so i read this article today -
in short, there is a blood test being developed that could diagnose dementia in a person very very early on - before the onset of the usual symptoms - people could theoretically be in their 50’s and get a diagnosis of dementia. Now, in theory of course, this is a good thing, isn’t it, early diagnosis is always good BUT there is no cure (as of now). so it’s not like some cancers where they say “if we get it early the outcomes are good” - the person is still going to have the inevitable slide into dementia.
DH thinks it’s still a good thing - his mother had Lewy Body dementia - diagnosed quite late in the progression of the disease - it was really really awful - she didn’t have the mental faculties to accept and deal with her diagnosis, she straight out refused to go into care when she badly needed it….she ended up being admitted against her will and it was just…awful. all round. DH said had she been able to be diagnosed earlier she would have worked through the diagnosis, accepted it, got her affairs in order - and (he thinks) ultimately would have gone willingly into care. I’m not so sure. i remember the 5 or so years before the worst of her symptoms presented - sure, there were quirks about her - but she loved life, she had a rich social life, she was a very funny woman - always holding court at dinner parties - she travelled - and i just think - would she have enjoyed those later years, before her condition worsened, if she had that cloud of knowledge hanging over her head? was she better off not knowing? would you prefer not to know (if there’s no cure)?