Article
Ageing
Care
Change
Death & life
6 min read

A Tolkien poem helps a nurse understand the ravages of dementia

'Not all who wander are lost.'

Helen is a registered nurse and freelance writer, writing for audiences ranging from the general public to practitioners and scientists.

An elderly woman wearing headphone looks up and to the side with a big smile.
Playlist for Life

Not all who wander are lost.

Often written on a care home wall, on an inspirational poster, these words are usually set against a forest background, or compass, for added effect. They have also been used as the title of a conference paper discussing so-called smart trackers for people with dementia, whilst, Not all who wander need be lost is the title of a concise guide to navigating the heartbreaking challenges when a loved one is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or other dementia.

As a care home nurse for more than ten years, I have seen residents wander - not lost but “walking with purpose”, as it is sometimes known in the caring community. “Nobody gets up and walks without a reason,” says Suzanne Mumford, Care UK's Head of Nursing, Care and Dementia; perhaps they are easing pain, or boredom, or looking for something that they can’t describe. I remember residents exploring, enquiring into self-made mysteries solvable only by themselves, examining everything from door handles to another resident’s buttons, even escaping with surprising speed. Walking with them, often in silence, can bring a sense of relief, comfort and companionship.  

What I didn’t know was that this is a quotation from a poem by JRR Tolkien, published in The Fellowship of the Ring seventy years ago. The actual line is - “Not all those who wander are lost”. 

All that is gold does not glitter, 
Not all those who wander are lost; 
The old that is strong does not wither, 
Deep roots are not reached by the frost. 
 
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, 
A light from the shadows shall spring; 
Renewed shall be blade that was broken, 
The crownless again shall be king.” 

We first hear this poem in Chapter Ten of Book One, as Frodo reads it in the postscript of a letter from Gandalf. As I read it, the imagery of being lost, withered, frost-bitten, in darkness, burned and broken, speaks something, in poetic picture language, of the ravages of dementia, the harrowing losses, the valley of tears. It brings to mind residents unaware of familiar objects or surroundings, looking straight through loved ones without a flicker of recognition, losing also language, continence, mobility and the ability to swallow. 

The TV presenter Fiona Philips recalled an agonising decline in her mother as she succumbed to Alzheimer’s, describing how, in the final stages, her mother “spent whole chunks of time just sitting and staring ahead, only able to give out a series of sounds”. Fiona herself now lives with dementia. “'It’s devastated my family and it’s the biggest health and social care challenge we face as a country,” she says. 

I once interviewed retired doctor Jennifer Bute, who lives with dementia. She talked of time travel (perceiving herself as living in a time from her past); disorientation to place and person; frightening hallucinations when old memories are seemingly ‘unlocked’; and ‘emotional unzipping’ when agitation and anxiety increase, often in the late afternoon or evening in something poorly understood as a symptom, known as ‘sundowning’. 

Yet there is something more to this poem – each of the pains has a promise – not all who wander are lost; the old that is strong does not wither; and, most poignantly, deep roots are not touched by the frost. In dementia, it is true that deep roots are untouched, that an enduring aspect of a person’s identity never truly withers, though it may be mostly unseen. Something remains. Oliver Sacks the famous neurologist emphasised that, even in the late stages of Alzheimer’s, the person is still ‘alive inside’ (the inspiring documentary with this title is recommended). In stunning real-life stories, he has shown how music appears to ‘call back the self’, awakening moods, memories and thoughts that had seemingly been lost. He refers to music’s extraordinary ‘neural robustness’ and describes one man, unable to tie his tie or find his way to the stage, yet able to perform a perfect piano solo. In one life-affirming, must-watch, tear-jerking video, gospel music was shown to enliven, calm, focus and engage a man simply known as Henry.    

Watch Henry

Singing can “provide islands of arousal and awareness like nothing else can”, according to Alicia Clair, Professor of Music Therapy. I’ve seen singing bring the person into the present for a passing moment, illuminating a face that seemed far away. One otherwise-silent lady completed the chorus of ‘Daisy, Daisy’ before descending into dementia again. Others have laughed, clapped, danced, embraced and even shed a silent tear during music therapy sessions, when music elicits memory. Doll therapy meanwhile has sometimes restored and revealed a sense of nurture, purpose, care and pride, with residents feeding their new friend before accepting their own food, folding its clothes and taking care of it cradled in their arms. Though it divides opinion, a doll can preserve dignity if it de-escalates agitation or engagement in physical or verbal abuse; a sense of dignity also comes from the person being able momentarily to give care rather than receive it. 

“From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken,” continues Tolkien's poem, and, though not the original intention, these powerful images of renewal and restoration paint a picture of something known as “paradoxical lucidity”, or unexpected cognitive lucidity and communication in some patients with severe dementia, especially around the time of death (though sometimes long before).  

Anecdotes are recorded of “unexpected, spontaneous, meaningful, and relevant communication or connectedness in a patient who is assumed to have permanently lost the capacity for coherent verbal or behavioral interaction due to a progressive and pathophysiologic dementing process”.  Some scientists are seeing them as a paradigm shift in the understanding and perhaps even treatment of dementia. I will never forget when a woman in the late stages of dementia, with little spoken language, was brought back to the nursing home weeks after hospital admission; she had been perilously ill. With bright eyes, she took my arm and, as if the mist had cleared for a moment, spoke warmest words of thanks to me for helping her on the day she collapsed. In another fleeting and irreproducible moment, a lady wished me happy birthday, before continuing her silent walk around the home. Witnessing such an event is ethically and emotionally transformative. 

The concept of remaining ‘alive inside’ even when abilities, language and memory are eroded by dementia is taken to the next level in Christianity, which teaches that life continues even after death itself. The Bible speaks of new life beyond the grave; the fire shall be woken, a light shall spring. And there will be a crown (and the gold will glitter). The Crown of Life is referred to, being bestowed upon "those who persevere under trials." Dementia is one of life’s severest trials; a cross to bear. In the 1912 hymn “The Old Rugged Cross”, another cross is spoken of, being the cross of Christ at his crucifixion. Clinging to that cross, living out a Christian life, the hymnwriter wrote of “exchanging the cross for a crown” at life’s end. After ashes, hope awaits the Christian. 

 

Playlist for Life is a charity encouraging people to create playlists for people living with dementia. 

Article
Assisted dying
Care
Comment
Death & life
Suffering
5 min read

Why end of life agony is not a good reason to allow death on demand

Assisted dying and the unintended consequences of compassion.

Graham is the Director of the Centre for Cultural Witness and a former Bishop of Kensington.

A open hand hold a pill.
Towfiqu Barbhuiya on Unsplash.

Those advocating Assisted Dying really have only one strong argument on their side – the argument from compassion. People who have seen relatives dying in extreme pain and discomfort understandably want to avoid that scenario. Surely the best way is to allow assisted dying as an early way out for such people to avoid the agony that such a death involves?  

Now it’s a powerful argument. To be honest I can’t say what I would feel if I faced such a death, or if I had to watch a loved one go through such an ordeal. All the same, there are good reasons to hold back from legalising assisted dying even in the face of distress at the prospect of enduring or having to watch a painful and agonising death.  

In any legislation, you have to bear in mind unintended consequences. A law may benefit one particular group, but have knock-on effects for another group, or wider social implications that are profoundly harmful. Few laws benefit everyone, so lawmakers have to make difficult decisions balancing the rights and benefits of different groups of people. 

It feels odd to be citing percentages and numbers faced with something so elemental and personal and death and suffering, but it is estimated that around two per cent of us will die in extreme pain and discomfort. Add in the 'safeguards' this bill proposes (a person must be suffering from a terminal disease with fewer than six months to live, capable of making such a decision, with two doctors and a judge to approve it) and the number of people this directly affects becomes really quite small. Much as we all sympathise and feel the force of stories of agonising suffering - and of course, every individual matters - to put it bluntly, is it right to entertain the knock-on effects on other groups in society and to make such a fundamental shift in our moral landscape, for the sake of the small number of us who will face this dreadful prospect? Reading the personal stories of those who have endured extreme pain as they approached death, or those who have to watch over ones do so is heart-rending - yet are they enough on their own to sanction a change to the law? 

Much has been made of the subtle pressure put upon elderly or disabled people to end it all, to stop being a burden on others. I have argued elsewhere on Seen and Unseen that that numerous elderly people will feel a moral obligation to safeguard the family inheritance by choosing an early death rather than spend the family fortune on end of life care, or turning their kids into carers for their elderly parents. Individual choice for those who face end of life pain unintentionally  lands an unenviable and unfair choice on many more vulnerable people in our society. Giles Fraser describes the indirect pressure well: 

“You can say “think of the children” with the tiniest inflection of the voice, make the subtlest of reference to money worries. We communicate with each other, often most powerfully, through almost imperceptible gestures of body language and facial expression. No legal safeguard on earth can detect such subliminal messaging.” 

There is also plenty of testimony that suggests that even with constant pain, life is still worth living. Michelle Anna-Moffatt writes movingly  of her brush with assisted suicide and why she pulled back from it, despite living life in constant pain.  

Once we have blurred the line between a carer offering a drink to relieve thirst and effectively killing them, a moral line has been crossed that should make us shudder. 

Despite the safeguards mentioned above, the move towards death on the NHS is bound to lead to a slippery slope – extending the right to die to wider groups with lesser obvious needs. As I wrote in The Times recently, given the grounds on which the case for change is being made – the priority of individual choice – there are no logical grounds for denying the right to die of anyone who chooses that option, regardless of their reasons. If a teenager going through a bout of depression, or a homeless person who cannot see a way out of their situation chooses to end it all, and their choice is absolute, on what grounds could we stop them? Once we have based our ethics on this territory, the slippery slope is not just likely, it is inevitable.  

Then there is the radical shift to our moral landscape. A disabled campaigner argues that asking for someone to help her to die “is no different for me than asking my caregiver to help me on the toilet, or to give me a shower, or a drink, or to help me to eat.” Sorry - but it is different, and we know it. Once we have blurred the line between a carer offering a drink to relieve thirst and effectively killing them, a moral line has been crossed that should make us shudder.  

In Canada, many doctors refuse, or don’t have time to administer the fatal dose so companies have sprung up, offering ‘medical professionals’ to come round with the syringe to finish you off. In other words, companies make money out of killing people. It is the commodification of death. When we have got to that point, you know we have wandered from the path somewhere.  

You would have to be stony-hearted indeed not to feel the force of the argument to avoid pain-filled deaths. Yet is a change to benefit such people worth the radical shift of moral value, the knock-on effects on vulnerable people who will come under pressure to die before their time, the move towards death on demand?  

Surely there are better ways to approach this? Doctors can decide to cease treatment to enable a natural death to take its course, or increase painkillers that will may hasten death - that is humane and falls on the right side of the line of treatment as it is done primarily to relieve pain, not to kill. Christian faith does not argue that life is to be preserved at any cost – our belief in martyrdom gives the lie to that. More importantly, a renewed effort to invest in palliative care and improved anaesthetics will surely reduce such deaths in the longer term. These approaches are surely much wiser and less impactful on the large numbers of vulnerable people in our society than the drastic step of legalising killing on the NHS.