Home / Politics / ?Still Alice? and a Politics of Alzheimer?s

?Still Alice? and a Politics of Alzheimer?s

It’s a tiny spectacle that Still Alice, Lisa Genova’s novel about Alice Howland, a 50-year-old linguistics highbrow faced with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, got finished into a underline film starring Julianne Moore. Genova self-published her novel in 2007, and it wasn’t until dual years after that Simon Schuster picked adult Still Alice and gave it mass placement by Pocket Books.

Moore’s description of Alice, that has warranted her an Academy Award nomination, reminds us of how movingly Alzheimer’s illness has been prisoner in films. Like Judi Dench in her 2001 description in Iris of writer Iris Murdoch’s conflict with Alzheimer’s and Meryl Streep in her 2011 description in The Iron Lady of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s mental decline, Moore manages to live her impression from a inside out.

What’s opposite about Genova’s novel and a film finished from it by a writer-director group of Wash Westmoreland and Richard Glatzer is that they take on a politics of Alzheimer’s.  Book and novel are endangered not usually with a diagnosis of those pang from Alzheimer’s though how many space we extend them in a life-and-death decisions they contingency make about traffic with a disease. 

Still Alice is in this honour a messenger square to surgeon Atul Gawande’s new Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in a End. Still Alice is above all a intervention on a finish of a lives.  The pivotal to Alice’s meditative comes in a debate that she delivers during a Annual Dementia Care Conference.  Alice, who adult to this indicate in her life has finished her best to disguise her Alzheimer’s, creates no bid in her debate to minimize all that she can't do.

“My yesterdays are disappearing, and my tomorrows are uncertain,” Alice confesses.  But during a same time that she creates this admission, Alice insists that her condition does not erase her reasons for wanting to go on.  “I live for any day.  we live for a moment,” she declares. 

The debate constitutes a many succinct impulse in a novel and a film. In a mass-market paperback book of a novel, a ideas in a debate are even steady in an talk with Lisa Genova, a Harvard Ph.D. in neuroscience, who speaks in fact of her work with a Dementia Advocacy and Support Network.

Neither a novel nor a film is, however, a oration on Alzheimer’s masquerading as a story.  Alice’s dauntless debate about stability her life contingency contest with a stage in that she comes on a note she wrote to herself on her mechanism when she was still in a early stages of Alzheimer’s. The note, during once succinct and self-aware, is formed on a thought that when Alice has reached a indicate when she can't answer certain simple questions about herself, it’s time for suicide.

“You are not vital a life we wish to live,” Alice writes in a note, that provides her with instructions on how to take a deadly sip of a pills she has dark in a drawer. “You have selected an outcome that is a many dignified, fair, and deferential to we and your family,” a note assures her.

It is a treacherous impulse for a now exceedingly compromised Alice, and a stage ends with her clumsy her self-murder attempt.  Would she be improved off had she succeeded? Neither a book nor a film provides a decisive answer, though in both we have a next stage in that Alice, notwithstanding a augmenting astringency of her Alzheimer’s, takes huge pleasure in cradling her baby grandchild. She is not, a stage implies, so distant left that she can’t respond to one of life’s deepest pleasures. 

In a New York film museum in that we saw Still Alice, we listened a lady in a argue behind me wheeze “Thank God” after Alice unsuccessful to swallow a pills she had saved up. we was reminded by her acknowledgement of a indicate in Dr. Gawande’s Being Mortal in which, after vituperation against  medical treatments that needlessly lengthen life, he registers his misgivings about physician-assisted suicide.

It’s tough to argue with a love of a lady we overheard in a museum or with a counsel of Dr. Gawande, though blank on a partial of both is how those with Alzheimer’s need to get a final vote, along with assistance from their doctors, on how and when they leave life. 

I consider of my mother, who in a early stages of her Alzheimer’s asked a tighten family crony if he would mind holding open a conveyor doors in a building that she was withdrawal so she could burst down a conveyor shaft.  The friend, who competence still be in jail if he had complied with my mother’s wishes, still feels guilty about observant “no” to her, though he should, we believe, rest easy.  

The deeper truth, as Still Alice creates clear, but being proscriptive, is that people like my mom and Alice merit improved authorised options and some-more assistance than they now can get when Alzheimer’s strikes and their primary regard is with finale their lives, not palliative care. 

Article source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/09/still-alice-and-the-politics-of-alzheimer-s.html

Scroll To Top