to dwell upon it, but your significent others should certainly be aware of your views on things such as organ donations and end of life resusitation desires. It makes everything a lot less traumatic if you have some idea of the desires and beliefs of the person in question.
For some reason western cultures want to avoid the truth of their own mortality, and because of this death somehow comes as a supprise, as if it is somehow avoidable.
I honestly can't wrap my head around nonexistence, a brief 0-100 year existence, and then nonexistence again. I've lost days when I think about it too much and start panicking. I want to exist dammit. I love existing. I love my life. People act like they're going to live forever too, but really life isn't that long, and you only live a portion of it in a young body capable of doing all of it.
Thank you for putting into words the thoughts that I have had for quite some time. The "panicking" I experience is also similar, more accurately described as horror-fueled panic.
It really is the only thing that, when I catch myself thinking about it, requires me to forcibly do something else. As a nonreligious person, there is no answer to it other than "that's the way it is". Maybe it's something an older me can tackle. For now, it's a topic that leads to existential panic in a matter of minutes, ha!
Completely agree with everything you are saying. I also immediately have to think about something else to avoid what I feel would be a mental collapse.
One thing that has given me a bit of comfort was an answer I heard when somebody asked one of the great minds of the 21st century, Jennifer Lawrence, "what happens after we die?"
> As a nonreligious person, there is no answer to it other than "that's the way it is"
There are many non religious answers. Philosophy (as in framework for life, not the intellectual masturbation "philosophy") provides a lot of them. See my other reply.
Human have been thinking about that for as long as they were able to think. A lot of them put their ideas in books, you might find some interesting point of views in work from Seneca, or Alan Watts for example.
No one talks about death in real life, we just kind of go with the flow of "death is bad" yadda yadda. If you deconstruct your view on death and looks at how other societies or cultures sees deaths it can be eye opening. It's only bad if you see it as a bad thing.
"But tell me, do you consider it fairer that you should obey Nature, or that Nature should obey you? And what difference does it make how soon you depart from a place which you must depart from sooner or later? We should strive, not to live long, but to live rightly; for to achieve long life you have need of Fate only, but for right living you need the soul. A life is really long if it is a full life; but fullness is not attained until the soul has rendered to itself its proper Good, that is, until it has assumed control over itself. What benefit does this older man derive from the eighty years he has spent in idleness? A person like him has not lived; he has merely tarried awhile in life. Nor has he died late in life; he has simply been a long time dying. He has lived eighty years, has he? That depends upon the date from which you reckon his death! ... Nay, he has existed eighty years, unless perchance you mean by "he has lived" what we mean when we say that a tree "lives.""
Every death is the natural death of the person. Unless you force the free will (illusion)/spiritual ideology upon everyone. All death comes without choices in a world where all experiences are factored from the preceding events. A person who dies by suicide didn't choose it. Similar to a person who dies from old age.
I actually keep a list of quotes about death because it fascinates me. Here are two that I really like.
The nearer I approach death the more I feel like one who is in sight of land at last and is about to anchor in one's home port after a long voyage. -Cicero
The fear of death is indeed the pretense of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being a pretense of knowing the unknown; and no one knows whether death, which people in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. -Plato
“Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is transformation. Everything science has taught me, and continues to teach me, strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death.”
I believe I want to live forever if it's forever in health and non-poverty and freedom.
The fact that I will not live forever really effects my thinking and what I'm willing to do. As just one example, being older I know that I can't go dedicate 10 years to living in another country to learn a language or I could but I've only got at most 2 10yr chunks left, more like 1, before my ability to be free and healthy and non-poverty change. Or similarly to change my career or go back to school. I'm already in my mid-50s.
Conversely I'm lost, isolated, and without direction, have no close friends, no partner, and find it exceedingly hard to fix and so the thought of just calling it quits does pop into my head.
I obviously do not know your situation. But have you tried something wildly different that is communal? Church, community theater, community choir, a group that goes on vacations together, etc.? It is never too late my friend.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around loving life and existence. It's been so long since I've considered existence to be a pleasant experience I forget there are people out there actively enjoying themselves.
I’ve felt that way before, and it was kind of freeing. I actually went out and did more because my acceptable of risk was higher, and I didn’t worry so much because I was ready for it to all end anyway.
it's easier and maybe normal to think about these topics when you're going through a horrible time. When you're on top of your game, maybe even responsible to look after life that you've brought into this world, it's much harder to wrap your head around death. Once people land on their ass (we all do every once in a while), maybe from sickness, bankruptcy, or death of a close person (or all of it combined, as is usually the case when things all come together at once), it feels much less morbid to think about these topics.
From all the existentialists I've read Peter Wessel-Zapffe[1], a Norwegian philosopher (considered the comedian among philosophers) has helped me understand the importance of always facing the bleak side of life. As somebody who is no stranger to depression (and thoughts of suicide every couple of weeks) facing the reality of death and even seeking it out as a topic is the only way I'm able to be happy.
You might live your life over and over. The universe could be expanding and retracting for infinity. Resulting in all the variables for your same exact life to repeat for infinity.
> I honestly can't wrap my head around nonexistence, a brief 0-100 year existence, and then nonexistence again
Death might not be non-existence. Many religions, philosophies, spiritual teachings, say that it isn't. Of course, maybe they are all baloney–and a lot of them have to be mostly that–but there is at least a chance there is some truth in one or more of them.
Maybe quantum immortality is true, and all of us live forever, but it is a lonely existence, cut off seemingly forever from family and friends. (I hope that isn't true, it sounds rather hellish.)
Could we be living in a computer simulation? If we have no idea, shouldn't we assign a 50% probability? But, if we are in a computer simulation, our simulators might decide to provide an afterlife for us. And if we have no idea whether they would or not, shouldn't we assign a 50% probability to that? Which gives us 25% chance of a simulated afterlife – not the best odds, but far from the worst either.
We could be physically resurrected into some paradise by various random processes (quantum tunnelling, quantum fluctuations, thermal fluctuations). The probability of that happening is immensely small but non-zero. No matter how small it is, if the future is infinite, then almost surely it will happen eventually.
Most people who think death is non-existence accept a materialist position in the philosophy of mind, but often without giving any great thought to the alternative positions. If idealism is true–and we have no hard evidence it isn't–then death being the cessation of existence is far less likely. If idealism is true, then quite possibly minds are inherently immortal, in which case an afterlife would be metaphysically necessary.
For me, a lot of that seems like wishful thinking. We didn’t exist before birth, and we think nothing of it. More than likely, that’s where we are headed. We just have a really hard time excepting something that is so fundamentally against our current state of existing.
At the risk of sounding all "woo-woo", this statement bears some qualification.
How do you define existence, here? Are you equating it with consciousness? Surely your constituent parts (atoms, molecules, particles, etc) existed before your consciousness, and continue to do so afterwards.
I think you'll also agree that the arrangement of matter and energy you call "your life" is regulated by natural processes.
In principle, it's possible for the thing you call "your life" to be a brief window within some larger process (a meta-life, if you will) of which you have no recollection.
I don't know if I believe any of this to be true, but metaphysically speaking, it's not at all obvious that we "didn't exist before birth".
>How do you define existence, here? Are you equating it with consciousness?
Yeah, I, for one, equate it with consciousness. I could not give less fucks if my "atoms, molecules, particles" existed before me or will exist after me.
I want the whole conscious being, able to kiss, hug, think, love, hurt, eat a steak, and so on to extend.
>I think you'll also agree that the arrangement of matter and energy you call "your life" is regulated by natural processes.
In principle, it's possible for the thing you call "your life" to be a brief window within some larger process (a meta-life, if you will) of which you have no recollection.
If I don't have "recollection", then I still don't care.
No, I've got the point being missed. I just don't find the distinction useful at all.
The whole point being made was that "metaphysically speaking, it's not at all obvious that we "didn't exist before birth".
Which I say is irrelevant, if we need to distort "exist" so much as to mean some "larger processes" or our "atoms and molecules" existing.
Metaphysically speaking it might not be obvious, but the way the grandparent, me, and almost everybody else uses the term existence (i.e. regarding the conscious person, or at least their soul) it's obvious that we very much do not exist.
We don't know for certain that we didn't exist before birth/conception. It is common ground among materialists and the mainstream Christian tradition, but many people believe in a before-life – reincarnation/rebirth in Hinduism/Buddhism/etc, pre-mortal existence in LDS teaching, the 3rd century Christian theologian Origen, Islam.
About "wishful thinking", many people really want there to be an afterlife, but conversely at least some people really want there to not be one. Some people fear hell, or that everlasting existence might become boring (apeirophobia). Others find the idea of oblivion and infinite nothingness as reassuring. see e.g. Swinburne's Garden of Proserpine – https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45288/the-garden-of-p...
My take is that that there is no way to prove conclusively the existence nor the nonexistence of an afterlife. So each person makes a decision (bet). At the end of this life, we each find out if we were right or not. Well, technically, if there is an after life, we would find that out. If not, we don't find anything out, do we?
Betting on an afterlife is a bet you can't lose. If you bet there is an afterlife and there is one, you win the sense of satisfaction of having been right. If you bet there is an afterlife and there isn't one, you never know you were wrong. So, when offered a bet you can't lose, why not take it?
There's just as much chance religions were yet another case of early human exceptionalism, as an explanation for times when no better was available. Just as we once believed earth was centre of the universe (exceptionalism once again), humours or phlogiston.
Immortality in the Carl Sagan sense that we came from stars, and one day will be there again, or even within a cycle of nature on mother earth, sure that seems reasonable. Particle immortality. Remarkably complex tales of hades, meeting everyone who has ever lived in paradise or cute red guys with a pitchfork require remarkable evidence.
On impending nonexistence, I've never quite understood why this is a struggle for so many to contemplate - maybe that's something lacking in me, who knows. I always just figure it like the tungsten filament after you flick the switch; fade then off. Why's that difficult? Why must it matter more? Can't it just be? It just is. I am perfectly chill with that, and always have been. ¯\_(?)_/¯
> as we once believed earth was centre of the universe (exceptionalism once again)
The earth actually is (roughly speaking) the centre of the observable universe, which quite possibly is all the universe we can ever know.
If this is a computer simulation, you'd expect some parts of the simulation to be much more accurate then others. Our psychology would be simulated to a great degree of accuracy, distant galaxies would be simulated at only a very coarse level. So, the centre of the simulated universe, the area with the highest degree of simulation accuracy, would be this planet. So, if we are in a computer simulation–and if we don't know, let's say the probability is 50%–then the earth is the centre of the universe after all.
If philosophical idealism is true, and esse is percipi, then the area around the earth (which is highly observed by minds) exists in more detail, has a greater degree of existence, than distant galaxies. So, philosophical idealism can lead to a similar conclusion as the simulation thesis, that the earth actually is the approximate centre of the universe.
This is a much more entertaining topic to contemplate than non-existence. :)
If the universe is infinite then we are always likely to be at the centre of whatever range our instruments manage. In a universe where there is no such thing as centre. If it's simulation, it seems reasonable for the edge of observable to be the limit of simulation - the rest being under the galactic equivalent of fog of war.
Of course we don't know if it actually is centred, or just appears so from being in a local hotspot. Without knowing the extent of simulation that may be unknowable. There could just as easily be countless other species in other parts of the sim, or earth as an insignificant backwater with all the real activity outside our range. Unless it's encoded in an easter egg we may one day find, I suspect it will always be unknowable. And that's without considering multiverses. :)
"If the future is infinite, then almost surely it will happen eventually."
Yes, you've caught on to this notion, and that's really the best we can ever do in our present state. Funny how we imagine our little 3 pound mass might someday fathom the secrets of the cosmos. Could a fruit fly trapped in a jet airliner ever comprehend the turbo jet mechanics keeping its carrier aloft?
I would argue that it's fairly safe to conjecture a continued progression of "higher" dimensions beyond time and space; beyond our human imagining. Might as well think of the progression itself as infinite.
From this, entire books could be written about the imagined implications, such as every possible timeline "emanating" from every point in time. Relatively rudimentary approximations of what we can not fully imagine.
So, how does this relate to the afterlife. Well, once it's established that at least everything our puny brains could ever imagine does cosmically exist, then our continuation is certainly included in that. So is choice / free will, simply put. Of course, there would exist many individual continuations and wills, even variations of individuality. It's interesting to consider and one inevitably encounters a thickening cloud of paradoxes, indicating that our mental models are laughably incomplete.
Those are some pretty optimistic view points. The worst world views start with the universe being generated on birth and disappearing after death and quickly get worse and worse after that...
When I was younger, around 19 or so, I contemplated death for the first time. I grew up religious, Catholic, and always believed that you go on after death. This was the first time I imagined the truth.
It stunned me. I couldn’t sleep. I could NOT imagine non-existence. It terrofied me.
In the next few years I learned more about the world and grew far more comfortable with my place in it. I don’t feel nearly as puzzled about nonexistence as I used to.
For me, I see myself as a cell in a greater body — humanity — and I see humanity as part of an even greater whole, the universe. Does a single cell worry about its fate after death? No. It merely does what it is supposed to do, does it well if it can, and then ends gracefully when its time has come.
I feel the same way about my own life. I am part of a whole, humanity at one level, the universe itself at another. I do my best with the limited time I have; I do my duty; and then I die.
I have grown quite comfortable with this view of life and death over the years. It gives nonexistence found at the end of life its appropriate meaning. It is the natural end of a temporal life.
Consider Open-Individualism. It's actually very difficult to make a philosophical case for Closed-Individualism (the common sense belief your post seems to espouse). You have to show why subjects would be particular to a group of atoms which are constantly changing. If not, the subject of all experiences is the same across space and time, and it's only the experiences which are different and constantly changing. If so, existence is eternal, which is what relativity suggests.
The trick is, that barring accidental death (including accidentally falling victim to someone elses intentional killing of you), you will stop wanting to live before you die. So take care of yourself, preserve your health, and enjoy your life -- by the time it's over, you won't want it anymore. So don't fear death; only fear harm in your life.
Also, remember that when you're gone, it won't hurt, and you won't miss anything. Everything in your life, from the worst torture to the most minor itch, hurts more than being dead.
I just want euthanasia as an option, if the future me wants it. I definitely wouldn't want to put this kind of binding decision over future me (regardless of whether "future me" is actually me).
Also make sure your power of attorney and DNR guidance is up to date. Also have a frank conversation with those you give emergency power about your true wishes, AFTER you have a long hard think about what those are.
I did this with my mom a few months back and while difficult it was helpful. She assumed we knew what she wanted to do. I know a lot better now.
Star Trek: The Next Generation has an absolutely brilliant episode on this topic that touches on a lot of the things brought up in the article, as well as a concern you've brought up here in your comment:
I definitely wouldn't want to put this kind of binding decision over future me
A character facing this very conceit admitted that in the past, he was-like many others of his species-in favor of a policy whereby at 60 years old their kind would sacrifice themselves in an honorary fashion so as not to impede the progress of their descendants.
Fifteen to twenty centuries ago, we had no Resolution. We had no such concern for our elders. As people aged, they... their health failed. They became invalids. And those whose families could no longer care for them were put away, into... deathwatch facilities, where they waited in loneliness for the end to come, sometimes... for years. They had meant something; and they were forced to live beyond that, into a time of meaning nothing. Of knowing that they could now only be the beneficiaries of younger people's patience. We are no longer that cruel[1]
But the character later has a change of heart over the policy he was invariably complicit in supporting, while IMDB doesn't have the quote, paraphrasing it poorly-he opined about how his present and potentially future self may rebuke his past self for such a policy--a question of hindsight.
Great episode, I encourage one who's interested in the discussion created by this article to read it. It's one of my personal favorite TNG episodes, as it creates an interesting confluence of emotional narrative and philosophical narrative that comes to a narrative conclusion, but leaves the philosophical question open in ways most episodes of the same 'template' don't.
Wasn’t that about perfectly healthy people being forced to die against their will?
The specific episode I referenced it wasn't so much about perfectly healthy people being forced to die against their will, since the character in question intimated quite heavily that their species had made a conscious decision that this is how their elderly would "pass on".
He repeatedly made it appear as if their species treated it as an honorable affair, and that it was a celebration.
Further in the episode, his daughter comes onboard the Enterprise and expresses that she does still love her father but is ashamed of him for defying a long standing tradition.
So I'm not sure if it's a matter of anyone being "forced" in this case to die before they may emotionally be ready to.
The episode kind of plays on this through the meta-narrative/"B Plot" of the character (Timicin is his name, by the way) working to revive a dying star and save his species, after the entire episode and all of the build up, his experiment ultimately fails, dooming the star to die anyway, his planet doomed to the same fate.
The episode routinely ruminates on the concept of death as a choice, only once do we see an instance of what could be called 'force' when Timicin's government demands he comes back and undergo the ritual suicide, but even they finally relent to his wishes and tell him that if he wishes to stay with the Enterprise and continue living, he may-they wont pursue him further, but he will effectively be disregarded by his society and his scientific achievements effectively destroyed.
The takeaway, I believe it was Picard who noted that sometimes death must come in whatever manifestation it comes, even if we feel it's something that can be stalled by wit, intuition or will-this happens during the scene we see the experiment fail and the cast comes to the realization that there may be nothing that can be done with current technology to save the local solar system.
Timicin ultimately makes peace with it, as does Counselor Troi's mother (who fell in love and didn't want to see him throw his life away), and realizes he can still die in peace and allow his contributions to flourish with younger generations of scientists who might be able to learn from his research and keep their local star from dying out for good.
10 years ago I was diagnosed with a progressive neurological condition. I knew that it would put me in a wheelchair, take my ability to type, strip one by one every physical function, and eventually, but definitely not quickly, kill me.
I knew I couldn't go through that. So I decided I would take my life at the appropriate time. I still hold to that decision. I did the planning, I have the means.
But something happened that I didn't expect. As I have got worse, it's never quite felt the right time. I am much worse now than I thought I could ever stand to be, for a long time I have been reconciled to death, but life is still worth living enough to live.
I wonder if I will ever take that step. I absolutely reserve the right to. But I am constantly surprised at the value of my own life, even stuck essentially in two rooms, and requiring constant care.
The very black-and-white, all-or-nothing, I know how it's going to be 100%, attitude in this post struck me as naive. I strongly believe that it's his life and it should be his choice. But it did feel naive to me.
Thank you. One of my last longer writing projects last year was to update this and author a new chapter on procedural content generation for the third edition. Which is due out at the end of the month. I think they were trying to get it out by GDC, but it slipped a couple of weeks.
The biggest problem with the book I think, has been that I have been unable to program for a while. So I was glad to be able to work with the publisher on a third edition, to solve some of the bitrot problems.
A guy in a wheelchair talks about considering ending his life due to a debilitating condition. First question asked to him on HN is about productivity. Never change hn, never change.
I up-voted this, though depending on what you meant by 'productive', I can see why it would be insensitive.
After I retired I wanted to write a novel. I did that with voice recognition. I did some consulting via Skype. I wrote a chapter for a textbook. As the fatigue made long form writing more difficult, I wrote more short stories, and now poetry. My goal, such as it is, is to complete another collection (I wrote one years ago). I get an hour or two a day of reasonable clarity. Some days, though, I spend it farting around on the internet (ohai!).
Thanks for the story. I was told (although have not checked) that many euthanasia cases work a bit like this. Doing the planning is important, but most people don't go through with it. Nevertheless their lives are improved by knowing that they have a plan B, by having agency.
I have been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis 2-3 years ago. I have been contemplating a lot about what I am going to do, and if I would be able to do it when and if it comes to that. I do not wish to rot away on some hospital bed waiting for my life to end. I might just end up overdosing on morphine if it ever comes to that. Hopefully not. I try to maintain optimism, I hope that we will be able to significantly slow down demyelination, stop it, or even reverse it. We will see...
> I hope that we will be able to significantly slow down demyelination
Recent drugs can already significantly slow down demyelinination but these stronger drugs come with stronger side effects. And that's why I suppose you are doing a MRI follow-up to check the activity of disease: so that doctors know which drugs they should prescribe you.
Today immuno-neurology research is a hot field in which converge both research for neuro-degenerative diseases and research for various forms of cancer. You probably already know that most MS pts have an almost normal life expectancy. I think it's quite probable that in the next decades the disease will become stoppable for the majority of patients. (just think of tech and medicine 30 years ago...)
If you have MS, should look at Dr Terry Wahls Ted talk and books. Went from wheelchair to walking in 6 months and with clinical trials underway for more legitimate data.
If you haven't cured yourself with a magic diet with no reproducible studies, maybe don't marginalize the very real pain chronic sufferers are experiencing and their many attempts to get better with a suggestion that they should just follow a fad diet.
Totally agree. It's really easy to categorically say "If X happens I will do Y for sure" until things really happen and then suddenly there is much more nuance that makes decisions really hard. A while ago someone I knew broke her neck and was paralyzed neck down, couldn't talk, couldn't eat. Before this I was always thinking I wouldn't want to live that way but now I am not so sure anymore.
I think you did the right thing developing a plan for taking your life. Now you are in control of your life instead of being caught in the medical machine like a lot of other people.
My grandmother lived in a home for the last 8 years of her life. At first I felt pretty bad about it because there's no way I would want to be stuck in there. It smelled bad, the food looked gross, and there didn't seem to be anything to do.
My grandmother loved it. Until that time she had been living in her own home and I guess she was pretty lonely. In the retirement / nursing home, she made a lot of friends and was far busier than she was when living alone. There was a routine she had to follow and that structure was great for her. She sang in a choir, played a lot of cards, found a boyfriend, got her hair done every other week, and could go on a field trip to the mall or a Walmart or a diner a couple times a week.
I only saw the negatives and I think my grandmother only saw the positives.
That strikes me as the most pragmatic, and humane option. For me, the option itself is the most important, and I think it should be available for all.
If, like when my father was dying slowly of cancer, there comes a point when it is clearly no fun any more, I want an option to exit. If I'm still finding life worth living maybe I'll never actually hit the exit button and go quietly in my sleep.
This is a very unpopular idea, but I'll say it anyway because it's relevant: With a modest amount of meditation practice you can cause your awareness to exit your body. I say this from personal experience but it's also in the yoga texts.
Typically you come back, but if not, it's called yogic suicide. That's why a lot of monks are burned "alive" in a meditative posture--they're not actually in there being roasted, they hit the eject button.
It's a much nicer way to go out than many alternatives, and once it becomes more common knowledge I'm sure we'll see much more of it.
Sadly even the idea tends to make people angry, esp. if they have invested in a worldview where the brain is the sole originator of consciousness, death is the end, etc, even though all they have to do is try it for themselves, though for some reason most don't. Just don't tell me it's a hallucination until you've done it successfully yourself. I'll say I was certainly surprised. It is like sticking your finger into an electrical socket and then being shot out of a cannon out the top of your head into another world.
If you're interested look it up, it's not nearly as hard to do as people make it out to be, though I still can't do it exactly on command, I am getting better at it with practice. I don't claim to know everything about it, but the world you enter has some strange properties and its not as simple as
just waltzing around as a disembodied spirit with x-ray vision or something. There's some overlap of the objective world and this other world which is not as rigidly objective as this one. Future researchers will figure it out I'm sure. It's a fascinating frontier of human knowledge, and I will say as far as hacks go, hacking your consciousness is a pretty good one.
> Just don't tell me it's a hallucination until you've done it successfully yourself.
I cannot resist, I've done meditation with never performing the out of body experience and I've read about it in great detail. I would still think the possibility of it all being a hallucination and even if performed with thinking it was definitely real. Hallucinations can be so real that they're impossible to disprove. Consciousness might not even be real in the sense that most people think about it as because reality tends to be deterministic with the impossibility to prove otherwise.
That's partly why I suggested people try it for themselves, because while I agree my personal subjective experience doesn't qualify as evidence one way or another for it being real / not real, it's much harder to dismiss once you've had it happen.
FWIW, this wasn't actually my goal when I started meditating, it just happened after some months of regular meditation, and I had to piece together what it was from limited information. As you can see from the number of downvotes, there's still a strong prejudice against even the suggestion that these are valid experiences with potential utility. So it goes!
I don't doubt your experience or even the countless others who have had it happen and shared online. I just find it possible to be a trigger-able hallucination. Similar to what is possible with drugs. It's impossible to ever know if an out of body experience is real or a hallucination. I do find it interesting though. I think meditation is a healthy process to keep in one's arsenal of activities.
I appreciate your open-mindedness. The only point I would make in reply is that is is possible to know if it's real or a hallucination, it just hasn't been thoroughly tested. It is possible to design an experiment to test the extent to which our normal world and this seemingly other space might intersect.
It would also be possible, though ethically controversial, to test whether or not a person in an OBE state could reliably alternate between being pronounced dead, and then resuscitated. It would be a substantial finding to learn that someone could will themselves to both "die" and also to be revived.
What is certain is that as meditation becomes more popular these experiences will become more common and no longer ridiculed. We will then learn more by virtue of level-headed people sharing information about them. Who knows what we'll find?
I don't understand why this comment is being downvoted. I found it quite interesting and it is at least as substantive and relevant as a dozen-plus other, non-downvoted comments on this post.
Thanks. It's just a sticky subject matter, intellectually, so people feel better dismissing all of it.
"Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable." -Goethe
The irony for me is that I too used to think it was all nonsense, until I started doing the meditation. It's much harder to dismiss when you start to experience a litany of things you can't explain.
I've now cared for two elderly relatives, both dear to me, through to their deaths. One, in extreme pain despite copious amounts of medication, begged and pleaded for death for a number of days before finally passing. The other, while still lucid, expressed her desire to go quickly, that she was ready. But she, too, went through days of agony before passing. I watched on as both these people became nothing but their pain until they mercifully died.
There are other forms of horror I've witness family members live through, like slowly losing your memories. Forgetting your loved ones and yourself bit by bit.
I'm fine with withering away, even in an old folks' home. But at some point you lose who you are. I'd rather be dead than linger in a state in which I have no concept of who I am, or who I once was. No memory of what I find precious, or of whom I love. The moment I'm just a scared animal in pain, with no hope of ever being human again, please just kill me.
I think what's difficult is the combination of hope that it will get better, and the fear that you are ending life before it has a chance to get better.
I absolutely feel the same away about my own life as you do, but it's harder to pull the trigger (metaphorically) when it is someone else's life, even when it is obviously the right choice.
As an Indian, I will never ever be able to wrap my head around the concept of an old-age home that seems normal in western societies.
Whenever I find myself feeling a bit envious about the obvious advantages that are there in western countries, the reminder of the existence of this absurdity immediately removes all feelings of jealousy.
"Unlike in the West where the elderly dread the thought of being dependent on their children, the elderly in India expect to be dependent on their children. Eyebrows are raised if this equation is not seen in a family"
If you're not living in absolute poverty, it's completely possible to take care of your parents as they grow old. My father took care of my grandfather until his last day and they lived under the same roof albeit on different floors.
No matter how my life turns out, I will still do the same for my parents as they have done for theirs.
For large swathes of the population, putting your parents in and old-age home is seen as a complete and utter betrayal for the sacrifices they made for you.
You have x hours to spend. You can either spend them with yout children or spend them with dementia laden old parents who don’t know who you are
What’s better for you? For your children? For your parents?
A granny flat may be acceptable, but having the in-laws under your roof? It was awful when I was a kid, and we had mother-in-law round for a week or so after she came out of hospital for a knee replacement. We all found it intolerable.
I don’t want to be a burden on my kids, and my parents dont want to be a burden on me.
I think the key difference is that the visit from your mother-in-law was a novel or unique experience which you might not have the emotional tools to handle. It isn't exactly fair to compare that inexperience with what is a way of life in India.
The visit may have been uncomfortable for you because of the absence of societal and cultural rules to help streamline these situations.
Is it normal in India to stay in the same town as your parents?
I see that as part of the problem in the west, especially if you are educated and have some sort of specialization, you are kind of expected to travel to get a "better job" - though that's a fairly personal decision to be fair. Certainly my parents put more of an emphasis on getting ahead in the working world rather than staying close.
Also I have met a few Indians here in Europe, as far as I am aware they don't have plans to go home, whats the expectation there?
With the recent (and by recent I mean since 1991) opening of the Indian economy, there has been a cultural shift in the Indian mindset.
It might surprise you but leaving India for education or employment is actually pretty commonplace and is not actually in conflict with the picture I have painted of India.
However, India hasn't been as successful as China in rapid development without it affecting cultural values. China has pretty swiftly achieved modernization without westernization which I think was one of the sub-goals of it's architect: Deng Xiaoping who laid the foundations of the same in the 1980's.
Our equivalent of Deng was unfortunately only a brilliant economist, so his 1991 reforms were limited to economic reforms with no social safeguards to help avoid Westernization.
As such, India right now is in a massive state of flux. There are Indians abroad similar to the one's you had met who have siezed the opportunity given to them to massively elevate their quality of life. There are also Indian's abroad who left the country with a very specific goal of either: 1) bringing their family in the next decade or so or 2) secure enough money for an early retirement and return to India.
It really comes down to the type of mindset their parents valued, not the country they were born/raised in.
In most places with undeveloped third party social service family is your only option. If you have no family to watch after you, you perish miserably or put into some hellish institution running on absolute cheap.
For the lack of other options, family caretaking is typically presented as a virtue (just as GP does here). But it has its share of rarely mentioned horror stories with children and relatives… not doing adequate caretaking job with their parents to say least.
That's also a way of looking at it. I wouldn't agree with the part where you say "family caretaking is typically presented as a virtue" however. Being virtuous is synonymous with being honorable. If you see a parent taking care of their sick child would you say "how honorable"? Or is it simply what is expected of them to be considered a decent human being?
As long as you can provide good quality care, there isn't much of a moral difference how it's done. Just don't see how a trained professional changing vessels is worse than resentful daughter-in-law doing the same.
How was it smug in any way? I was trying to draw parallels in an attempt to understand your thought process.
You asserted that as long as the quality of the care is acceptable, the source shouldn't make too much of a difference. I tried to give an example that would meet these requirements and still be questionable and you completely shut down.
Well I gave you an example: childcare in nursery is widely accepted. You however got upset to hear a straightforward answer to a question expected to demonstrate your moral superiority.
Ok good we're on the same page then. So if the nursery was permanent and replaced the role of the parent completely, would that be moral?
Or to equate it more fairly, if a parent paid somebody to permanently take care of their children while they they visited them periodically, would that be as moral as putting their parents in a nursing home?
Oh, sure. Foster homes are a thing. Where children who would otherwise greatly suffer or disappear in "family-oriented" societies can live in reasonable safety and care.
There are parents who reject their children or even kill them: apparently infanticide in India is not uncommon. There are relatives who try getting rid of their inconveniencing elderly. You can't be unaware of it, these are plot devices in a number of Bollywood films and there are specific laws to deal just with that. In a country size of India, the number of people not receiving adequate care or outright abused has to be in millions. An independent safety net greatly improves their odds of survival and life expectancy.
Approximately noone is looking forward to watching after incontinent, or demented, or paralyzed patients while trying also to get on with daily life. It becomes a full time job very quick, and many simply have no proper means to do so. Lacking any other options, most people would do that however out of basic humanism, but it's not to say they find that process rewarding or they do any good job at that. Quietly hoping for timely death of the patient in their care while hating yourself for it isn't uncommon.
So again, for the lack of any alternatives you present the social order you live in as a virtue. But you can only make moral choice when you have any realistic choice at all.
I only ask that you don't let the plot devices of Bollywood films have a non-trivial influence on your world view.
The statement of yours that I was originally replying to was:
As long as you can provide good quality care, there isn't much of a moral difference how it's done. Just don't see how a trained professional changing vessels is worse than resentful daughter-in-law doing the same.[1]
The extended case I wanted to talk about was of a healthy, financially sound adult. Not kindergartens or extreme circumstances that lead to foster care. Say this adult wanted to put their 3-year old into an institution of permanent professional care. Would you find that to be the same as putting one's parents in an old folks home? Or is there some difference?
I am going to assume that you have children, because your entire tone changed when I brought up kids. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Would you be fine with putting your children in such an institution if you felt overwhelmed by the responsibility of child-rearing?
You keep deflecting from the original topic because you have nothing to say on my point, and are simple minded enough to think I don't see through this.
To your question: if I was an unfit parent, say an additct or abusive or schizophrenic, and maintained enough reflection to realize that, yes, absolutely. Otherwise there is no reason.
Now answer my question: are you really looking forward to wiping shit on an immobile incontinent patient for 15 years? Not asking if you would do that mind you, but if you dread thinking it.
The "immobile incontinent patient scenario" isn't too commonplace. In my family and most of the extended families of my friends, you stay with your parents for companionship and helping them out in day-to-day tasks if required. You don't wipe their shit for 15 years, they're still pretty able-bodied and independent.
What is confusing to me is your insistence to see the worst-case scenario and treat what is the last 3 months of their lives to the year-to-year scenario.
Please don't call me simple minded when I'm trying to be civil.
Now, back to your reply. You're saying that for you to put your child in professional care you would have to be an addict or abusive or schizophrenic. However, these don't seem to be preconditions for putting your parents in professional care. So going back to the statement I was focusing on:
As long as you can provide good quality care, there isn't much of a moral difference how it's done.[1]
Is it fair to say that you feel this is true for one's parents but not for one's children?
You keep dropping the second sentence of my reply to keep arguing your strawman:
Just don't see how a trained professional changing vessels is worse than resentful daughter-in-law doing the same. [1]
Noone puts their folks to elders home just for fun of it, I thought that much is clear. The freaking article we discuss here describes demented, incontinent elderly, yet you prefer to ingore the context.
Regarding "unrealistic" scenarios, I know people who lived through what I described (and worse).
Now, you did not answer my question, which is outright rude. I am not in an interrogation here, questions go both ways. Now of course I know your answer already, and it's uncomfortable enough for you to keep deflecting. But if you are unwilling to face it, this conversation is over.
This is the first time I dropped the second sentence. I've only quoted it twice and I quoted it fully the first time.
I tried to answer your question by trying to inform you that the scenario your painting is incredibly, incredibly unrealistic.
I also feel that the context of the argument changes when you take into consideration what my top-most statement was.
I was expressing disbelief at the prevalence of old-age homes in western civilization. I took the article as a way to express that sentiment.
I acknowledge that dementia can be rough, and even I have had one or two extended family members who have gone through the same. My own grandfather passed away from Alzheimer's and yes, the last year was difficult. I'm not uncomfortable to face the question. What is a hypothetical to you was a brief reality to me. I'm just trying to make you see things from a different perspective.
All I was trying to do was to understand what I felt was a dissonance in your world view w.r.t how we treat our children vs. how we treat our parents with regards to professional care. That's all.
EDIT: The only reason I omitted the daughter-in-law statement is because it paints you in a poor light if you think that it's her duty to take care of aging in-laws. It came off as a bit sexist and I didn't want to derail the conversation.
Daughter-in-law often ends up tending to bodily needs of husbands ailing mother. Super common thing in "family oriented" societies as touching body parts of opposite sex tends to be a taboo.
You know that though, and your edit serves no other function than an insult. So go screw yourself.
I think, you are romanticizing a very painful aspect of life, to which there are no clear answers. As some where later in the thread, your argument is more about assigning virtue to need(because of not enough options).
Another place you mention daughter-in-law caring for the elders. Totally ignoring the sexist nature of that proposition. Also in reality that whole in-laws under the same roof, has its own set of complications. Often resulting in a very unhealthy dynamic. When children also get affected in the politics of the grown ups.
I think, this is a very complicated and painful problem. For that no universally good solution exists. Its a problem worth solving though, anywhere in the world.
I didn't mention daughter in laws in any of my comments. You might be confusing the replies together. Your entire statement really seems to be a very pessimistic take that is certainly a possibility but not commonplace.
There are challenges in taking care of your in laws but raising a child is easily a more painful and arduous task, so it's not very extreme in the larger scale of things.
Also, I didn't bring up virtue. One of the other commenters is fixated on me demonstrating moral superiority so I'm trying to speak to only that person w.r.t. virtue.
I originally replied to that commenter with a statement that implies that there is literally zero virtue in taking care of your parents in India. Nobody praises you or holds you in higher esteem for doing so over here.
For folk in the US, please remember right-to-death in your end of life plans. In other countries, look it up and figure out where your suicide switch is installed.
I went through an awful ordeal with my mom in late stage ALS. My mom was always adamant about being kept comfortable and taking an early exit.
But. Her sister convinced her to move to South Carolina instead of Washington with me. This led to a nightmare of her getting eventually moved to a terrible hospice facility, hen getting an airlift so she could be in a better hospice in Washington.
By the time she got to Washington, we were out of time to go through the right-to-death paperwork and self-administration. She had to go out the hard way, which in her case was slowly shutting down over weeks, including ten days of being unable to drink anything and slowly becoming unable to breathe. We watched Gilmore Girls together, slowly waiting for the end, and me torn between wanting her to be released and wanting every second with her.
I’m saying this so people understand, if you want a way out, get to a right-to-death state. It needs to be a priority.
For fuck's sake, please don't post dangerously incorrect information.
1) Self-harm is the best predictor of death by suicide, so the fact that some people make a "suicide gesture" means their risk of death by suicide is significantly higher than the general population. By trivialising self harm (which is what you've done here) you further increase their risk of death.
2) The common methods of death by suicide in places without guns are i) hanging followed by ii) self-poisoning. Self-poisoning is very dangerous, and always requires emergency medical attention. The fact the US has an opioid crisis with huge numbers of people dying from overdose should be enough evidence.
3) Stop posting links to pro-suicide websites. Your actions kill people.
the problem with guns is the same as many other forms of suicide that the harm you may do to those that find you. the best way to go is to disappear completely without a trace. but doing so successfully requires a huge amount of research to pull off in a way that you won't be found ever. it also leaves the question if those that you leave behind (if any) will be hurt by your disappearance. this is an incredibly hard problem which I expect will take me a long time to solve. it's a reason as good as any to continue muddling through and live another day.
If anything can be learned from the article and the commenters, it is that it is very difficult to know your own, true stance on this matter until you're in the position where you need to make a decision. It is easy to say that we would choose to end our lives than live with a crippling disease, but we forget about the omnipresent hope that is within us all, the same hope that got our ancestors through disasters, war, and unimaginable suffering. Unfortunately, in most cases, a person is not able to make the decision until they are already suffering.
I don't know where I stand on this issue, truthfully. I feel that people should have the right to choose, but it seems like most people really struggle to predict what they will want when push comes to shove.
For some time now it has been on my mind how the... how to best express this? the default stance is that everyone wants to live as long as modern medicine can stretch their lives. Very reluctantly, a few places relatively recently began to allow people with debilitating conditions to end their lives at their will. As far as I am concerned, I already only live because I feel a duty to the small school(-ish) I started and finance. It was always meant to be a relatively short lived affair. When your bucket list is empty, you are alone in this world, when you don't have anything to look forward why go on? I have known for years now that I don't particularly want to survive my 50th birthday (some six years from now) and there's no dignified way to just end it.
Can anyone explain what it means to "thrive in hospice"? My impression is that the plan is 1) to discontinue "heroic measures" and 2) dope you up with opioids "to make you comfortable" so much so that your body shuts down. I'm fine with the first, but I don't see how that qualifies as thriving. I'd like to hear if anyone's experiences are different.
Mother in law had heart attack, ended up with low function. She had 10 good years, then the "evil zapper" as she called it, would trigger regularly. She hated it and directed that it be turned off.
Two blissful weeks followed. Just knowing it was not going to happen again perked her right up. The last night, she got up late and I made her a great sandwich. She knew this was it. Went to sleep, and was lucid only one more time.
She said thank you.
The other was my Father in law. He was very old, fell and broke his arm. His body just could not cope. He ended up in hospice care, both of these at home, BTW. Neither wanted to be in some hospital room.
He went through a very painful week of shutdown, but was mostly lucid. This was terrible.
Medical cannibis was available in my state, and he requested a "stiff dose" because the opiates made him a mess. Experiencing some cannibis was on his bucket list and smoking it was out of the question.
I looked up how to make a very potent drink, did it and we gave him a shot glass full of it.
Frankly, the next 10 or so hours were amazing. He got up, out of bed (not supposed to be possible at this point), came out to see everyone, yell at the idiots on TV, and tell us all stuff he wanted to tell, along with old songs and jokes he wanted people, his grand kids to remember.
We all asked (What the hell?), and he said I am stoned enough to forget I am dying. No more of that talk, gimme a beer. (We did) He was Irish, and to him this kind of thing was "going out right and proper"
He passed a day or two later. After that fun night, he went to sleep, restful, seemingly way more comfortable. Was not lucid again.
We did not have to use much of the death drug kit they sent us home with.
I have only done home hospice. I think it has beauty and pain. I think it is a just and solid choice for one to make when they have family they trust completely.
Both thrived. Was brief. No way would it have been the same in a sterile boring, unfamiliar room.
Both contained meaningful end of life experiences. Both appear to have a worthy end. Worthy in that is was their terms more.
That is all. Hope this helps.
For what it is worth, I was moved. I will definitely go that way should my end be known and it being possible.
I have the view that all persons with psychological illnesses should have the right to receive euthanasia and only if they desire with medical professionals examining them if coercion exists or not. Society is currently selfish, arrogant and ignorant when it comes to authority over people who desire death. I know one person who is being discriminated based on her painful illness and while knowing a person who received euthanasia who suffered less pain in his life than the other person. The first person being diagnosed with gender dysphoria and the second person with cancer. The events lived in life can be more important than the illness when it comes to how pain is felt & dealt with.
I too would rather be dead than rotting away in an old folks home. At least that's how I think about it now.
My comment will probably get down-voted for this next part, but it's not meant to be mean-spirited, self-righteous, condescending, or anything like that. Just one person's point of view.
Despite my preference, my hope is that I would surrender to and accept God's will. The Lord's Prayer says "thy will be done" and not "my will be done". Jesus did not press the easy button.
I agree. It sounds esoteric, but if there's any purpose to existence, then there's purpose to the suffering one might go through near the end of life. There's almost certainly a reason nearly all religions consider suicide a grave sin, and I don't think worldly reasons (like the welfare of society) are solely the cause.
There are third options, you know, even in an old folks' home. Like relaxing and winding down. Just because something doesn't look "cool" doesn't mean it's unpleasant or unworthy. Some people would rather be dead than be nerdy, or jocky, or whatever.
> my hope is that I would surrender to and accept God's will. The Lord's Prayer says "thy will be done" and not "my will be done". Jesus did not press the easy button.
What happens if one of the care workers in the home starts raping you? Is that God's will that you need to surrender to and accept, or is it entirely preventable suffering that we need to stop?
Until five months ago my parents (in their 80s) would have decisively said the same. They designed their house so it would be comfortable even as their range of motion diminished (e.g. bedroom they could move into downstairs). Yet five months ago they completely changed their minds and move to one next week.
Why?
My mum's a physician and she saw many people degenerate in their own homes, and find themselves in trouble (fell/got stuck, had to wait for someone to find them). For them that was disturbing, but they also saw people get quite lonely as they and their friends could no longer make it out of the house. Their friends are dying too. And finally they realised it just takes more and more time to accomplish simple tasks like paying the bills. They'd rather be living than looking after their lives.
This author is American and my parents are living in the USA as well. There's very little support for old people in the US except for unpaid labor by daughters or daughters in law (the number of adult sons looking after aging parents is much lower!). In home care is expensive (1.5% of US GDP already -- I looked it up) and thinly served. When I compare that to the care my grandparents had and my in laws (in three other countries) the US appears to be the least supportive -- though in part this is due to people moving around a lot.
As it happens I have looked at these statistics as I am working at a startup in the elder care space. The fact is it’s overwhelmingly the females of the next generation who do this work, regardless of whether they have a job outside the home, and surveys report significant dissatisfaction and resentment with that state of affairs. “I don’t see how this is dragging gender wars in”
Increased automation will allow a significant number to “just” do the fun parts — no bedpan or nappy changing.
As discussed with my father today, a good care home for elderly should be a social club rather than a health care institution foremost. Let us all go out in good company with high spirits, and maybe some coffee and spirits to go with it.
Lots of good conversation on this challenging topic. I would like to throw out a nugget of information for anyone finding themselves having to go down this path: There are many different levels of care when it comes to 'old folks homes'.
We had to go down this path last year with my mom to get her out of living alone in a house. I thought the options were to move in with one of us or put her in an old folks home. Turns out there are many different levels and options: Independent Living, Assisted Living, Memory Care, Skilled Nursing, Private Duty Nursing, Hospice, Continuing Care Retirement Communities, etc.
We found an independent living situation that gives my mom the independence she needs but also the social, dining, and transportation needs that enable her to live a good life without us having to worry about her safety and well-being. Of course, she does like to say with a wink that we put her in an old folks home but she enjoys it.
That led to a long conversation of mortality with my gf and both of us promised that we'd help each other out if we got into that state and were ready to leave. I hope by then it's legal.
reply