Angry Nat
Connie, although I didn't see the program, me being in Australia and all, I think I understand exactly what you meant when you dared to suggest that maybe it was "sanistising" AD in someway.
Have seen documentaries before of 'real' people with the disease and unfortunately even though I encourage more and more coverage of this disease so that people can see what it truly is , i.e. not just about forgetting, I find that I am often very much let down by the content of the programs.
I wish I could convince someone to come and film my father now at his stage (but I know the rest of my family would object anyway so wouldn't) but at the same time, I worry that even then film probably wouldn't be able to capture the pain in my heart, and people would just see the crazy man before them and not see who he was before. Or would they?
The problem is that by the time it gets to the really bad stages, everyone involved is so miserable that they don't want to be on tv or letting people see their loved one in such a state...then there's always the question I even had for myself when I took some video of Dad so that I had a memory to keep....is it ethical to film someone who can't give their permission for it? Filming anyone before things get this bad, always results in alzheimers being presented through a fuzzy warm romantic lens....somewhat 'sanitised'.
I experienced this when an ex prime minister's wife who had early onset AD took part in a documentary with her daughters, here in Australia. I spent the entire time glued to the set, full of admiration and applause that they went public but then so full of anger that they made it all look so pretty, something you can joke about (even though I know that that is what you do do, to get by...I think sometimes our humour about the situation tends to make outsiders think things aren't that bad), something that was unfortunate, regrettable but something that just had to be accepted.
My poor husband got to hear me yelling at the tv, pacing round the room, saying ' Noooo, you've got to tell them what it really is about, you just wait and see, its going to get to a point that its not easy any more, its not just a little bit sad anymore, but tearing your heart out.....you're giving them (the viewers) the wrong message, you're making it sound like its all ok, sad but ok...noone is going to get off their butt to help find a cure if they continue to think of it all as a 'nice way to go'. Its weird that in such a scenario I have found that in a sick way, I get a little grim satisfaction knowing that these people who are pish poshing those who say how bad the disease is, are going to end up where we are in the end...I don't admire myself for feeling like that, but I do.
As for swimming off into the sea to end it all...well its good that they pointed out that suicide often seems the only rational choice rather than accepting this disease..thats how bad it is.., but people need to know that by the time things get bad enough to truly contemplate suicide (and I mean get serious about the thought and not just romanticise about it) the chances are that the sufferer is no longer capable of either mentally or physcially performing the act. Its all very well and good to say one contemplates suicide, but the reality of suicide is not romantic, peaceful or pretty, a dying body loses control of its bodily functions, the body will still rot and to have gotten to such a point as to be driven to this act speaks of certain horrors. (Sorry if I am upsetting anyone, but suicide should not be romaniticised or sanitised).
Sorry again...I guess AD has made me an angry soul.
Also to Tenderface who said
all (fictional) 'sufferers' and/or their carers are/were strong/intelligent/successful/financially comfortable...When are we going to see working class 'Joe Bloggs' and his family battling for support with this - and in 'later stages'??????
My father I do believe was strong/intelligent/successful/financially comfortable and I don't believe this has given him or us any advantage in this disease. He has lost everything that he worked for, anything he was hoping to be saved for his kids will be gone by the time he is dead, and thanks to the social security system here in Australia you might be happy to know that here at least he is no better off than Joe Bloggs as what Dad has to pay for, because his 'financial position' allows him to, others get for free. (Of course if he was super duper rich, perhaps he could have afforded a personal nurse...and then maybe there is a slight advantage for a while, but where is there advantage when one is dying and in such a horrible way?) Unlike many of you who I read on here about who have to try to keep working while looking after your loved ones...my mother has not had to work...but i think its a bit like having children, you either work yourself to exhaustion at work while trying to look after the house, or you send yourself insane because you have no escape from the house....
So I suggest if the situations of these characters appears unreal and in no way compares to the average Joe Bloggs, I don't think thats because the disease it discriminatory, i think its because the characters are fictional, romantic, sanitised.