Systemic Euthanasia

[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