And, considering the huge costs of prolonging life with Alzheimer's ... financial, day-carers, medical bills, facilities, etc, how do the likely surving family members feel? They could face potential catastrophic financial damage.

The same argument was levied against heart transplantation when it was first developed - very expensive, improved survival (in the hospital) of only a short time - basically not worth it. Now we know better.

I agree with your assessment, but we must take baby steps before we take larger ones. If antioxidants prevent the accumulation of amyloid-like proteins in Alzheimers, then perhaps some other combination of antioxidants can stop the progression or be preventative. But we have a long way to go.

Hatikva,

I agree about the baby steps but I think the heart/alzheimer's analogy is faulty.

Heart transplants (first performed here in MS) keep functyioning people alive. Keeping an Alzheimer's patient alive often means prolonging suffering for both the patient and family. I understand many people want to keep Dad (or grandpa) alive longer even though he may be essentially a drooling veggie, what I wonder is if Dad wants to be kept alive.

Thanks for the heads up about nanotubes for Type 1 diabetics, Fromz. We Type 1s eagerly look for news that would make our lives a bit more normal.

Very, very interesting regarding my family history of both those diseases.

But the question you asked is worthy of an empahatic no by me. I won't lay in a coffin looking good, but I want to die intact of mind, body and spirit. Call it an easy way out, but I want to be spared from medical experiments and the ups and downs of hoping and wishing for breakthroughs.

Literally I agree with you Fromz, that is if duration of life is the goal. In that we succeed with heart transplant, but create more frustration and pain with AD. However my point was with regard to quality of life. Heart transplant has transformed not only life's duration but its quality and the functionality of the individual. In the same way, our baby steps with AD should ultimately get us to the point where the afflicted patient not only lives longer but has a more fulfilling life with less loss of memory, mood changes, and certainly less of a chance for entering a vegetative state (or at least a significant dela to that state - which I believe most would agree is a laudable goal).

Dear Editor,

You say that you would not want to participate in a medical experiment that by nature has no guarantee of success. Is this type of decision not unlike gambling or decision tree analysis? If you are playing black jack and your opponent is showing 18 points and you have 14 in your hand, would you not risk taking another card? WIthout doing so, you will certainly lose, but by taking the card you can still lose, but you have the chance to win. The only guaranteed option for losing is by keeping only the cards you hold.

I know this analogy is not perfect (the experimental treatment might cause suffering, or you might miraculously improve without therapy - both options that won't occur in black jack) but the concept and the "odds" are the issue at hand.

OVer the past 25 years the death rate from heart disease has decreased by over 50% (even though it is still the number one killer of all people). ALthough not provable, this is likely related to research. Thus the track record (at least for heart disease) is pretty good.