Former Governor Lamm made headlines when he observed that the elderly have a duty to die. He of course referenced the enormous costs of keeping terminally ill people alive whose days are numbered anyway. As healthcare funds become more burdensome, and needs for those funds proliferate, the economic arguments for elderly euthanasia are obvious. Moreover, the emotional toll a slowly dying loved one imposes on friends and family is often irreversible and is focused on people whom themselves have not long to live.
On the other hand. Government euthanasia programs, like most government programs, creep into unintended territory and eventually become an uncontrollable beast. In the case of publicly funded euthanasia, the slippery slope quickly goes beyond terminal conditions and seeps into the mentally ill, and even to those who simply want to end it all. Suicide is a growing problem, government sponsored suicide is a bigger problem.
Take me. I am beyond the age of the average Canadian euthanasia patient. I hang with people my age who eat up much government funds with various maladies to keep us vertical, vibrant and enjoying life. Yet we all know those who suffer from various progressive diseases (Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s) that will slowly take their lives. Often too slowly. Aging is in and of itself a progressive irreversible march towards death, but one that can be managed for those who have the mental wherewithal to do so.
It’s a tough issue. One of which I have no firm opinion about. Maybe that’s a sign of aging. But I have a firm opinion that we, as a society, need to focus on health and the public should actively oppose behaviors that result in poor health.
A link authored by one who opposes government euthanasia programs. Enlightening. Read the whole thing.
Your title misframes the issues covered in the article. They are better stated this way:
Does the state have a duty to spend hundreds of thousands or million to keep an elderly or very ill person with no chance of recovery alive?
Should the state be able to outlaw an individual (of sound mind) choice to die?
I'd say no to both.
Moreover, the emotional toll a slowly dying loved one imposes on friends and family is often irreversible and is focused on people whom themselves have not long to live
Great find COH. I struggle with this....a lot.
Both of my parents died from horrible wasting diseases (mom a stroke, dad probably bone cancer though he refused most care. He died after mom).
My mom wasn't too different from Tony below. She could move an arm and leg on one side but that was it. Speech was gone and she could only communicate through a short list of words (we're talking 8 and they all started with S). Fucking horrible. Total incontinence. Dad at 72 having to try and be a caregiver when she wasn't in and out of rehab facilities. Quality of life was basically negative. Invalids become drug addicts which is also fucking horrifying. 7 months. She lasted 7 months and died after we tried to do a surgery which would have allowed a colostomy bag which could have possibly provided some quality of life.
She got an infection and died. We knew it was a risk but, again, I LIVE TO THIS DAY NOT FULLY BELIEVING SHE REALLY WANTED THE SURGERY AT ALL AND THAT SHE WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE MAiD OFFERING WERE SHE ALLOWED TO HAVE DONE SO.
My father had to live with that for 6 years until he died. He became a total fucking alcoholic. I think him having to make that choice and the outcome of her getting worse and actually dying eventually destroyed him.
Not to mention how I felt or my sister. You think you didn't do enough. You should have done more or better prepared for it. To be sure, myself, my dad and my sister had to have achieved consensus for the surgery to have happened.
I know it's a slippery slope and hard but we must pursue euthanasia as an option. Make it ironclad somehow, like you have to do it far ahead of actually dying, etc. and failure to make that election bars it from being made after the disease or accident befalls the person.
In 2012, father of two Tony Nicklinson, 58, lost a High Court bid to allow doctors to end his life. After a stroke, Tony developed locked-in syndrome, which is total body paralysis without affecting lucidity. He described it as a ‘living nightmare’, unable to do anything for himself. If he had a simple itch, someone had to scratch it for him. It was hell.
Lots of moving parts here that need consideration over and above money. An easy place to start is to begin focusing on healthy life-styles that could avoid lingering, unproductive, and difficult aging.
I'd prefer to focus on the tough questions here. That's way deeper and more interesting.Lots of moving parts here that need consideration over and above money. An easy place to start is to begin focusing on healthy life-styles that could avoid lingering, unproductive, and difficult aging.
Republicans politicized this as Death Panels back in the day. But it's just a matter of economics and how to distribute limited health care resources. In other words, re the govt funded care we provide, where do we draw the line on how much of the services you have a right to?**
**If crazedhoosier doesn't come on here and dispute this, that means he has come around and realizes that a right to healthcare can and should exist!
I’d prefer to focus on the tough questions here.
No surprise here. 
Republicans politicized this as Death Panels back in the day.
Death panels were in reference a a government body deciding which individuals were entitled to care and which ones were not. I don’t think that is politicizing the issue, it’s a very important policy decision about distributing health care. It’s important to recognize and maintain the distinction between withdrawing life sustaining care and introducing a death- producing agent.
In other words, re the govt funded care we provide, where do we draw the line on how much of the services you have a right to?
This is indeed the big question. It’s difficult to imagine the process for making these choices let alone trying to deal with the merits. We’ve come a long way since the days before hospice care. Hospice helps but doesn’t provide all the answers. For example, I receive care at the University of Colorado health system, having an advance directive on file is a requirement for all care. Right now we throw unlimited resources at the problem and the only limiting factor seems to be the emotional toll on families @larsiu mentioned. We hafta do better. Patient education and better health choices before the issue becomes chronic is a start. We don’t do either very well. Our pathetic COVID response is an example.
Louis CK has a couple of opinions on this topic...
.
Slippery slope though. Gets to the point where these guys start hunting you down.
I will put it this way. I don't want to put an undue financial burden on my wife and family. As long as my health insurance covers care, I would likely keep going. But if it doesn't, I hope to God that if I contract a terminal illness it's not one that will eventually be so physically debilitating to keep me from overdosing on my pain killers or wheeling out in front of a truck/bus. Apologies in advance to the driver of course.
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
Yeah, overdose is the better way to go.I will put it this way. I don't want to put an undue financial burden on my wife and family. As long as my health insurance covers care, I would likely keep going. But if it doesn't, I hope to God that if I contract a terminal illness it's not one that will eventually be so physically debilitating to keep me from overdosing on my pain killers or wheeling out in front of a truck/bus. Apologies in advance to the driver of course.
Yeah, overdose is the better way to go.I will put it this way. I don't want to put an undue financial burden on my wife and family. As long as my health insurance covers care, I would likely keep going. But if it doesn't, I hope to God that if I contract a terminal illness it's not one that will eventually be so physically debilitating to keep me from overdosing on my pain killers or wheeling out in front of a truck/bus. Apologies in advance to the driver of course.
You can accomplish this under the term “Hospice care”. 20mg of morphine every 15 minutes is usually effective with the added 1mg of Ativan every 2 hours
Not gonna lie, sometimes you scare me.Yeah, overdose is the better way to go.I will put it this way. I don't want to put an undue financial burden on my wife and family. As long as my health insurance covers care, I would likely keep going. But if it doesn't, I hope to God that if I contract a terminal illness it's not one that will eventually be so physically debilitating to keep me from overdosing on my pain killers or wheeling out in front of a truck/bus. Apologies in advance to the driver of course.
You can accomplish this under the term “Hospice care”. 20mg of morphine every 15 minutes is usually effective with the added 1mg of Ativan every 2 hours
I think this question is extremely deep and complicated. I'm not sure you can really answer it without first asking whether we have any moral obligation to this universe we are passing through at all, and if so, from whence does such obligation arise? I'm not trying to be pedantic, here. I really do think it touches on issues of the nature of existence, of sentience, of nihilism, etc.
In practice, I would hate to have my life prolonged in agony. I think if I were permanently suffering from locked-in syndrome, I'd probably rather be dead. But that's really about my own comforts, not about any duty I might owe to others.