Systemic Euthanasia

[Kenzo]

That's still against the law.

That's why the process, according to Portuguese law, involves several people. The decision is never made by just one or two doctors.

Now, let's see things from the other point of view.

Imagine someone with a disease that will make them an invalid, living with pain, when they are around 50 years old. Average life expectancy will give them an average of 20 or 30 years of living in pain, only expecting death. Why shouldn't that person decided when enough is enough?

Now, if that person decides to end their life, they will do it from an unexperienced (obviously) point of view, as they do not know exactly what to do to reach the desired result (death) without further suffering.
There are many cases of people that tried to kill themselves only to fail and remain alive in an even worse condition than they were before.

Shouldn't those people have professional help for what is a health problem?

A lot people every year decide to suicide , and do it. We are talking here creating or institutionalizing whole A to B solution involving other people , that`s something i dont see right.

Who gives these " professionals"  the right to do anything ?  is it because they have medical degree ? I dont think anyone really have right to intervene when it comes to  ending someone elses life . It`s divine entity who can decide or by itself .

I see the medical professionals something really low , well lets not get in to that ...

[ArMaP]

Who gives these " professionals"  the right to do anything ?  is it because they have medical degree ? I dont think anyone really have right to intervene when it comes to  ending someone elses life .

According to the Portuguese law (the only one I know), the only right the doctors have is to either agree or disagree with the patient's intention of being subjected to medically assisted death.

The doctors do not decide that someone that does not want to die has to die.
Even if the doctors think the patient does not have the conditions to be subjected to medically assisted death that does not prevent the patients from killing themselves like they could before the law existed.

It`s divine entity who can decide or by itself .

If you are talking about the patient then that's what this is all about, the right of the patients to have someone help them to die as they want.

Seriously, it looks like you are "barking" at an inexistent tree.

[Kenzo]

Seriously, it looks like you are "barking" at an inexistent tree.

I think you dont have a clue here, you are defending creating systems that will be used wrong . The medical field is full of unethical basterds, fucking basterds , morons and idiots that are full of shit .

Example : An independent review commission conceded that tinnitus could satisfy the criteria for legal euthanasia to 47 woman in Netherland, mother of two  , and they killed her. it was " reviewed by professionals"  Just like that, because someone asked to be helped , to be killed .

The system will be used also to persons who are not not physically ill. Psychiatric problems is enough ...

Once the system is created/enabled there will be wrong doings , and by time the wrong doings are being normalized.....so 10-20 years forward wrong doings are then more often.


Always Care, Never Kill: How Physician-Assisted Suicide Endangers the Weak, Corrupts Medicine, Compromises the Family, and Violates Human Dignity and Equality

[ArMaP]

I think you dont have a clue here, you are defending creating systems that will be used wrong .

Maybe I don't have a clue, but at least I do not pretend to have one.
What I am defending is the right for anyone to decide about their own life.

The medical field is full of unethical basterds, fucking basterds , morons and idiots that are full of shit .

Like any other field.

Example : An independent review commission conceded that tinnitus could satisfy the criteria for legal euthanasia to 47 woman in Netherland, mother of two  , and they killed her. it was " reviewed by professionals"  Just like that, because someone asked to be helped , to be killed .

I'm not sure I understand it, did she ask for assisted death because of tinnitus and it was conceded?
If that's what happened, where's the problem?

The system will be used also to persons who are not not physically ill. Psychiatric problems is enough ...

A psychiatric problem may be a good reason for a person to ask for assisted death, as it may be a source of extreme discomfort.

Once the system is created/enabled there will be wrong doings , and by time the wrong doings are being normalized.....so 10-20 years forward wrong doings are then more often.

Could you explain how the Portuguese system I posted some posts back allows for those wrong doings and why they will be normalized?

[Maxmars]

While I agree that deciding to accept one's "fate" in regard to illness is often characterized as "stoic" and "brave" it is not for me to assess whether it actually is.  It is for the individual to carry into their own heart, the consequences are for the individual.  It is a personal choice to live, as much as it is a personal choice to end one's life.

I may not be able to entirely sympathize with any given example's "point of no return" moment or circumstance.  I may not be able to agree with any given choice.  However, I do not presume that I am the judge or arbiter of what is right or wrong, and when that is so - except for me personally.

I agree that in moments of supreme despair a person can be easily victimized by anyone that person trusts.  It happens ALL the time.  We have specially trained individuals (doctors, lawyers, priests, etc.) who are supposed to be capable of dealing with those victimized by circumstance with at least some assurance that the trust won't be exploited.  Traditionally we rely on that relationship to secure some piece of mind...

Has such trust been breached?  Yes.  Often enough that we don't naively deny it.  Is it somehow a "success" to usher someone to the surrender of their life?  Can that be answered by anyone other than the person in question?  I am not at any point near wanting to explore the orchestration of my demise... perhaps I never will be... when I do, (presumably) I will do it alone... I need no "professional" to make it 'palatable' to society - or make it easier for me (as if the choice could be "made" "easier.")

The problem has been (and usually is) that someone always wants to be "inserted" into the equation... like those who want to tell you with whom you should mate, what religion you should practice, how you should vote... always "in your face," "always prejudging your choices," "always holding out their hand" for you to fill either with your own hand, or money.

Euthanasia is someone interceding in life for a purpose other than the individual (there's always at least one) ... Suicide eliminates all intercession.  There is no in-between.

[quintessentone]

I think you dont have a clue here, you are defending creating systems that will be used wrong . The medical field is full of unethical basterds, fucking basterds , morons and idiots that are full of shit .

Example : An independent review commission conceded that tinnitus could satisfy the criteria for legal euthanasia to 47 woman in Netherland, mother of two  , and they killed her. it was " reviewed by professionals"  Just like that, because someone asked to be helped , to be killed .

The system will be used also to persons who are not not physically ill. Psychiatric problems is enough ...

Once the system is created/enabled there will be wrong doings , and by time the wrong doings are being normalized.....so 10-20 years forward wrong doings are then more often.


Always Care, Never Kill: How Physician-Assisted Suicide Endangers the Weak, Corrupts Medicine, Compromises the Family, and Violates Human Dignity and Equality

Why aren't severe psychiatric issues that take away a person's total quality of life not considered as being that one important factor, is my question? Why leave them to suffer and perhaps force them into committing suicide? That is, of course, those where all conventional treatment has failed and there is no hope left.

[ArMaP]

I am not at any point near wanting to explore the orchestration of my demise... perhaps I never will be... when I do, (presumably) I will do it alone... I need no "professional" to make it 'palatable' to society - or make it easier for me (as if the choice could be "made" "easier.")

Some years ago there was a man that wrote a book about suicide methods because of the percentage of people that choose the wrong method or execute it badly and end up alive but with health problems they did not have.

Personally, if I had a degenerating disease that gave me pain or prevented me from having an acceptable (for me) live, I wouldn't mind asking for the help of a professional, knowing that the decision will always be mine.

Is it possible that some countries have laws full of holes that will allow the process to be "hijacked" by someone else? Maybe, and if those laws exist they should be corrected.

[TheRedneck]

I don't doubt any of this.

Let's face it, governments all across the globe are in need of money. The reasons may be overspending, skimming by politicians, poor monetary policy, excessive public services... but the result, whatever the reason, is the same: they need money.

Governments have one and only one source of income: taxes. Governments do not make products; governments do not provide services for profit. They survive by taxation. This is not necessarily a bad thing in all cases, as government is indeed, as it has been characterized many times, a "necessary evil." There will always be those individuals in society who prefer to cheat, swindle, and even harm others for personal gain, and thus there must be some rule of law, enforced by an "ultimate authority," to prevent such for a thriving society to exist.

The problem is, all authority on the planet is through people, potentially the same people who would prefer to cheat, swindle, and harm others for personal gain. Democracy is intended to combat that potential, by spreading the ultimate power of choosing government officials via power spread amongst the population equally. However, recent years have shown a flaw in that check on power: people who are uneducated in human nature are likely to be swayed in large numbers to elect the wrong people to power.

The politicians and power brokers know all this. They didn't get to where they are by some stroke of luck or being born with a silver spoon. They understand human behavior and know how to manipulate it. That's how they attain and maintain their power base. That power base is then used to obtain large sums of money, which further solidifies their power, which further enhances their ability to obtain money. Wash, rinse, repeat a few times and we have a society where government now operates for the sole benefit of government, using the people being governed as a resource for personal gain.

We (should) all know this already.

So when a government needs money, they have only one source from which to draw it: taxes. There is a limit, however... too much taxation implemented too quickly or causing too much suffering among the population will result in an overthrow of said government. This can be violent as in a revolution, or it can me peaceful as in through the ballot box. So now we're looking at a limit on how much a government can tax and still remain in power. How to avoid that? Simple... the same way we as individuals avoid such issues: cut costs where they can be easily cut and put that savings toward things that are wanted.

The largest single expenditure for almost any government is elder care. Even the USA, with its astronomical military budget, spends more on services to the elderly that it does on defense. Other countries, most of which have more services and less military expenditures, have relatively even greater differentials. With health care costs rising quickly due to kickbacks from pharmaceuticals/administrators, and increased greed from insurers and providers, it has become a huge problem. Socialized retirement, such as Social Security in the USA, is no longer a hole in the financial bucket... it is a missing bottom.

Removing such services is out of the question; that would immediately result in the ousting of the present government and the politicians know this. They also know that the elderly are living longer than ever before and thus costing more than ever before. So the answer is: stop them from living longer.

Obviously, this cannot be a publicly known agenda. That would be worse than cutting services!

So we have policies to literally promote death among those who do not generate a taxable income and instead cost the government. COVID-19 vaccines were one method: ineffective, but at the same time damaging to the heart muscle and the immune system. This immediately kills off the present elderly and weakens the healthy so they cannot live as long. I have already mentioned that elsewhere. However, it does not address those who are not elderly and yet are unable to provide a taxable income for themselves... the infirm and mentally incapacitated. For them, more is needed. Even with the vaccine, they can live a "new normal" lifespan and cannot contribute to the tax base, Instead, they are a drain on the tax base. But, if we can make it easier for them to commit suicide, under the guise of alleviating pain or distress, we can also eliminate them while establishing a narrative of compassion and caring.

That's what is being done here. expect the call for assisted suicide to increase dramatically in the near future in the USA. Other countries are regularly used as a testing ground; the USA has more than its fair share of tough, independent thinkers even today, plus there's that pesky Constitution to get in the way. We may have the most powerful government in the world today, but we also are the hardest country to control. We are the last to be humbled.

That doesn't mean it can't happen, though. Watch your backs, everyone.

TheRedneck

[Maxmars]

...

With much respect, I find your above post to be full of debate-worthy statements.  I hope they are not misplaced, but I want to address some of the differences in our thinking.  (Which is odd because am equally concerned about the "public" imagery surrounding eugenic practices like "euthanasia" being 'normalized' by present-day media...)

Your exposition regarding the 'cost' of elder care to governments is, to me, not complete.  There are a number of points which makes me resist accepting it.  Some are matters of definition, others are of principle.  Matters of definition are more easily resolvable, but those of principle might not be.

Let me start with the element regarding "elder care" and its costs to the "government."   Insofar as 'government' goes, I often reissue the admonition against regarding government as a true 'entity.'  The government is an apparatus which exists and functions as an artifact of the citizens will (just as a corporation is an apparatus serving its board.) It is not a "person" as characterized mostly by political commenters and 'courtiers' within the construct (or other such cloistered servants.)  The principle is that tyranny and bad judgment are not sourced from within government, it comes from the people delegated with its authority. Specifically, it comes from those given the trust to exercise power on behalf of the people.

Anything a government "does" is not a product of 'mechanics' or 'processes gone astray' ... it is a product of 'people' with agendas and the human baggage they presume to inflict on the whole.  We vote to "trust" people to 'represent' our common will, to afford us the "service" we expect from the body of government actions.  (Namely, to protect us, promote welfare, eliminate abuse and oppressive regulation, to confront and eliminate all the elements of tyranny while making life better for us and our posterity.)

"Elders" are not some spontaneous factors within the body of the citizenry.  They are the people, not objects of 'weakness' or 'complications' any more so than any other citizen.  In the case of many in the US, the fact that they have more pressing and immediate healthcare needs was never unexpected... to that end, we engineered and implemented several programs and policies to address that reality ... like Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and even "private" special savings tools like retirement accounts, and other such financial tools.  These were not planned as half-assed, "maybe good enough," "that ought to do it" ideas...  because being able to survive and thrive isn't a "negotiable cost," any more than food is... it is something necessary, not a need based upon whim.  The elderly actually funded these programs out of their own labor, or someone did on their behalf.  Where did that money go?  Was it to "research," or to "political favor," or to balance their own misuse of funding elsewhere?  Only time can tell, since they reject oversight.

The cloistered elites within the safe and hallowed halls of power, however, clearly only regard these needs as 'externalities' (in the same manner as corporations consider paying employees a lamentable loss, a "cost.")  They consider the resources going to help the aging as a "drain" on "their" money.  They want their plans and designs funded, not the "old people" who offer them nothing of value in return - despite the fact that for the most part, the elderly already paid for this safety net... one intended explicitly to help them live... not to help the government to culled them from the "herd."

The image of government actions in our country is truly troubled in the sense that while many will agree government is NOT a "business," nevertheless that is precisely how some 'insist' it be conducted.  As if some "profits" were its object.  Perhaps, since we see worship of money hoarders in our culture, that's who ends up in the celebrity 'popularity' game called 'politics.'  They bring with them the baggage of their zeitgeist, where looking for political advantage translates to looking for profit (ostensibly for the "country" and quite often "personal" as well.)  Anything that "costs money" is evaluated by the cloister in terms of "what does it do for us."  As "voting" became less and less valuable a metric, their abuses became more and more egregious.

Taxes are by definition "money" offered to defray the expenses of the citizens' government... (whose purpose is for the citizens... not "some" citizens, but all citizens.)  Presumably, those expenses are generated by the desires of the citizens themselves... hence their 'voluntary' nature.  (Tangentially, one major disconnect is that we have no money... all of it belongs to a private banking system who play monetary policy games devaluing and manipulating economies without real accountabilities.)

"Euthanasia" is the product of another 'cloister,' an older one, that have yet to succeed in promoting the notion that human life is entirely fungible.  That a person who is enfeebled into economic stagnancy is a 'waste' of effort and time.  And all such things in the eyes of the cloister are cancers to be excised.  Simply put, it is more "economical" to allow a patient to die, than expend resources to help them to live.  Those who jump on board with this doctrine are often the very money hoarders who operate at the policy-level, and those they directly reward for compliance...

The idea that the country spends more on elder care than defense is a misunderstanding.  The elders paid this cost already.  They paid for it through their participation in the economy, their diversion of the fruits of their labor to anticipate the need...  They are not a hole in the economic equation, not a simple sudden "cost."  Defense is a function of fear, the more fearful, the more we spend.

"Assisted Suicide" is something different.  These are people desiring to 'pull the plug' on their existence.  They have lost all sense of value to living... however that sentiment may have developed.  Obviously, such an inclination is the very definition of 'deeply personal,' and I won't presume to judge with a simplistic 'rule of thumb.'  If citizens are of a mind to provide facilitation to that end is a question which deserves more focus and deliberation... I hesitate to accept that "government" holds a place of "judgement" in that issue.

Please accept that I agree that this is a thought-worthy subject.  I agree that on its face, it is a regrettable thing.  Is refusing to help the afflicted the same as "killing them?"  Is it now acceptable to kill some people, based solely upon their determined condition?  Lots of questions surface... all of which relate to matters in which governments have no 'legitimate' place except in reflecting the will of all the people, not just politically aligned consultants, thespian politicians, cloisters of academicians, and marketing efforts.

Again, with much respect.

MaxMars

[TheRedneck]

...

With all due respect, MaxMars, I do believe you may be misinterpreting my intent. Please allow me to clarify.

Your statements on how the government is supposed to operate are all true. But I was not speaking of how a government is supposed to operate, but how one actually operates in the face of human selfishness and greed. Government is not a business, true enough, but it does have much in common with a business. A business does not, in theory, exist to make money; it exists to exist. That is the single driving factor. In business, money may be the means to continue to exist, but it is actually a tool to allow the business to thrive. The profit motive exists for the benefit of stockholders, who, if profit is not forthcoming, will take their contributions to the business elsewhere and thus cause the business to close down... to cease to exist.

We tend to think of a business as existing to make money... but a business is not a person. It has no needs, no desires, no goals in life, save one: the desire to exist. Profit is simply the means to that end.

In government, the same is true: government exists to exist. However, there is more than a single methodology that enables government to exist. It can exist as the benefactor of the people, at the pleasure of the people, or it can exist as the controlling authority over the people. Profit is not a concern, as there are no stockholders to satisfy; the true stockholders of the government are the common people, and the common people can either be placated or controlled. We can look at history and see this pattern clearly; history is rife with dictatorships and kingdoms that existed, some for hundreds of years, by control of the people under it, not at their pleasure.

Another similarity is the methodology used to enact this goal of existence. Both businesses and governments use goals as their methodology. Indeed, one could summarize that the recent decline in business/employee relations is due to a shifting of goals concerning the employees. The recent change in business attitude toward customers is also attributable to changes in goals concerning customer relations. However, there is a major difference between government and business: the availability of force. All governments have the ability to use force against citizens, by definition. Businesses can evolve to use force, but are not immediately endowed upon creation with that ability.

When one says one thinks the government should be run as a business, it does not follow they intend for the government to make a profit. No government can do so, because no government makes anything of value. That's the purview of business. However, a government can act as a goal setting organization which operates as a whole to achieve their goals instead of a mishmash of separate departments with their own individual goals. A government can thrive by providing value to its shareholders, the people, rather than controlling them.

As to the elderly, I obviously agree that they have paid their share and are now entitled to the promises made to them. After all, don't forget, I is an elderly! However, there was just an arrest made here on a man who took a nearly $4000 deposit on a new driveway from an elderly man and disappeared. The elderly man had every right to the services he paid for; there can be no dispute about that. But the criminal who took his money violated that right. If a criminal posing as a contractor can do so, why cannot a criminal posing as a politician do the same?

Assisted suicide is a precarious subject for me. On one hand, I can understand that a person can be in such pain with such little hope of relief that death can be a blessing. Far be it from me to deny someone that relief. However, I remain concerned about the extent that assistance can go. I cannot trust any profession or any government to always have the best interests of the individual at heart. Too often, people can be talked into things they would not have accepted had they known the full story. In the case of assisted suicide, that error is absolutely irreversible. There must IMO be such safeguards so no one is ever convinced by others to end their own life. Ever. So who do we trust to ensure those safeguards are met? The government? I think not. The medical profession? Possibly, but it too is operated by fallible humans. The next of kin? That sounds good, but the allure of inheritance has been used as an excuse by many already to wish death upon a loved one.

In the end, any such decision is subjective. Even trusting the person themselves is spurious, since people, especially the elderly, are easily convinced to act against their best interests... witness the example on the news I mentioned above.

Still, with all that said, I do believe like you that the subject is one that bears discussion.

TheRedneck