LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS
FOR ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS


SYNOPSIS:

    There are about 5 million Alzheimer's patients in the USA.
They are at different stages of decline.
This brain disease often causes several years of dementia at the end of life.

    In the past, the standard medical practice in the United States has been
to keep Alzheimer's patients alive as long as technically possible.
Such standard medical treatment has often included a feeding-tube
because patients with advance dementia forget how to eat
and it becomes too difficult and dangerous to feed them by hand.

    This population of patients with various degrees of mental decline
can only increase in coming years
as more people enter the age when Alzheimer's is more likely.
After age 85, about half of us will have some level of Alzheimer's.

    As a society, we have not boldly faced
this problem created by advances in medical technology.
Because people with advanced dementia can be kept alive for years,
we just assumed that they should be kept alive.
Our nursing homes have literally millions of patients
with Alzheimer's disease or other forms of mental decline.
They need constant care because they can no longer take care of themselves.
As they decline into deeper mental disability,
more care and support are needed from the staff of the nursing home.
Consider the costs in human efforts and public and private money.

OUTLINE:

1.  WHO SHOULD MAKE THE LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS?

2.  WHEN SHOULD DECISION-MAKING POWER SHIFT TO THE PROXIES?

3.  THE MOST MEANINGFUL SAFEGUARDS
      FOR MAKING LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS FOR ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS

A. ADVANCE DIRECTIVE FOR MEDICAL CARE

B. REQUESTS FOR DEATH FROM THE PATIENT

C. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATES THE PATIENT'S ABILITY TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS

D. PHYSICIAN'S STATEMENT OF CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS

E. INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN REVIEWS THE CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS

F. CERTIFICATION OF TERMINAL ILLNESS OR INCURABLE CONDITION

G. PALLIATIVE CARE TRIAL

K. REQUESTS FOR DEATH FROM THE PROXIES

L. ENROLLMENT IN A HOSPITAL OR HOSPICE

M. STATEMENTS FROM HOSPITAL OR HOSPICE STAFF MEMBERS

O. A MEMBER OF THE CLERGY APPROVES OR QUESTIONS CHOOSING DEATH

Q. AN INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE PLANS FOR DEATH

R. STATEMENTS FROM ADVOCATES FOR DISADVANTAGED GROUPS
             IF INVITED BY THE PATIENT AND/OR THE PROXIES

S. REPORT TO THE PROSECUTOR BEFORE THE DEATH TAKES PLACE

U. WAITING PERIODS FOR REFLECTION

4.  WHAT ARE THE BEST METHODS FOR DRAWING LIFE TO A CLOSE? 




LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS
FOR ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS


by James Leonard Park

1.  WHO SHOULD MAKE THE LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS?


    Terminal care decisions for Alzheimer's patients
are made especially difficult by this brain disease itself.
Once a patient has this progressive brain disease,
all future decisions by that patient will be questionable.

    Sometimes the patient becomes child-like.
Some thought-processes are still taking place,
but the conclusions need to be monitored by other adults
whose thinking abilities are beyond doubt.

    In most cases, there is a long period of several years,
during which the patient is able to make some routine decisions,
such as what clothes to wear that day and what to watch on television.
But as the disease progresses,
even such simple decisions must be taken over by others.

    The highest and most complex mental processes are lost first.
This might be noticed in the patient's financial affairs:
Has the patient made foolish decisions concerning money?

    Also, does the patient have enough power of concentration
to understand medical information and to reach reasonable conclusions?
Eventually others take responsibility for making medical decisions.

    And, of course, the most comprehensive medical decision will be
making those choices that will lead to the death of the patient.
Because decisions that result in death are so important and complicated,
a patient with Alzheimer's cannot be trusted to reach a wise conclusion.

    Then someone else must make medical decisions for this patient.

    The most common way this shift of decision-maker takes place
is for the doctor to turn to a close relative
when a medical procedure must be approved.
Without any formal legal process, the next of kin
becomes the actual person to decide for this patient:
The doctor hands the consent-form to the spouse instead of to the patient.

    A better process would be to establish a formal proxy
for the patient who can no longer make wise medical decisions.
This can be done with a special document appointing the proxy.
Or it can be included in an Advance Directive for Medical Care.
One of the most important elements of any Advance Directive
is naming a proxy who will make decisions for this patient
when and if the patient can no longer make meaningful medical choices.

    A formal proxy could also be a committee of relatives and friends,
such as a Medical Care Decisions Committee,
which will be legally empowered to make
at least the most important medical decisions for this patient.
Routine and non-controversial authorizations
could be handled by the chairperson of the MCDC.

    During those months or years in which the patient
is still able to express meaningful opinions about medical care,
then the proxies should consult with the patient as much as possible.
Such consultation will be good both for the patient and the proxies.
And important decisions can be postponed
until a time when the patient is best able to make an informed choice.

    But when the patient has questionable mental capacities,
then the legal, official decision-making power
should actually rest with the duly-authorized proxies.
They might be able to say with some confidence
that they are making the same medical decision
that the patient would have made
when he or she was still able to make wise medical choices.

    This situation of declining mental capacities
should have been explicitly addressed in the written Advance Directive.
When the patient was still able to make wise medical decisions,
that person wrote what he or she would choose under various conditions.

    Such plans for the end of life cannot cover every possible medical problem,
but the Advance Directive can set forth the medical ethics of the patient
so that the duly-authorized proxies will be able to choose the best pathway
when the patient can no longer make meaningful decisions.




2.  WHEN SHOULD DECISION-MAKING POWER SHIFT TO THE PROXIES?


    The proxies themselves might have daily contact with the patient,
which will allow them to evaluate for themselves
the degree of mental decline in their friend or relative.

    And medical professionals might evaluate the mental powers of the patient.
Such formal and informal observations might lead to the same conclusion:
This patient can no longer make reasonable medical decisions.

    The proxies and the patient should cooperate as fully as possible
when making future medical decisions for this patient.
But the legal power to decide has now shifted to the proxies.

    It would be best to record this official shift in the medical record.
The proxies and the doctors could create a document noting the date
when the decision-making power shifted from the patient to the proxies.

    If the patient ever recovers all of his or her former mental powers,
then another document can be created,
stating the date and time when the power to make medical decisions
was formally and officially returned to the patient himself or herself. 

   
Here are links to about 200 questions that proxies can ask,
which will probe the changes they have observed in the patient
in the following areas: consciousness, memory, language, & autonomy:
Discussing Degrees of Mental Decline.




3.  THE MOST MEANINGFUL SAFEGUARDS
      FOR MAKING LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS FOR AN ALZHEIMER'S PATIENT


    The patient, the proxies, & the doctors
are the most important people to make end-of-life choices for the patient.
But some additional people might be consulted
to see if they agree with any decision to draw this patient's life to a close.

    Here is a list of the most relevant safeguards for this situation.
Each safeguard is explained briefly, but a more complete discussion
of how to apply that safeguard is linked from its name.
These safeguards are listed in the order of importance,
beginning with the most relevant and powerful:

A. ADVANCE DIRECTIVE FOR MEDICAL CARE

    When the patient was still unquestionably able to make medical decisions,
that person created a written and signed document
explaining how he or she wanted to be treated at the end of life.
If this was a comprehensive Advance Directive,
it includes provisions that explicitly address the situation of mental decline.
The patient has written (while still able to make meaningful decisions)
just what he or she wants and does not want
when certain medical conditions arise.
What did the patient write about possible mental decline?

   
To see one example of such writing,
read James Park's Advance Directive:
Scroll down to Answer 6:
"If I Get Alzheimer's Disease
or a Similar Condition that Limits My Mental Capacities"     211


B. REQUESTS FOR DEATH FROM THE PATIENT


    When the patient was already beginning the decline towards death,
he or she might have created an additional written statement
requesting death when his or her health has deteriorated
to the stage described in this document.
This request for death under specified circumstances
should be considered valid if the patient was still able to decide.
The witnesses to any such requests for death will state
that they believed the patient was still able to make meaningful choices
when this more explicit statement requesting death was created. 
This written, signed, & witnessed document
becomes a permanent part of the medical record.
Copies are kept by others involved, especially the proxies.

C. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATES THE PATIENT'S ABILITY TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS

    The mental capacities of the patient should be evaluated professionally.
An official statement can be created by a psychologist or psychiatrist. 
If the conclusion is that the patient can no longer make medical decisions,
then the proxies must take over the decision-making powers.

D. PHYSICIAN'S STATEMENT OF CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS


    Even tho it might be implicit in all of the current discussions,
the primary-care physician should issue a formal, written statement
summarizing the present condition of the patient and the future prognosis.
Sometimes people need to see such professional opinions in writing
before they will take them seriously.
And sometimes everyone has been operating on some implicit belief.
Putting the known medical facts and professional opinions into writing
will make certain that everyone concerned knows the full situation.

E. INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN REVIEWS THE CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS

    And especially when the proxies are making end-of-life decisions,
they should get a second professional opinion about the patient's condition
and likely future course under various treatment options.

    Sometimes, even more professional medical opinions might be relevant.
Has a specialist in the patient's specific condition been consulted?
For example, has the patient been evaluated by an Alzheimer's specialist?
All statements from doctors should be in terms laypersons can understand.

F. CERTIFICATION OF TERMINAL ILLNESS OR INCURABLE CONDITION

    Sometimes doctors will create a separate document stating their judgment
that this patient has an illness or condition
that is likely to result in death within a stated period of time.

I. PALLIATIVE CARE TRIAL

    It might be useful to have a summary of the medical treatments
already tried as a means of controlling the symptoms of mental decline.
Were these treatments effective for a specific period of time?
Has the patient continued to deteriorate despite the best palliative care?
The medical professionals involved in any such palliative care
might also be asked to write their observations and recommendations.

K. REQUESTS FOR DEATH FROM THE PROXIES

    Since the patient can no longer request death for himself or herself,
the proxies are empowered to make any medical decisions
that could have been taken by the patient
while the patient was still mentally able to make such requests.
Let the official authorization for life-ending decisions be put into writing,
signed, dated, & witnessed.
In creating their own written request for death,
the proxies take responsibility for the life-ending decision they are making.

L. ENROLLMENT IN A HOSPITAL OR HOSPICE

    When the patient is receiving care from health-care professionals,
a number of additional people know about the end-of-life situation.
And such observers (even including volunteers for a hospice program)
should express their doubts if they do not believe
that death at this time would be the wisest course of action.
Any and all such questions should be resolved
before the proxies make their final decision for death.

M. STATEMENTS FROM HOSPITAL OR HOSPICE STAFF MEMBERS

    And the case for choosing death for this patient
will be strengthened by any written statements from health-care staff
who help to care for the patient who is in some process of mental decline.

O. A MEMBER OF THE CLERGY APPROVES OR QUESTIONS CHOOSING DEATH
   
    If invited by the patient and/or the proxies, a professional religious leader
might be asked to review the end-of-life plans now being formulated.
This minister, priest, rabbi, etc. would not have any veto power
over the end-of-life decisions being make by the duly-authorized proxies.
But their religious opinions might affect the plans for death.

    And it will be reassuring to more distant skeptics if they are informed
that the life-ending decision was approved by a member of the clergy.

Q. AN INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE PLANS FOR DEATH

    Somewhere in planning for death it might be relevant
to seek the professional opinion of an ethics committee or consultant.
Such professionals face end-of-life situations on a regular basis.
And while they should actually visit the patient and talk with the proxies,
they are not emotionally involved with the patient.
They can make more objective recommendations,
based only on the known medical facts and professional opinions
and the recorded wishes of the patient and the proxies.

    If an ethics committee or consultant reviewed the choices,
then most people who know less about the situation should not object
based on their own preconceptions or philosophical views.

R. STATEMENTS FROM ADVOCATES FOR DISADVANTAGED GROUPS
             IF INVITED BY THE PATIENT AND/OR THE PROXIES

    Have doubts been raised about the quality of the medical care?
Might the patient be suffering discrimination because of group-identity?
Perhaps a representative of that sometimes-disadvantaged group
might be asked to review the complete death-planning record.
Such an advocate would have no veto power.
But if the representative of an identity-group finds real problems,
such issues can be brought to the attention of the decision-makers. 

    And if no discrimination is found by such an advocate,
then all critics who know less about the situation should remain silent.
The possibility of inferior care has been examined.
And the advocate agrees that the medical decisions are being properly made.

S. REPORT TO THE PROSECUTOR BEFORE THE DEATH TAKES PLACE

    The public prosecutor would rarely become involved.
Only when there is valid suspicion that a crime might be committed
under the color of withdrawing life-supports and discontinuing feeding
should the local prosecutor be informed about the end-of-life choices.
If the prosecutor might have reason to open a case-file after the death,
then such doubts can be resolved before the death takes place.
The public prosecutor could grant immunity to everyone involved
if the plans for death proceed as explained in the death-planning documents.

U. WAITING PERIODS FOR REFLECTION

    Probably there will be no need for any additional waiting periods
because of the lengthy deliberations already completed.
But if anyone legitimately involved wants to review the facts and opinions,
some delay in the proposed date of death should be allowed.

    There might be other reasons to propose a later date of death.
Perhaps some distant family members want to be present at the end.
And when the approximate date of death is known in advance,
the funeral or memorial service can be scheduled accordingly. 

    Each of the above selected safeguards has a letter of the alphabet.
This is because they were chosen from a larger set
of recommended safeguards for life-ending decisions.
The safeguards above are the most relevant and powerful
for any situation in which the patient has already lost mental capacity.
But if additional safeguards are wanted, here is the complete list:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-A-Z.html




4.  WHAT ARE THE BEST
METHODS FOR DRAWING LIFE TO A CLOSE?? 

    The proxies have a variety of measures they can select
to ensure that their patient has a meaningful, peaceful, & pain-free death. 

    If any organs are going to be donated after death,
then such evaluations should take place before the process of dying begins.

    Usually all life-support systems will simply be discontinued.
This includes all machines attached to the patient.
Food and water provided by any means will be discontinued.
All medications (except those needed for comfort) will be withdrawn.

    Some forms of sedation might be relevant,
especially if the patient is suffering pain for any reason.
And terminal sedation might be appropriate if it seems best
to keep the patient completely unconscious until death occurs.

    In Alzheimer's patients who have no other major medical problems,
the immediate cause of death will probably be recorded as "dehydration".
But the complete explanation should always include
the medical situation that led to this life-ending decision:
The patient was suffering predictable decline because of Alzheimer's disease
or some other cause of dementia or mental deterioration.

    A few other medical facts might be relevant for the death-certificate.

    If the safeguards introduced above have been fulfilled,
then the specific last steps towards death will not be as important
as the process of making a set of wise, end-of-life medical choices.

    When properly decided, a timely death might be the best end-of-life choice
for any of us who might be struck by Alzheimer's disease.
Often the choice is not between life and death
but between dying now and dying later.
If we suffer advanced dementia, when is the best time to die?



Created August 25, 2011; Revised 8-26-2011; 8-31-2011; 9-22-2011; 10-21-2011;
1-14-2012; 2-10-2012; 2-28-2012; 3-21-2012; 7-7-2012; 8-31-2012; 9-7-2012; 12-13-2012; 3-31-2013; 4-21-2013


AUTHOR:

    James Leonard Park is an existential philosopher
and advocate of safeguards for all end-of-life decisions.
He is the founder of a website called
Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG.html
Much more about him will be found on his personal website,
An Existential Philosopher's Museum:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032.
This 'museum' now has more than 1,000 'rooms'.

    The above discussion of merciful death for Alzheimer's patients
is also Chapter 45 of How to Die: Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions:
"Life-Ending Decisions for Alzheimer's Patients".

    Would you like to join a world-wide cyber-seminar
that is discussing this book-in-progress?
See the complete description for this seminar:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/ED-HTD.html
Join our Facebook Group called:
Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/107513822718270/




    Here are a few related essays also by James Park:

Voluntary Death by Dehydration:
Why Giving Up Water is Better than other Means of Voluntary Death
.

Voluntary Death by Dehydration:
Safeguards to Make Sure it is a Wise Choice
  . 


Losing the Marks of Personhood:
Discussing Degrees of Mental Decline
.
 

The One-Month-Less Club:
Live Well Now, Omit the Last Month


Taking Death in Stride: Practical Planning .

Pulling the Plug:
A Paradigm for Life-Ending Decisions
.

Choosing Your Date of Death:
How to Achieve a Timely Death
Not too Soon, Not too Late .


A New Way to Secure the Right to Die:
Laws Against Causing Premature Death
.


Two Approaches to Right-to-Die Laws:
Granting Permission and Banning Harms
.

Advance Directives for Medical Care:
24 Important Questions to Answer
.

Fifteen Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions .

Will this Death be an "Irrational Suicide" or a "Voluntary Death"? .

Will this Death be a "Mercy-Killing" or a "Merciful Death"? .

Four Legal Methods of Choosing Death .

Methods of Choosing Death in a Right-to-Die Hospice  .

The Living Cadaver:
Medical Uses of Brain-Dead Bodies .

Depressed?
Don't Kill Yourself! .



    Further Reading:

Best Books on Voluntary Death


Best Books on Preparing for Death


Books on Terminal Care


Books on Helping Patients to Die


Best Books on the Right-to-Die

Books Opposing the Right-to-Die



Go to the Right-to-Die Portal.


Go to the Book Review Index
to discover 350 book reviews
organized into more than 60 bibliographies.


Return to the DEATH page.


Go to the Medical Ethics index page.


Go to other cyber-sermons by James Park,
organized into 10 subject-areas.



Go to the opening page for this website:
An Existential Philosopher's Museum












The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.