Wednesday, January 27, 2021 The Nugget Newspaper, Sisters, Oregon LETTERS Continued from page 2 Consider two medical patients, each diagnosed with terminal illness 4 one cancer and the other with dementia: Throughout the course of their ill- nesses, each will suffer pain and discomfort, each will suffer the indignities of being unable to man- age their own bodily functions; and, depend- ing upon their financial situation, each may drive their families into poverty. Lastly, each of these individuals have stated a desire to die with dignity. The cancer patient9s prognosis has been deter- mined to be less than six months until death, allow- ing this individual to take advantage of Oregon9s death with dignity law. The second patient does not have an equivalent option. While this dementia patient also desires the option of death with dignity to end his life when he chooses, he is prevented from doing so because, as his disease progresses, he likely will not have the cognitive capacity to be fully aware of his condition during the last six months to verify affirmatively with full knowledge this right to die. The cancer patient, mostly coher- ent, can state with authority his wish to die; whereas the second patient is diagnosed with dementia and an indeterminate number of months or years to live. How is this fair? This sets up an interesting circumstance. The dementia patient9s prognosis is that he may live for a year or longer, a future guaranteed to be filled with the indignities and pain associated with his diagnosis of dementia 4 Oregon9s death with dig- nity law is of no help. His only escape from such a painful and dismal future, not to mention dire financial impact on his family, is to take his own life without assistance from the medical community or others. Because the last stages of dementia can stretch out for much longer than six months, people with dementia do not qualify for