OPs statement as I read it, their grandmother fully chose the best option she thought she had at the time and it disturbed OP, so not sure of the point about pre-choosing.
I guess perhaps to say, they would prefer not to be killed just because there isn't a decent shot? I'd prefer a hospital system that didn't do that, but I guess until we get one maybe it might be needed.
And as always, rather than planing for death, what about planning for life.
Work on the thing in your life that might cause the issue in the first place. Planning for death is giving up in some regard.
I'm in my 40s and have a full estate plan including a will & trust, technical recovery how-to's, and my advanced care directives documented. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow, I don't want a) my estate drained for bullshit care that won't fix me, b) or the people caring for me and executing my post-death instructions burdened unnecessarily. If I am a vegetable and the spark that makes me, me is gone, pull the plug. If I don't have the mental ability to ask for food or water, pull the plug. If I am in so much pain I am out of my mind, bring on the opiates and large doses please.
I haven't given up and I have no plans to die any time soon. I just realized I had too much money to die without a will and I don't want to live like a vegetable. It's all my choice, not a hospital system. You don't like these decisions, you do you and document your own plan.
Death happens to us all. If you don't like how somebody else did their death, document your own preferences. If you want to live unable to lift a spoon to mouth, unable to walk, confined to a bed, not knowing what year it is, that's okay. Just hope you don't marry somebody like me without an advanced care plan! I would pull your plug under those circumstances. I'd cry, but I would do it if I didn't know what you wanted. Sounds like you wouldn't want that...
Ignoring a 100% guaranteed thing in your future because it's uncomfortable to think and talk about is irresponsible in some regard.
When someone is going to die, there is no good way, no good time. But there are worse ways and times. As technology gives us more power to extend life of body, we are forced to considered what that means, and how to use that power wisely.
Three times I have had to decide when somebody's life ended. I think their are practical differences between deciding to withdraw care and choosing more active measures. But I think there is no moral difference. Either way, somebody vulnerable has placed their life in your hands. Either way, your only real choice is when to give up hope, and how much suffering they endure between that point and death.
I honestly don't give a fuck whether you're a better person for it. Or whether I am. It's not about us. The important question is whether you have done the best you can for the person. And "best" here, I think means something like "in accordance with their informed preferences, or as best as we can guess".
To that end, I strongly encourage everybody to get their families together and have real discussions about this. The Five Wishes framework is one good option. [1] The best thing my mom ever did for me was to have a frank conversation with me and my brother about her end-of-life preferences well before she was sick. Don't make your loved ones guess. And don't put yourself in the position of having to guess for them.
Personally, if I end up with something gruesome and terminal, I aim to die well before things get awful. Like Brittany Maynard, [2] I'd much rather go out on my terms than suffer pointlessly until my body fails, consuming absurd amounts of medical effort. Others can do differently, of course, but there's no way I'd want a doctor who frets they're going to die "a little on the inside" by following my advance care directive.
[1] https://fivewishes.org/five-wishes/advance-care-planning
[2] https://www.kqed.org/perspectives/201410280735/its-brittany-...
It's actually harder in some ways with pets because they can't talk and tell you detailed preferences for how they want to go when it's their time. All you have is the general guideline that, if their condition can't be treated and they are going to have to die, you want to minimize their suffering. I've had to do it with four cats, and we have two dogs now whose time will come eventually. It's not easy, but it's not like you have a choice; you made the choice when you took them into your life in the first place.
And don't forget that making the choice to let them into your life adds a lot more to your life than whatever the pain of having to put them to sleep takes away. Our two dogs are both rescues; we have given them many years of happy life (and many more to come) that they would otherwise not have had at all. And they have given us a lot of happiness in return. That will always be there whatever comes.
Are you saying this in a metaphysical sense?
Secondly, if you don't want to put your dogs to sleep, no one is forcing you to do so, just refuse it and allow them to live in pain till they die of old age. It's not the choice I would make, but then I don't have your views on euthanasia.
Well after that she passed out, didn't wake up again, and died. Bothers me greatly to this day and I wish I had been there for the whole thing to challenge some of the decisions made that my parents didn't contest.
Get it documented, make it legal, and if you don't trust your parents, then declare somebody else able to make medical decisions for you.
This was in the Netherlands by the way, before euthanasia was legalized.
But that was her life and frankly, I'd want that too. IMO, when your time has come--and it does come at some point--there's no reason to suffer. A few extra days of horrible pain is not life, it's torture. Why would you want your family to see you in that position?
That's horrible.
For example: [1], quoting:
> Instead of feeling pain, the patient experienced the characteristic sense of euphoria that accompanies a complete lack of food and water. She was cogent for weeks, chatting with her caregivers in the nursing home and writing letters to family and friends. As her organs finally failed, she slipped painlessly into a coma and died.
> “What my patients have told me over the last 25 years is that when they stop eating and drinking, there’s nothing unpleasant about it — in fact it can be quite blissful and euphoric,” said Dr. Perry G. Fine, vice president of medical affairs at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization in Arlington, Va. “It’s a very smooth, graceful and elegant way to go.”
[1] https://www.redorbit.com/news/health/138158/starvation_is_no...
>Whether palliative sedation truly ends suffering is not knowable, although doctors perceive indications that it does. “You might be able to tell if their blood pressure goes up. Same with their pulse,” said Nancy Crumpacker, a retired oncologist in Oregon. “And you read their faces. If they are still bothered somehow, it will show in their facial expression.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia_awareness#Backgroun...
If she wasn't conscious and didn't feel any pain I don't see how it's "worse" than any other method of death. The whole purpose is to make the patient not suffer.
To call it vengeance would be inaccurate.