|
This threat makes me sad. The amount of people that would just kill off old people because they "waste time and money" is staggering. I guess it's a natural consequence of living in a consumerism society that values efficiency over everything else.
To those who do support the "hurry up and die"-motion: would you be able to go to your grand parents' house, put a gun to their heads and kill them? Would you be able to hand your children a gun and tell them "shoot me when I become too much of a financial burden?"
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with society nowadays? Do we really choose money over someone's life now? We already dump our elderly in specialised facilities the moment we can't be arsed to take care of them anymore, but now we're actually considering killing them? What has happened to respecting your elders? Are you people really claiming that your life's worth is proportionate to the amount of money you cost or add to the economy? Because if you do, you may as well kill all handicapped people, people with terminal diseases (they'll die anyway, why not kill them a couple of months or years earlier?) etc etc.
|
When I can't move, eat or do anything myself. Kill me...I hate hate HATE the though of being forced to stay alive, it's retarded.
When I want to die, I'll die and fuck you.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
And sadly, if you and your mom completely cannot afford to care for her and she is in agony all the time, then yes, I don't think there's much reason to keep her alive anymore. She has no quality of life, she's a drain on resources, there is no foreseeable change in her condition, what exactly would be the point to keeping her alive? To spare you emotional anguish? You do realize if we use prevention of emotional anguish as a justification for actions our society would be a giant clusterfuck right?
So because she can't work, you're saying that she has no quality of life?
I'm confused, on one hand you seem to think that what I'm saying is wrong, but in the other you seem to be having a great time saying that anyone who doesn't provide for society has no quality of life. My mother may be in pain all the time, but she still has her mind, her emotions and at least some independance. Sure, she's not contributing by working, but she worked for at least a good 15-16 years during her life before she gave up work when she first was diagnosed with her condition after she had me.
She's never going to get better, but with medication and treatment they can try and stop her getting any worse. What I don't understand, is are you saying that somebody who is still concious, breathing and aware of what's happening around them, no matter how much pain they're in, should die, just because they don't contribute to society? There's plenty of people even above 100 who are still active and do things for their families, while also somewhat supporting themselves. Being over 80 doesn't suddenly make them entirely useless to society(which is what some people in this thread are trying to say).
|
On January 24 2013 13:41 Scarecrow wrote:
I can't believe that more than half belief in the right to life, at any cost. At some point it's just not viable.
Clearly survival instinct and fear of death/non-existence at work.
|
I would class choosing to kill off the entire population over 80 as we supposedly cannot support them is murder. It's choosing deliberately to let someone die. Euthenasia is classed as murder for exactly that reason correct?
This is exactly the point of this thread. Something has to change because the way we're going right now has a dead end, so stop using exactly what we're trying to change (i.e. 'outdated' laws that say euthanasia is murder) as proof.
That's part of what we're discussing here: should euthanasia remain such a problem and a taboo? The world would simply be better if we start by letting go of those who want to go.
Also what's to stop them there. Why not just kill anyone who gets to retirement age as they're now apparently not giving to society at all and the money they put into the system doesn't deserve to go back to them? The reason the entire pension system works in the majority of countries is that you pay into it your life, to secure a healthy future for yourself when you're forced to retire.
Don't get too emotional now, you sound like a 13 year old, twisting words, pulling everything out of context.
Nobody has asked for people to be killed, could you kindly f off saying that, seriously. Get this in your brain: no one is asking for murder, death 'penalties' for old age, or people to be killed.
Now going back to the not supporting people. Should my mother who is 53 die purely for the fact she is severely disabled and cannot physically work anymore? She's in constant agony the majority of the time and you're basically trying to say that as she's weak and cannot contribute to society, she should die? It sickens me that anyone can think like this. I mean, all she does is cost society money with the cost of her medication, so why should we allow her to live anymore?
Again, twisting words. The problem that the OP described is that aging people become exponentially costly to keep alive whilst not contributing anything to the society at the same time. No one has said that 'cannot work' = 'must die'.
Also, your mother is an exception. I'm sure it's safe to say that the majority of 53 year old women still lead a productive life. There is absolutely no reason to make a rule that caters to exceptions, is there? On the other hand, I would expect that the vast majority of 80+ people don't contribute to society any longer. No, this is not the point where you 'prove' me wrong with your sister's boyfriend's grandfather who is 82 and still has a job. I'm talking majority. And as is common in a democracy, the rules tend to the majority. Therefore I can tell you this: we are discussing matters concerning the (very old) eldery who (the majority of them) are no longer contributing to society.
Oh and before you lose your head again: I said discussing. I did NOT say 'let's kill all old people'.
I hope it's clear now and we can have a decent discussion.
|
This threat makes me sad. The amount of people that would just kill off old people because they "waste time and money" is staggering. I guess it's a natural consequence of living in a consumerism society that values efficiency over everything else.
To those who do support the "hurry up and die"-motion: would you be able to go to your grand parents' house, put a gun to their heads and kill them? Would you be able to hand your children a gun and tell them "shoot me when I become too much of a financial burden?"
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with society nowadays? Do we really choose money over someone's life now? We already dump our elderly in specialised facilities the moment we can't be arsed to take care of them anymore, but now we're actually considering killing them? What has happened to respecting your elders? Are you people really claiming that your life's worth is proportionate to the amount of money you cost or add to the economy? Because if you do, you may as well kill all handicapped people, people with terminal diseases (they'll die anyway, why not kill them a couple of months or years earlier?) etc etc.
If changing words and pulling things out of context was a subject at university I am 100% positive you would get the highest marks of your class.
On January 25 2013 01:40 Mortal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 01:37 frietjeman wrote:
Something has to change because the way we're going right now has a dead end...
Oh man that was rich.
I'm glad you liked it  .
|
On January 25 2013 01:37 frietjeman wrote:
Something has to change because the way we're going right now has a dead end...
Oh man that was rich.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
I'd just like to point out that my replies were not really replying to the OP. It was replying to people in this thread who seem to deem it that people over a certain age no longer contribute so should be left to die.
|
On January 25 2013 01:42 Qikz wrote:
I'd just like to point out that my replies were not really replying to the OP. It was replying to people in this thread who seem to deem it that people over a certain age no longer contribute so should be left to die.
Your interpretation is downright idiotic. If old people can afford health care for themselves, great! If they cannot, there is no moral obligation for society to provide for them. It's as simple as that. Nobody is saying shoot all old people.
|
On January 25 2013 01:42 Qikz wrote:
this thread is full of posts that no longer contribute so it should be left to die.
fix'd
|
On January 25 2013 01:48 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 01:42 Qikz wrote:
I'd just like to point out that my replies were not really replying to the OP. It was replying to people in this thread who seem to deem it that people over a certain age no longer contribute so should be left to die. Your interpretation is downright idiotic. If old people can afford health care for themselves, great! If they cannot, there is no moral obligation for society to provide for them. It's as simple as that. Nobody is saying shoot all old people.
In Norway the poor and weak are prioritized more than the rest of the population - it seems. So much money used on people that are sick. But also people that pretend to be sick. All you need to do is go to a doctor and fake a migrene or back pain. Too good welfare brings more sickness than actually reducing the amount of sick people. This put the "real" sick people in a bad position.(I forgot the expression)
It's like people get happy when they get sick. Rather than getting worried that they can't work - which is how it was in the old days.
|
On January 25 2013 00:23 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 22:56 Dreamer.T wrote:
People can decide whether they want to die or not. Imagine if one day some guy told you your parents needed to go. Would you say yes to that? Doesn't matter what you say, if HE is the guy paying for them to live. Why would he be obligated to continue? If you want your parents to live, plenty okay - pay for it yourself. It's a delicate matter, don't feel offended - but feel free to tell me that you would pay the hospital bills for my parents. Of course, charity is something different, if i had the money, and was touched by something, i would pay for someone elses bills - but that's because i want to. Not because i'm forced to. And, maybe that sound stupid (could even be wrong, even though i doubt it) - there is no advantage in letting elderly people vegetate in hospitals. In fact, you only have drawbacks. It reduces the time we have to find solutions for serious problems like water, food, energy, space. I don't say "kill them", but i would say "don't try everything to keep them alive". If their time has come, it's time to go. And not time to plug in another device to cheat death for another couple of months, wasting money, time and ressources to, well.. What? In the end you may get a year, plugged into whatever machine. That year you got is (alot of the times) full of pain, or even worse - you don't even realize it because of medical conditions or even coma. Don't get me wrong - i would be devastated, and i would hate the guy (even wishing him harm, to say the least) who tells me that my parents need to go - but if you're completely objective, it would be the right thing. Even if it's not for you (or me in this case).
I was coming from a perspective where you'd be paying your own parents bills. Though even then, I guess some would argue that keeping people alive so long is a waste of resources even if you are the one paying for it. I think if the old person has a completely clear mind and is enjoying their lives, they deserve to live. I can understand that those who are clearly in a very severe state, where they are pretty much barely alive and in constant pain would be wasting resources if they were to be kept alive.
Like some have said, it's a tricky topic. Maybe people who have contributed to society more during their lifetime deserve to live longer? And what kind of contribution would qualify them for this position? And that's not to say people don't do this. I know many people whose parents pulled the plug on their own to save their child some money.
There is also an interesting contradiction here. One of the ultimate goals of society is to improve everyone's lives. And you know what, that's happened for many people. So if the improved quality of life results in people living longer, then that's not the old person's fault, especially if he isn't in a state of chronic pain or is incapable of doing anything what so ever.
|
There is a very basic point here that everyone can agree on. If we create the hypothetical extreme case scenario, where keeping old people alive would require that we leave *many* others in crippling poverty and malnourished, likely leading to the deaths of many children and other young people for the sake of keeping a few very old people alive for a little longer, then that clearly makes no sense. The deaths of many young people should not be traded for one old person. We don't live in a utopia with unlimited resources, this is basic, common sense, and it doesn't matter what economic system you have.
The question is how bad would you allow things to get for everyone else, just to keep old people alive? Its just like donating your money to organizations assisting the poor in Africa. You could probably live with the basics (shelter, food) and survive well. If human life is so important to you, then in theory you should be willing to part with everything that you enjoy (sell computer, radio, unnecessary clothing, etc.) to donate to the poor, while you live a life of basic means (or just decide to work in Africa altogether), further donating the majority of the money you make at your job to the poor. Most people do not go to these extremes; they are willing to donate, but they don't care *so much* that they would give away almost everything they have.
Similarly with the elderly. They are becoming increasingly expensive to keep alive. So how much would you be willing to give to keep them alive? Take money out of education? Take money out of maintenance of transportation services, utilities? More likely, what tax rates would be acceptable, and how hard should people have to work for them? It bothers me that the government can make this decision for every person, rather than giving people the basic right to choose how much money they want to donate to the elderly or healthcare in general. But then again I guess voting is an okay protection.
I think this is a question of charity, and how much people would reasonably want to give. Just like supporting impoverished children in Africa, its about supporting the elderly so they can live a little longer. Its basically a grey area question, but the one obvious statement everyone can agree on is that there is a limit, like the extreme scenario I mentioned.
|
United States7534 Posts
This is the sort of reality no one wants to face and no one wants to have an answer to.
|
On January 24 2013 14:06 IMoperator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 13:54 alQahira wrote:
What Japan needs is a more open immigration policy. Some young fertile migrants from Indonesia, the Philippines, or even China would do wonders for the country. I volunteer to be a young fertile migrant for Japan.
I lol'd when I read that post.
On topic: Japan's immigration policy is extremely strict from what I understand.
|
we will all live 100+ years if not more with the coming technological advancement. The singularity is inevitable
|
United States42552 Posts
In the UK we have the National Institute of Clinical Excellence who are made up of doctors, economists, statisticians and so forth whose job it is to answer exactly this kind of question so that when NHS doctors turn round to families and say "there is a drug that could help but we won't provide it for you because it wouldn't be cost effective" they have a system to base it on.
|
The problem isn't that ppl live longer. 60 year olds today are remarkably healthy compared to 200 years ago. The problem is that we need to adapt to the luxury of a prolonged life by working for a longer time. Why should ppl just sit around at home for 20-30 years awaiting their death? Not long ago, it was the norm that ppl died while working, and a lot of times as a result of working.
I'm not buying what you're saying about their health deteriorating to more and more extreme levels. My paternal grandparents didn't get any health problems until recently, in their late 80's, and if you just go back to their youth, the level of health that they maintained from 65 to 85 would have been considered a miracle. My maternal grandfather is dead, but his death was very sudden, probably stress related, so he didn't cost the society much, and my grandmother is around 75 and shows no signs of age imo. I would predict that she's got maybe 20 more years in good health.
Prolonged life comes with prolonged health. The problem that Japan might be facing soon is not how to take care of an aging population, but rather how to finance their pensions. The solution to this issue is immigration and to move the pension date forwards.
|
On January 25 2013 02:23 c0ldfusion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 14:06 IMoperator wrote:On January 24 2013 13:54 alQahira wrote:
What Japan needs is a more open immigration policy. Some young fertile migrants from Indonesia, the Philippines, or even China would do wonders for the country. I volunteer to be a young fertile migrant for Japan. I lol'd when I read that post. On topic: Japan's immigration policy is extremely strict from what I understand.
Also Japan's youth are really unreceptive to having sex/children from what I hear. Especially the females but partially the males.
Could be all the animated porn >.< and lack of desire for normal porn due to that censorship law a few years back.
The OP was very well written. I'm young so it's easy to say less social service.
|
Dysthanasia come to my mind when talking about this topic here
We are always looking a way to live longer and better lifes but not just 1 of those !! Longer and a horrible life is not what I really like to spent my last days on earth...
The world right now is very diferent from what it used to be. Hundreds of years ago people try to live as much as posible but they have to worry about the condition about it because there werent the enough technology to keep that dream alive
However this times is the opposite way we can pretty much live for a long time without carring about if we are really having a normal life (staying next to a machine for the whole day , some people can even move) .
Yeah I also think they need a not so drastic inmigration policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
