Monday, April 06, 2009

Terry Pratchett Writes About the Marginalization of People with Alzheimer's

The prolific British author Terry Pratchett has a moving and frank article about what it is like to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's. There is much to digest, including how the medical system in the UK seems inadequate to address serious conditions such as this requiring specialized care. But I think this is the heart of the piece. From Pratchett's column:

It occurred to me that at one point it was like I had two diseases--one was Alzheimer's and the other was knowing I had Alzheimer's. There were times when I thought I'd have been much happier not knowing, just accepting that I'd lost brain cells and one day they'd probably grow back or whatever...

It is a strange life when you "come out". People get embarrassed, lower their voices, get lost for words. Part of the report I'm helping to launch today reveals that 50 per cent of Britons think there is a stigma surrounding dementia. Only 25 per cent think there is still a stigma associated with cancer.

The stories in the report--of people being told they were too young or intelligent to have dementia; of neighbours crossing the street and friends abandoning them--are like something from a horror novel. It seems that when you have cancer you are a brave battler against the disease, but when you have Alzheimer's you are an old fart. That's how people see you. It makes you feel quite alone.

The isolation and marginalization of people with Alzheimer's and other serious illnesses is a terrible problem in our society--caused in part by fear, certainly--but also because we have devolved into a society so steeped in hedonism that when one can't climb rocks or have sex four times a week, many think, "What's the point of that bloke even continuing on?" (Yes, that's hyperbole, but the point is valid.)

I recall my last hospice patient's rueful statement to me about why he had wanted to commit assisted suicide with Kevorkian for 2 1/2 years after his diagnosis with ALS (until "coming out of the fog" and being glad to be alive). Bob told me that it wasn't his progressive disability that made him want to die: As difficult as that was, he adjusted with each new "mini death," (as he put it). Rather, he told me:
First my friends stopped visiting me. Then, my friends stopped calling me. Then they stopped calling my wife and I felt like a token presence in the world.
If it is our human duty to love each other--and I think that is the quintessential human obligation--then nobody should be abandoned or isolated or marginalized because they are ill or disabled. Too often, the excuse of "I don't want to upset him," or "I wouldn't know what to say to her," is actually (as understandable as this is), "I don't want to be upset," or "I don't want to be reminded of my own mortality and vulnerability to loss of health and vitality." And this easily morphs into applauding the "choice" of a person in fear of such isolation or perceived burdensome existence, to take the poison pill of assisted suicide.

Labels:

4 Comments:

At April 06, 2009 , Blogger holyterror said...

Compassion is so often shot through with our own horror, our own, "I don't wat to be upset." It is the reason, I think, that we would rather kill to solve suffering.

Facing the horror of a child rape? Abort the resulting pregnancy; at least that way there won't be any MORE victims to deal with.

Pained by the slow loss of your parent, and want it to end? Offer a quicker exit. That way, the suffering is over.

I don't think we will make much headway against this kind of self-preservation logic, though, if we see its purveryors as unrepentatnly evil. Too often, it is regular old pople like you or me who can't face up to their OWN suffering. We have to compassionately, but firmly, pint out the illogic of "compassionate" killing, and what lies beneath.

 
At April 06, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

When a hospital pulled a "guardianship" stunt re my mother, among its false statements in its petition to the court was that no one had visited her except for me and the priest, who came to see her very frequently; in fact, there were almost 30 people on her visitors' list, at least 20 had been to see her, and some had come to see her several times. But as time went on, and when she needed them to be there most, fewer and fewer were willing, saying they "just would be too upset to see her that way." It's like people who claim to love dogs, but get their own dogs from breeders and won't go to a shelter because, they say, it would just be too upsetting to them. In fact they want a particular breed of dog, from a breeder, or they'd have thought at least to contact a rescue agency for their breed of choice; these are the ones who say they can't live without a dog; again, it's all about them. They don't even seem to realize how selfish they are revealing themselves to be. The hospital, and the "guardians," meanwhile, refused to let her be an "information" patient, and the "guardians" refused to allow the phone and internet to be on at her home, saying that she was in the hospital and didn't need them -- when it was a matter of life and death for her for people to be able to find out what was going on. Yes, isolation is lethal.

 
At April 06, 2009 , Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

I remember how excited my daughter was when she discovered that Pratchett was to be Guest of Honor at MidSouthCon.

May God bless him.

 
At April 06, 2009 , Blogger SAFEpres said...

What Wesley and others have pointed out is sad and frustrating. I am glad that I have had some experience with disabilities to prepare me for dealing with these issues. Very often I have seen people justifying not going to see a sick relative or a dying person because they "don't want to remember them that way" or "want them to have their privacy."

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home