>> competently choose to do so.

At least with Alzheimer's, there is no bright line between competence and incompetence. It's a relatively slow slide into incompetence. And not an even progression, since in fuzzy area there may be periods of competence mixed with periods of incompetence. I think big part of problem for person with Alzheimer's to make decision of suicide is to have the resolve to do it early enough, while they're still clearly competent and would have much more time as a competent person, instead of waiting to try and milk out as much time as they can. Cause if you wait you're likely to forget your strong desire (I'm not joking here) or simply lack the resolve to do the deed.

>> I would want to do so with quick and painless drugs

>> instead of a gun. However, assisted suicide is only

>> legal in a handful of US states, and then only in

>> cases of terminal illness with less than six

>> months to live.

I'm not sure why, but you seem to think use of "quick and painless drugs" requires use of assisted suicide. Maybe one solution would be for someone to publish some "How To" information on how to assemble and use a quick and painless drug solution, all on your own. Then at least anyone worried enough about developing Alzheimer's would have a length of time measuring in years to get their solo-suicide plan in place.

I say this as a person who hopes he'd be able to take his own life before incompetence comes. My father and several members of my extended family had Alzheimer's. I think that people who lack experience with it are sometimes unaware of how Alzheimer's robs a person of their personhood. It's not pretty and nobody should ever have to go through it.

The best you probably can do is to repeatedly state something along the lines of "if I haven't repeated this statement for a month, ask me about it. If I am competent, I will repeat the statement; If I cannot, and don't answer the question, try again a few times in the next month. If I never answer the question, I would want to die."

That would give those who would have to decide about your wishes at a time where you cannot communicate them anymore a track record of what your past self thought the wishes of your current self would be. It still would be a tough decision for them, but you cannot give them more.

There are a lot of sites and organizations dedicated to that exact thing. An interesting one, in my opinion, is "Max Dog Brewing"[1] which uses nitrogen as an alternative to the helium asphyxiation technique. No drugs required.

I regret that this comment is so brief, as I don't want it to appear curt. I just have a lot of opinions that I don't feel like putting in this thread.

1 = https://youtube.com/watch?v=tY5ysgqMMPE

If your family adopted this tradition, many problems would be solved. Many complications become greatly simplified. It's much more dignified than drug-assisted suicide and certainly more dignified than going through Alzheimer's.

In fact, I think it's more dignified than simply dying of old age.

Give me the barbiturates any day.

If enough people chose this route, it'll help a big deal.

1. You'll need a much smaller retirement package.

2. You'll help improve this technology (by spending money on it).

3. Who knows about the future?

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics

I know someone who managed to obtain a lethal dose of the drug they prescribe in Oregon. He believes in the right-to-die movement but lives in a state that will probably never allow it. Before anyone asks, I don't know how he got his hands on it.

"How to Die in Oregon" is a heartbreaking documentary on the right-to-die issue that brought me to tears (I don't cry easily). The assisted deaths that occur at the start and end of the film are punctuated by the patients reassuring their family members that they are in no pain as they say goodbye. Both had low quality of living due to their respective illnesses, but they got to say goodbye on their own terms and with dignity. Very touching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bag

I'm no maritime law expert, but I wonder if it's possible to offer assisted suicide in international waters, similar to abortion ships. It'd be much more accessible than traveling to Switzerland.

My father had Alzheimer's. He was given six months to live but my mother was too good at taking care of him. It took him about three more years to actually die. At some point, I got a copy of the death certificate. One of his diagnoses* is a form of "anorexia." The picture of him in his casket was unrecognizably thin. In other words, he basically took three years to slowly starve to death, in spite of being given excellent care.

While he slowly starved to death, he still drew two retirement checks. I am currently homeless and was homeless for a good portion of the three years it took him to die. Part of the money he still drew for still drawing breathe helped keep me and my sons fed. When he died, I was glad his suffering was over but I also worried that it would mean more suffering for me and my sons.

I have a different condition. It is medical and incurable and comes with a death sentence. About 13 years ago, I spent about a year at death's door. I was told "people like you don't get well." I have figured out how to get well. I sometimes wish I had died 13 years ago. Getting well has involved a lot of suffering, plus a lot of people think I made the story up or something, and because I am destitute I struggle to get enough to eat every month.

On the other hand, I have solved a hard problem: Getting well when that is not supposed to be possible. If I ever solve another hard problem -- getting the world to believe me and finding a way to effectively share the information -- it may help a lot of people. Or it may not. I might yet die on the street, in obscurity, just some "crazy" homeless person suffering what other people think are delusions.

Some people with my condition hold on and do not commit suicide, in spite of how miserable it is, because they are hoping for a cure, for a medical miracle. Things have gotten better. Average life expectancy has roughly doubled in recent decades. I once saw an email from a mom saying "My child is now 18. Life expectancy is currently 36. When he was born, it was 18."

I don't have any answers for you. Thirteen years ago, I was not looking to get well. I was just looking to hurt less. I would have welcomed death. Had assisted suicide been an option, I might have taken it. I often think about that when such discussions come up. My oldest son has the same thing. He was 14 when he was diagnosed. He is now 27. He, at least, has a brighter future than he should have had because of what I have been through. He, also, has gotten healthy, but without first spending a year at death's door. It does matter to me that I have at least done something for my children.

I am sorry for what you are facing. I am sorry there seem to be no easy answers for some things.

* edit: By "diagnoses" I mean the listed causes of death, I think. I don't have the death certificate in front of me.

There are some options in the US, just fyi.

The article does point this out which I think is also relevant.

    “ .. if you do anything, such as smoke a bunch of 
    marijuana in your 20s and 30s, you may wipe out all of 
    the inflammation in your brain and then things start 
    over again. And you simply die of old age before 
    inflammation becomes an issue for you,” Wenk states.

Yeah that really sounds like it solves the root problem.

Would you also deny others pain-relieving medication?

See, your philosophical stance is admirable. In my mind, thinking of pain as a positive thing is a healthy approach to life. What I find deplorable is forcing your personal view on others. That is pure righteousness.

Indeed, righteousness is the underlying problem here. Taking one's personal views on life ('... a crucial part of the human journey ...') and believing they are a universal truth. Once this belief is formed, the natural conclusion is to force others to live by it, because it is the Truth.

How about we let everyone decide what to do with their own lives, as long as they do not inflict harm on others?

Only I don't. But how does it felt? Do you really stoop to being so low a human being as to wish BS upon other people because you disagree with in a discussion?

Do you think that makes you better than whatever you think he is?

I do not merely disagree with his position. I consider it vile and a threat to me and everyone I know. It is one of those positions where compromise is immoral. Some disagreements are not matters for civilised discussion if you actually believe in it, slavery, religion, gay rights, morality in other words.

I feel just fine about wanting an end to Alzheimer's, to aging and senescence in general and I feel equally fine about wanting him to live out his beliefs about how suffering brings meaning to life.