I don't think the average amount of suffering for people with Alzheimer's and their families is sufficient to warrant euthanasia as a solution. I don't doubt there are some cases where it could be warranted, but I find it very difficult to get behind the idea that consent should pass from the individual. I obviously see that people with Alzheimer's and their families do suffer, the degree to which depends on the availability of proper care. We're essentially debating whether euthanasia is a better option to high quality care, and that's where the life of a person becomes a pretty gross economic equation. High quality care deprives families of assets. That tension between selfish (or so called "practical") interests and prioritising the interests of the dying is non-trivial, particular where the dying can't reasonably consent. The gentleman mentioned in this scenario would have had a more dignified death had he been provided the correct facilities, and probably shouldn't have been left to run riot in the community. It pains me that this is a story about how some guy became an asshole in his final years and not one of how a guy was deprived of a dignified death by the structures of society. I suspect to some degree people see euthanasia as a simple way to offer compassion and dignity in death, but I do think it's highly informed by ableist prejudice. There is a wide spectrum of dignity and life left to live in an end of life pathway and jumping to euthanasia as the solution is a pretty dangerous one in my opinion.