The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Too many are living too long > Comments

Too many are living too long : Comments

By Brian Holden, published 28/5/2010

We all hope to remain vigorous into our 80s but if serious malfunctions occur then nature is saying it's time to leave.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
You press all the right buttons in this article Brian. Well done.

We, as a society, do have a lot of questions to answer about aging and when it becomes ridiculous to keep someone alive.

If we could get religion out of the aging equation, that would be a good start. And if euthanasia could be legalized, that would also lessen the pressure on the public purse. And if doctors could be legally allowed to help patients to die if that was their wish, another remedy would be available.

Speaking for myself, when I reach my use-by date, I will depart the scene with dignity and without regret!
Posted by David G, Friday, 28 May 2010 9:53:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear hear.

I am 64. When I turned 60 I made a decision. If I start dementing I am going to kill myself while I still have sufficient clarity of mind to do the deed. I have decided on a method and acquired the necessary tools.

I am not going to end up in a nursing home like that man in Sydney.

I do not want to live on in a vegetative or even semi-vegetative state.

But what really infuriates me is this. Because of our archaic laws I am probably going to have to kill myself earlier than is necessary because I know this is one job I shall have to do myself.

I think my biggest horror is starving to death because putting me out of my misery is against the law while removing the feeding tube is OK.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 28 May 2010 10:00:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree mainly with your thoughts Brian. The only aspect I would add is that we should value all life no matter what the age and it should be about quality and choice.

If an 80 something is still functioning well and enjoying life despite some medical ailments, even with the cost of care that expense is well allocated. Care should always be an option in a compassionate society however I agree that keeping people in vegetative states is cruel and serves no quality of life purpose.

Like stevenmeyer I want to be able to decide when my quality of life is no longer of value to me.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 28 May 2010 10:18:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
same idiotic philosophy that turns a blind eye to killing the unborn now wants to pop off the oldies. David G is right. Religion is the problem. That is the earth worshipers religion that has a death culture.
Posted by runner, Friday, 28 May 2010 10:38:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for mirroring my sentiments exactly Brian and stevenlmeyer. The current situation of keeping people alive by artificial means is ridiculous. "Artificial means" to me includes drugs, intubation and lengthy treatments for deadly diseases when the prognosis is grim.

Still, my dear old mum turns 100 this year. She's hardly seen a doctor all her life, except (obviously) during her child bearing days. She takes nothing more in the way of drugs than a simple half an aspirin daily to ward off a stroke and takes good diet/fluids thanks to the care giving by my sister. She suffers dementia, has nil short term memory, long term memory impaired, she's almost deaf, frail and in great pain due to her stubbornness in refusing to see a doctor years ago when a knee and hip operation could have given her great relief, yet still manages to get around the house. She still enjoys family, a drop of Port and loves to laugh, however she remains totally dependant on the care my sister and visiting health care workers give her in her own home. Left alone she'd be dead in a matter of a couple of weeks, but neither my sister or myself could for a moment consider such a thing.

My only hope is that I haven't inherited her longevity. One of my kids have already told me that..... "there's plenty of good nursing homes out there" and..... "we have to have a life too you know and it doesn't include looking after you when you're old and infirm!" Obviously he doesn't know about the true state of under funded nursing homes and lack of staff. So I'm with stevenlmeyer on this one!
Posted by Aime, Friday, 28 May 2010 10:38:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My mother is 99.

She has not walked in almost a year, after some very bad treatment, in a public hospital, & is now in a good nursing home.

About the only real pleasure she has had in a year was when almost all her family gathered in her room, for her birthday. Unfortunately, she could not remember it 3 days later.

I an getting to hate visiting her, as she begs to be taken "home" to her granny flat, adjacent to my home, & be left there to die. It's hard to take.

I'm going to make bl00dy sure I never get to this.

Like Steven I have the plan, & process in hand, in a way that minimises the effect on loved ones. When they want my drivers licence, that will be the day
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 28 May 2010 12:07:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Brian. Having witnessed the de-humanising process of slow decay in a nursing home when my Mum was diagnosed with MND I can only hope for the courage to DIY my exit when I feel no longer capable of looking after myself. I am committed to teaching my children the importance of human dignity over the pointless search for immortality. The story of that poor child in Mumbai should haunt all bureaucrats who think propping up the aged intensive care sector is a valid moral choice.
Posted by bitey, Friday, 28 May 2010 1:10:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian - I agree with most of what you write except for the nomination of a specific figure - 80 - after which all intensive treatment would cease.

I think it depends on the individuals state of health, well being, mental acuity and personal wishes.

Should an otherwise healthy, active, independent person over age 80 develop acute illness for which treatment is readily available with good outcome likely and that person desires it, then I would not want to have to say "Sorry, you are too old."

On the other hand if a profoundly disabled person regardless of age, with limited quality of life requiring extensive care was to develop acute illness which if untreated would likely result in death, I would be inclined to say, "Pallitative care only."

I also believe that once a person reaches a state of existance where they are unable to care for themselves AND have dementia that medication, OTHER THAN TO MINIMISE PAIN & SUFFERING, be ceased.

These sentiments will not doubt rouse the ire of the pro-lifers who will argue 'life at all cost.' However since they tend to be of 'ultra-religious' persuasion I will pre-empt the argument by stating that God promised mankind not LIFE but DEATH of the natural body. His great promise is eternal life for the soul. Whether one believes or not, DEATH is the one certainty for every living organism on earth. Whether with dignity, succumbing to the inevitable or being kept alive as long as possible to suffer death by degrees has increasingly become a choice of MAN. And God knows Man does not always make good decisions.
Posted by divine_msn, Friday, 28 May 2010 1:29:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a certain obscenity in sitting around discussing the uselessness and burden of old people and working out ways to see them off. 'Hopefully they will come to realise the futility. pain and suffering of their final years (like from when they were unceremoniously tipped out of work at age 50) and will choose themselves to fall down the worn out steps of their now childless homes, or take some cheap tablets to end it all.' 'Hey, could they recycle those Woolies plastic bags for their voluntary euthanasia (well, I only mentioned it to Dad) and who was the fool who made them guilty enough to buy those re-usable bags?'

The message has been put about for decades now: it is all the fault of those greedy Boomers, they have scrimped and saved and bought all the houses and now they want us to support them in their old age. After all, a cohort that, depending on the needs of the denouncer, could spread over a birth period of eighteen years, has got to be good for some blame. Cost of Medicare? Yep that's them. Government blown its budget? The Boomers of course! The huge bucket of taxes always being drained for war ventures in other peoples' countries? Goodness those are necessary, unlike the aged. Hey, who cares anyhow, I just want Mum's assets NOW and I don't want to wait and work for everything like her. Does she really, truly need a house all to herself? Hmmmmm, haven't seen her in yonks, must visit (don't buy anything, she makes scones) and take this article.

As much as I have supported voluntary euthanasia over the years I am rapidly coming to realise just how complicated it is to describe the conditions under which it could be made legal and the need for protections against abuse, especially by relatives and government.

Contd..
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 28 May 2010 1:42:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Hopefully, that man standing in the queue in Mumbai, with his child on his hip and her skinny arms around his neck, does not know of what it costs to keep an Tony Abbott in a vegetative state in Canberra."

Bless you Brian, your down wind sailing writing style always gets to me. I'm with you on the euthanasia sentiment. When your time comes, it comes.

I'm not so sure about whacking people when they turn 80. It's not much of a birthday present. If I see you coming when I'm 80, please excuse me if I don't say hullo as I fly out to party hard on the beach in Mumbai.
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 28 May 2010 1:57:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contd..

As for the accelerating costs of supporting the aged, is everyone really so sure that is the presenting, imminent problem (for expenditure of government funds) or are both sides of government yanking the wool over everybody's eyes as they have always done? For starters, this so-called replacement immigration, hasn't it been going on at a great flow for decades and yet there is never enough to pay the pensions of older people?

Again, who says that all of that eighteen year spread of those allegedly greedy, conniving, sad old bastards will retire at once and who says none of them made provision for old age? Who says they want a free ride to the end and Who says they don't want to work, are a drain on Medicare and hospitals. Most want employment according to polls and it seems that (say) 'thirty something' women like a visit or few to doctors for scripts and go many times more than older people ever did at their age.

Again, while I continue to support voluntary euthanasia I am more concerned than ever about how the law can work for the benefit and protection of the victims. Because in a culture that cares less and less every year about its old, the caring humane treatment of the old is becoming more and more a rarity. For instance, if we are talking about voluntary euthanasia why are we only concentrating so exclusively on the aged?
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 28 May 2010 2:07:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree, palliative care, not intensive care. Our elders are often kept alive in intensive care merely to soothe the guilt of neglectful adult children. My siblings and I have already discussed this with our mother who doesn't want to live in a vegetative state, and we too are clear we dont either. (besides, my budget is likely to run out shortly after I turn 80!!)
Posted by nelle, Friday, 28 May 2010 2:44:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think I'll agree with runner on this one.
Brian Holden and others may be interested to know that it has been done before, in a manner.
The policy was called 'Aktion T4'.
Some interesting reading can be found here; http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAction_T4&rct=j&q=aktion+t4&ei=MU3_S4X_L4GsNfyTzTs&usg=AFQjCNGIQIsamv3HPsf5rGTZRcS7oZJ21A
Posted by jamo, Friday, 28 May 2010 3:10:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am wondering what argument could be put forward to save the premature baby with the very expensive intensive care that they require and the possibility of diminished faculties, instead of wheeling (say) Ms Quentin Alice Louise Bryce, AC, DStJ (getting long in the tooth and had a fair go GenY might say) into intensive care after her operation? Alright, what if Quentin was 80+ at the time and writing her memoirs while doing the international lecture circuit?

I am not supporting either 'side', just wondering about the ethics.

Or would we swap Quentin, a distinguished woman after all, for one of those white males who have always been advantaged as the mantra goes?

Then again, Aboriginals are past their prime in their fifties, so make sure one never log-jams someone who was born with a silver spoon in her mouth from getting a bed in IC. Hey, those medical resources wasted on the black guy could be better spent on ego boosting cosmetic surgery on boobs, face and thighs for that well-heeled matron after they save her from the accidental OD on coke (fashionista parties are like that).

Hold on, the black guy is disadvantaged and there are no beds available, so what about that younger old bugger over there?

A done deal, the age for shunting off the rescue and resuscitation line is now sixty-five, but only for those devoid of HEROC's (active) protection. Muted "Cough, cough, ahem, Minister, the really good spin-off from the revised '65 and out' initiative is that their pensions can be redistributed among the needy - ie the consultants and other artful dodgers who have the wit to keep their snouts firmly in the public trough and can be relied upon to support you."

It could all be so easy too, just stop the old buggers getting into hospital in the first place, or withdraw their Medicare 'entitlements'. That is the problem with democracy and a national health service, they always want to treat people as being equal - a life is a life and all of that nonsense. Come the revolution!
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 28 May 2010 4:33:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article & comments but everybody has missed another directly related issue. At the opposite end of the scale there are many children with extensive disabilities, deformaties being kept alive.

I have worked in this industry & seen first hand both children & the elderley with extensive issues, plenty of pain, no quality of life being kept alive at great expense. Because emotional parents don't have the courage to end it.

Its also been rising progressively over the decades as women have been encouraged to have children later in life, which radically increases the risk of medical complications for both mother & child.

Are any health admin experts going to "run the numbers" through the spreadsheet on how much this is costing "medicare".

Or is this too politically incorrect?
Posted by Formersnag, Friday, 28 May 2010 4:58:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a brother who has a severe intellectual impairment as a result of meningitis when he was three. He is now 53, has no language and although mobile has no capacity to live independently. Our mother is 85 this year and still lives independently (although is becoming almost the quintessential grumpy old woman and a complete interpersonal chore). Our mother has a 'do not resuscitate' caveat on herself and has decided it's time to die soon and with dignity, pain free. We have discussed this and proposed sensible parameters.

I desperately fear the consequences for my brother if he ever suffers an illness or accident that incapacitates him further. He is on a disability pension and is under the care of the Adult Guardian. Does that mean he is doomed to life at all and every cost?
Posted by Baxter Sin, Friday, 28 May 2010 5:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In Britain the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) sets the parameters for treatments the National Health Service (NHS) offers.

You can read about NICE here:

http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/

One of the most controversial of NICE's guidelines is a cap on the annual amount that may be spent to prolong the life of terminally ill patients. Broadly the cut-off point is 30 thousand pounds per annum. The NHS will not usually offer treatments that cost more than 30 thousand pounds per year of additional good quality life.

This sometimes leads to harsh decisions. See:

HUNDREDS OF LIVER CANCER PATIENTS DENIED DRUG LIFELINE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1281465/Hundreds-liver-cancer-patients-denied-drug-lifeline.html

"NICE said Nexavar can increase survival by an extra 2.8 months on average, but at a cost of £27,000 per patient, using a complicated formula meant to assess a person's quality of life."

TO ALL POSTERS HERE:

What is the maximum you think Medicare should spend to prolong the life of a terminally ill patients by an AVERAGE of 2.8 months?

No red herrings please. I think we all understand that some people may gain no extra life as a result of treatment while others may live for an additional year or more. If we knew in advance who would benefit and who would not it would change the equation. But, right now, we don't know.

In fact we don't even know whether an individual patient has benefited from the treatment. All we can say is that if we divide patients into two groups, give one the treatment and the control group a placebo the treatment group members on average survive an extra 2.8 months
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 28 May 2010 5:18:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Soylent green & the island are getting closer.
Posted by individual, Friday, 28 May 2010 5:22:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stevenlmeyer

It is political correctness and a lack of political will to address the known systemic, money sapping deficiencies in health delivery that result in crude policies like that.

If you want to play the numbers game why not look at the money spent on (say) HIV, a disease that is largely preventable. These are optimistic 1996 numbers:

"People with HIV can get 24 extra years of life from modern treatments — at a total cost of about $618,900.

That finding comes from a Cornell/Johns Hopkins/Harvard/Boston University research team that analyzed the costs and benefits of modern HIV treatment."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/health/webmd/main2146532.shtml

Not having a go at HIV sufferers just opening up debate.

What about the posts by Formersnag and Baxter Sin? Quite obviously there are broader issues that ought be looked at and could result in a better allocation of resources without needing to resort to a crude accounting solution up-front and directed at one group of citizens.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 28 May 2010 5:46:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not too thrilled about reaching so old an age and would also consider a 'way out' handy if ever things start going downhill.

Nice to see the opposition is composed only of paranoid morons who don't grasp the concept of 'personal choice' (tends to be the same people who can't really think for themselves but follow someone else).
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 28 May 2010 6:18:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I found the article a bit confused. The fact the we live in a society wealthy enough to look after the elderly to me seems a good thing. In contrast, I wonder about the ethics of a government that would see its young die from minor illnesses. Perhaps they have a feudal outlook on life and view their citizens as battery humans? Clearly the living standards of countries like India would be far greater were her citizens offered contraception. But that might make it a bit harder to supply the feudal lords with slaves, so I wont hold my breath waiting for change.

It might seem logical to the author to mention some depravity elsewhere in the world as reason to degrade our own living standards, but to me this approach seems a silly one. For example, would the author use the fact of public defecation in Mumbai as a reason for removing public toilets in Australia?

For me, the issues raised by the author give more reason for India to change her policies than for Australia to degrade the treatment of her citizens.
Posted by Fester, Friday, 28 May 2010 7:02:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, people are a bit like cars really, aren't they ? So when they get to rust-bucket stage, say at about 55, they should be junked to make way for new ones: perhaps people could be put through a crusher like cars.

Maybe the profoundly disabled as well. Hell, maybe ALL the disabled.

And those from troublesome ethnic groups. Gypsies. Homosexuals. Left-handers. Fat people. Anorexics, they're already on the way out.

And maybe we should sterilise anybody with undesirable traits as well, unless of course 'we' agree that they should be euthanased as well. Oh yes, that's right, it's all been tried before.


You obscene b@stards.
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 28 May 2010 8:36:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone seen the Bruce Willis film 'Surrogates'? I think I will join the revolution too if we go down that path.

It is fascinating watching these sorts of subjects get an airing, any mention of personal choice in death is met by talk of knocking off all the old people who are burden. Are people purposely misinterpreting the theme of this article which is about personal choice for someone who does not want to finish their days in a vegetative state.

We can be stringent about the value of life as we ought to be regardless of age, disability or any other state, but why do we not care as much about the dying and how they die?
Posted by pelican, Friday, 28 May 2010 10:02:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why not set up Fade Away centres where we can go out with a cup of coffee listening to a song of our choice like eg...See Yer Later Alligator.

socratease
Posted by socratease, Friday, 28 May 2010 10:14:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a line between ‘keeping people alive’ and active, voluntary euthanasia.

I am a proponent for active, voluntary euthanasia only if laws are in place and if good paliative care is available also as an option.
I hope that by the time my life is nearing an end, that voluntary euthanasia will be an option.

Voluntary euthanasia should not be available to the elderly only- it should be available to anyone who is facing either a terminal illness without chance of recovery and who suffer pain that cannot be properly managed with medication.
I know two people who opted for euthanasia. One of these people was a woman, a relative of about 26 years old, with incurable, terminal cancer. It saved her from being forced to unnecessary suffer for another month or so.

Euthanasia means a ‘soft death’ or ‘good death’ and preferably, we should all have a soft death as opposed to a cruel and violent death.

When we see an animal suffer, we find it extremely cruel to stand by and watch it slowly die. We say that it is a ‘humane thing to do’ to have the animal ‘put to sleep’.

I don’t agree with Brian that after a certain age (80), intensive care should not be available, and that life should be "over and out".
Firstly, people should maintain autonomy no matter what age they are.

Secondly, such a decision should not be 'one size fits all', but should depend on each different case.

Placing an 80 year old, who is terminally ill with no chance of recovery, no outlook, in intensive care is different from offering intensive care to an 80 year old who is suffering from a temporary problem but has a good chance of recovery and has otherwise been in good health.

Hehehe, it didn’t take long into the discussion for Godwin’s law to come up :+
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 28 May 2010 11:03:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia
You said it all so well and mirror my thoughts on the subject. That Godwin knew what he was on about. If you don't agree with an issue just mention Hitler.

(Just don't mention the war - John Cleese)
Posted by pelican, Friday, 28 May 2010 11:28:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Pelican,
Hehehe, I remember that Cleese episode!

I just thought it was funny because on the "going burq-o" thread a couple of days ago, someone also mentioned Hitler. It's becoming a sport to spot them!

Just for some entertainment regarding Godwin's law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfDCwP2SnI4
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 29 May 2010 12:37:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An elderly lady in the UK has tattooed her chest 'DO NOT RESUSCITATE' so no mistakes will be made. I may do one too, down the track. The trouble is, family can get in the way of a 'do not resus', and who is to say that death is that imminent. Both my mother and mother-in-law endured an unnecessary six months, but at the time we did not understand the implications of their 'treatment', and a long goodbye was easier for the family, if not for them.

Having quotas and cut-off ages for treatment can be problematic. A relative in England was denied costly medication following a stroke, because he was over 80. The family were not even given the option of paying for it themselves, and the result was a severely incapacitated old man in need of ongoing care at considerable expense to the community. Ten years down the track his wife is frail and exhausted and he has just moved into a nursing home.

I'm cultivating the friendship of vets: they have the Nembutal.
Posted by Candide, Saturday, 29 May 2010 1:35:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could some one please tell me why you need the aproval of society to kill your self, Is it that you want to destroy the rights of others that are pro life. If you want to pop your self, where there is a will there is always a way. Having seen members of my family pass away with palitave care in terminal illness I do not know whether it was the terminal illness or the palitave care that did the trick but am inclined to think it is the witholding of assistance as the body function close down under palitave care and they were all ready to go. Their choice not somebody elses. When Personal Choice is taken away one more liberty and freedom is gone. My step mother was on life support and her family made the decision 30 years ago to pull the plug so choices are available.
Posted by Richie 10, Saturday, 29 May 2010 3:51:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richie,
Although I agree that one should not need the approval of society to kill oneself, the real issue is whether elderly people should be denied treatment and then let nature take it’s course.
This would come under passive euthanasia- but I don’t like that term. The term “euthanasia” should only describe active, voluntary death, because allowing a patient to die from natural causes, such as a slow, painful death of terminally ill cancer patients can be very cruel.

I can’t bear to think about bed-ridden patients who have lost muscle control and therefore are in danger of choking to death on their saliva, or a person who is forced to slowly starve to death and drie out when tubes are taken away to feed the person.
I find it incredibly cruel to force people to suffer for an indefinite period of time, by prohibiting the humane and painless alternative: voluntary, active euthanasia.

It should not be necessary for an ill person to have to take his/her own life, all alone and in secrecy.
Then there is also the risk that the suicide goes wrong and the person continues to live, now even with more damage from a failed suicide.
Another problem is that many very ill, bedridden patients wouldn’t have the ability to kill themselves because they are (partly or completely) paralysed.

The most simple and effective way is active, voluntary euthanasia, done by doctors who have special training in this field.
There are several euthanatica options available, and this range of lethal drugs should be discussed with a patient so that a patient has as much control as possible.

It happens that doctors in countries where euthanasia is illegal, keep increasing doses of morphine with the intention of relieving pain- until the dose is so high that it causes death anyway.
Why not make euthanasia legal so that everybody can be open about this, so that there is better control, and so that there is less chance that a patient will receive an overdose of morphine without consent?
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 29 May 2010 10:04:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm only young but after reading this article and these depressing comments I feel as though I should pop myself now so I don't have to undergo the trauma of growing old and dying a horrible death later in life.

Seriously though, we humans are not prepared to deal with the other end of our lives. While we are young, death is kept away from us and we are encouraged to see it as an unreality, something that happens to others. This, when combined with religion which fraudulently promises an afterlife and living forever, leaves us unprepared and thinking we will live forever.

Then, eventually, we hit the wall and our body starts to lose its youth and the mirror tells us the awful truth.

I guess proper education is the answer. If we are taught what happens as we age we might be more careful with the time we have before it happens.

And if euthanasia is legalized, death might not be so fear-filled.
Posted by David G, Saturday, 29 May 2010 10:08:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian Holden is up to his old tricks again.

Unfortunately many OLOers are seeing only half of his equation.
The first half says: If you are old and incapacitated, your plight should not be prolonged – which clearly appeals to many—and,was crafted to!
However, the second half says: If you are a poor third-worlder and have kids you cannot support, you are owed a subsidy.

If fact,he simply wants the money that would normally be used to support old westerners redirected to support third world kids et la.
(though, I suspect,even if such moneys were so redirected – this would not sate Holdens charitable inclinations –for it certainly would not
solve the third worlds growing problems –he’d need to add billions more “tax payer” funds to it)

It’s a variation of the I-will-tell-you-how-to-divide-up-the-cake, pitch.

Holden argues that it’s immoral that “public money” should maintain old western bodies.
Their failing faculties are natures way of saying it’s time to kick on.
If Holden really thinks that way –if he really believes that, and is not just using it as stuffing for his pitch.
He should – to be consistent – also be arguing that the deformed child is natures failure and should not be assisted

And he might do well to remember that his sob story setting,Mumbai, India,is far from the worst of the worst .
Indian has a bigger middle class than Australia
And many well run hospitals and universities.
And India produces many doctors , lots and lots of doctors.
Some of whom, people on Holden’s side of the political spectrum have fought hard to keep in Australia(surely immoral?)

Our old have built what wealth we have,they deserve to enjoy it in their declining years,to the max.
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 29 May 2010 10:10:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Holden,

You have posted three dozens articles on OLO in the course of three years and spurned one thousand seven hundred and seventy five people to comment.

What can one read in this huge reaction to your scripts?

When you come across a subject of interest and you feel the urge to cast your opinion on it, do you make any effort to pause and consider the value of your thoughts or you just run for the pen without care for what may perplex your readers?

In societies saner than ours, death is the natural occurrence in the economy of living.

Imagine a family with a grandparent sharing one of the two bedrooms in their unit with their child and imagine that the country they live in is poor and both parents have to go out to work.

Everything fits until the grandparent comes to needing help, then, unbalance sets in.

It is very early spring. At the end of the family’s picnic in majestic country surroundings, the family prepares to return home, kiss the old parent who sits on a chair and depart.

Next day they collect the body.

‘An idyllic farewell in a Croatian village’ of days gone that leaves us with the sensation that our society has regressed into barbarism.
Posted by skeptic, Saturday, 29 May 2010 10:28:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1/1/2011 StephenLMeyer get's dementure.

2/1/2011 StephenLMeyer commits suicide

3/1/2011 A cure is found for Dementure.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 29 May 2010 10:58:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree Horus.

There is all this talk about how the infirm should have a right to choose a painless death, yet the article is about the resources we devote to keeping the elderly and infirm alive. Presumably the author would have us all feel very guilty about the care given to elderly Australians by contrasting it with the absence of care for poor children in India. I cannot know what every elderly Australian thinks, but I doubt that each lives a miserable existence, is being kept alive by any means possible, and yearns for a quick and painless death.

All the author has emphasised to me is the substantial resources Australia has to care for her citizens compared with countries like India. It doesn't mean that Australians are more compassionate than Indians, rather that Australians have the means to express their compassion.

I was angered at the author's suggestion that it was a good thing that the man in the queue didn't know how much was spent keeping elderly Australians in a vegetative state. Presumably the author thinks the man would think it obscene and see it as a reason to hate Australians? But couldn't he also see his plight as a consequence of a large and growing population long in excess of the ability to provide the infrastructure for a high living standard? Might he not think that with a stable or reducing population, poor Indians might enjoy a much higher standard of living in the future?

Australians have climbed the hill of prosperity and should be proud to enjoy the view. People like the author would have us look at the poor sods further down and urge us to jump, but I think we should be showing them how they can climb up.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 29 May 2010 11:08:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
US HEALTH CARE PLAN.

Opponents of ObamaCare say it will involve RATIONING of health care.

Dr Donald Berwick, appointed by Obama to run Medicaid and Medicare
says:

“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,” Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare, “the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

"You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach," Berwick told the Brits. "You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them."

"Political"...and "Economic" choices ? scary stuff.

We report....you decide.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 29 May 2010 11:10:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
now...TADAAAAAA... "FREEDOM OF THE PRESS"...

The bill earmarks $2,000,000 dollars between 2010 and 2014 to have the US State Department produce an "Annual Report on the Status of Freedom of the Press Worldwide" and administer a freedom of the press grant program that "should promote and broaden press freedoms by strengthening the independence of journalists and media organizations" worldwide.

A GOVERNMENT GRANT...which "STRENGTHENS" JOURNALISTIC INDEPENDANCE ? that would be the joke of the century. They are on CRACK!

This is INCOME RE-DISTRIBUTION on a grand scale to reward 'favored' Journalists who toe the Democratic party line and PUNISH those who do not.

How does this relate to the topic ? :) simple.. if you report 'unfavorable' things about Obama.. such as "They want to ration health care and cull the old" you will go on the 'list' of

"those never to be rewarded, but rather SHAMED
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 29 May 2010 11:24:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Celivia,
My problem is not about Death it is about choice. Man has a God given right to freedom of choice. It is an individual's choice not a society choice. For example if I decide that you personaly offend me by your beliefs so I decide that you must die I do not believe that I have the right to impose MY WILL on you as it is moraly wrong. Jesus died for all people not just the religious. We live in an imperfect world and I agree with you I was very horefide when they starved that poor woman to death in USA on TV but on a personal note a doctor said I wouldn't make it and they withheld all treatment until my family informed them that I had private health cover and I was sent to a private hospital in the city where I recieved treatment and made a good recovery so that I again enjoy life and if euthenasia was available I would now be pushing up daisies not enjoying my family. I thank God for my wife and children who stood up for my rights.
Posted by Richie 10, Saturday, 29 May 2010 11:58:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a truly strange article with frankly bizarre reasoning. What sane person would lament the days when people lost children in childbirth or died at 18 and then use this to argue against increased lifespan?? Its clear that increased average lifespan indicates better living conditions and an increasingly productive society over time, yet Brian wants to reverse this trend.

This is the work of a misanthropic atheist no doubt. This author has indicated in the past that he believes humans are a burden to the planet anyway. Yet, he is confused and contradicted.Here he tells the inspiring tale of a 97 yr old!

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7106

The people who expect the most from Healthcare are those who have paid the LEAST into the system. The elderly have built the system with their taxes. Why shouldn't they be looked after? Their contribution has already taken place.

1. Do we deny medical care for all self inflicted injuries such as suicide attempts etc?

2. Do we deny medical care to those who don't exercise and eat properly?

3. Do we eliminate unhealthy babies?

4. Do we deny medical care for preventable accidents?

5. Should the unemployed get health care?

This is where Brian's logic is heading. Eliminate "burdens". Attack the most vulnerable group first and then work your way up? BTW he is also an advocate of "selective sterilisation". http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8304&page=3 (last sentence)

Let's face it, he doesn't like human beings much.

He writes

"In the context of history, anybody today who reaches the age of 80, has had far more than his or her fair share."
Does Brian include himself and his 97 yr old explorer friend in his Soylent Green approach? Oddly, no. Maybe Greenies are exempt.

Its not just about money, its about caring for ill people who have contributed much to the world and who now cannot care for themselves.

Don't dehumanise the elderly because they can't walk or communicate or defend themselves.
Posted by Atman, Saturday, 29 May 2010 12:26:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidG,
So true. Patients, who know that euthanasia is available whenever they need it, have more strength to cope with the pain and the disease once the fear has been taken away.

“It’s a variation of the I-will-tell-you-how-to-divide-up-the-cake, pitch.”
Good observation, Horus!

Hi Richie,
“… if euthanasia was available I would now be pushing up daisies not enjoying my family.”
But if euthanasia had been legal, it would’ve been against the law to kill you without you specifically requesting it. Before euthanasia could’ve been granted, you would have had to be examined not only by a psychiater but by several doctors/specialists- not just one. They all would have had to agree that there would be no existing treatment available for you, you would have been informed. If you had been unconscious, you wouldn’t have been able to request euthanasia so it wouldn’t have happened. In countries where euthanasia is legal, it is always voluntary- the patient is not offered the option but instead needs to request it several times, and is examined by a few doctors/specialists. In the Netherlands, 70% of patients who requested euthanasia, have been denied it because there were still alternatives available.

Brian Holden is talking about involuntary, passive ‘euthanasia’, really, something which is very cruel and beyond patients’ control. People should be in control, and as you said, have the choice at all times, no matter what age they are!

AiR,
people suffering from dementia are not legible to request euthanasia. One would have needed to organise euthanasia forms while still in good state of mind. My mother and uncle have their papers ready. It involved a psychiatric assessment and several talks to her GP. The questions are very specific and intrinsic. If she was to suffer from dementia later in life, and she would suffer from an illness with no outlook on recovery, one would look at her medical papers to see at which stage she would want to be euthanised.
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 29 May 2010 12:37:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ladies, Ladies, Ladies & Left Wing Nuts, its not just me anymore, plenty of other commentators have asked the questions.

1, Do you support euthanizing seriously deformed babies or the "cruel & unusual punishment" of keeping them alive for all of their miserable, painful, zero quality of, lives? Lots of taxes for 80 years could be directed towards somebody else, more deserving of treatment.

2, What about providing "free medicare" fertility medicine to women who choose to ignore their biological clock & try to conceive after age 27? Or expensive obstetrics caused by birthing past age 27?

3, What about, "Accidents" lots of people, all ages being injured on roads, at work, etc?

4, Do you support "Nice" having a branch office in OZ?

5, Where do you want the taxes saved to go? To India as the article author was implying? Or to Aboriginal health care, they have a very different life expectancy to us?

6, What about self abusers, smokers, drinkers, drug users, over eaters?

7, One does wonder about the political connections of this debate? Brian Holden is an old lefty from way back? The positive commentators appear to be mostly left of centre? Conservative political views, get progressively more popular with age? The demographics of our baby boom bulge is looking awfully bad for the red/green/getup/labour coalition?

8, Soylent green anyone?

9, BTW, on a more personal note, i don't wish to donate my organs for transplant as many people on the lists, got there by self abuse, their bodies are damaged by the rejection & other drugs, adult stem cell research is far more likely to come up with a better solution for body repair?

10, Also i most definitely do NOT want to be buried or cremated but have my body, minus any "non organic" prosthetic devices put through an industrial meat grinder like they have in abattoirs, that can grind up bones, teeth, etc. Then my body could be composted. Want my wish granted ASAP Lefties?
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 29 May 2010 3:56:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How did discussion of voluntary euthanasia turn into forced death camps for the elderly and Soylent Green?

Most of those who support voluntary euthanasia within strict guidelines have also clearly stated that all life should be valued. If it is of no value to the person concerned due to incessant pain and suffering who are we to insist they must endure it?
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 29 May 2010 5:14:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too many are living too long?

The one possible modern societal benefit you citizen-slaves have stumbled upon is a longer life span. Albeit the price is you all live a lie, your lives are meaningless and worthless. Of course, the cons outweigh the pros.

And yet you lot seek to complain about the one possible benefit you have inadvertently received from your utterly malevolent society.

www.Truthmedia.8k.com
Posted by Seer Travis, Saturday, 29 May 2010 5:32:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How did discussion of voluntary euthanasia turn into forced death camps for the elderly and Soylent Green?"
Simple Pelican, some people are thick as bricks, easily riled into hysteria, and most importantly, are utterly incapable of differentiating "something one may choose to do if the option became available at entirely their own discretion" and "something you do because someone tells you to or makes you do".

I always wondered why they would keep jumping to that conclusion, that maybe they were just trolling, but I actually realized is that they ARE the kind of people whose minds are too weak to function independently, and live their entire lives obeying someone else- in short, they are incapable of thinking for themselves and thus independent thought is a 'myth' spread by some sinister alliance trying to trick people.
You might find a lot of conspiracy theories stem from this mindset.

Oh and Travis- stop spamming.
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 29 May 2010 6:56:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Health care is a finite resource. At some stage we have to make decisions about treating people vigorously or providing TOP GRADE Palliative Care and allowing nature to take its course. This sentiment extends to all ages where the persons suffering terminal or high morbidity disease have pre-existing conditions which preclude any expectation of a normal independent enjoyable life.

In 12 years working in the Health Care sector I have seen what I consider incomprehensible cruelty in attempts - sometimes successful, sometimes not, to keep patients alive where there is absolutely no quality of life to be expected.

At both ends of the spectrum - very old and very young, two incidents come to mind:

The old gentleman, mid-eighties with advancing dementia admitted with gut obstruction which turned out to be advanced cancer. He survived surgery, having a colostomy performed, spent couple days in ICU then transferred to Surgical Ward. Two days later he suffered cardiac arrest whereupon staff at the time decided to resusitate him. In the proceedings several ribs and his sternum were fractured but the heros did manage to get his heart started, whereupon he was returned to ICU, where he passed away 2 days later.
Then the young child, 3, nearly 4, born with multiple defects who was unable to move, speak, swallow (tube fed directly into his stomach) and seemingly zero cognition admitted with severe pneumonia, treated extremely vigorously over 2 weeks including ventilation (life support) and survived. What a victory! Fortunately he died about 18 months later from another bout, releasing him from misery, freeing his unfortunate parents and taxpayer dollars for more hopeful causes.

Then there are incidents where others have died, where mostly a good outcome would be anticipated, because treatment was delayed or refused. Often because of shortfalls in funding.

Protocols in medicine and law that indictate when so-called 'passive euthanasia' is appropriate need to be established and made public.

Also the wishes of the patient if he or she do not wish to be treated or resuscitated MUST be repected.
Posted by divine_msn, Saturday, 29 May 2010 10:09:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How did discussion of voluntary euthanasia turn into forced death camps for the elderly and Soylent Green?"

Because the article is not about Voluntary Euthanasia. Its about declining health care to the elderly without their consent. Please read the following quote from Mr Holden.

"What if we all knew that, by law, after the age of 80 years,there will be no intensive care available? "

The issue is not all about money - its about looking after our elderly of which Mr Holden is one.

After all its the elderly who are expending their OWN money in previously paid taxes, not as people seem to think, using other peoples money. Why is their life worth less anyway? We keep some people in care their entire lives.

Do we start eliminating all the unhealthy? It would be the thin edge of the wedge if Mr Holden gets his way.

The author won't cut down an eighty year old tree but wants to deny 80 yr old humans health care. Madness.
Posted by Atman, Saturday, 29 May 2010 10:28:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Brian Holden considers it reasonable to state that too many people have lived too long,
is it reasonable for me to suggest that Brian Holden has lived too long?
Posted by Proxy, Saturday, 29 May 2010 11:05:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree totally divine, but you'll have trouble getting it through the bleeding hearts.

There should be no consideration of transplants, at public expense, with us old farts, particularly once we've had our 3 score, plus 10.

The cost of health care will become a burden the tax payer can't afford, as more & more exotic & expensive treatments are developed. Extreme treatments are going to have to be limited to those who have the most to gain, that is the young, [& probably the useful].
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 30 May 2010 2:13:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In all this mealy-mouthed discussion about getting rid of the unfit, is it possible to clarify something:

a) Suicide, an act of desperation but one of personal autonomy, should be legalised: people should be able to end their days - their only days - if they wish;

b) Murder, the act of killing somebody else or allowing them to die when it is possible to save them, is and should be illegal.

As a Marxist and an atheist, I am puzzled why anybody who claims to be left-wing in any way should condone the killing of other people, no matter what sort of garbage reason they can come up with. We each have one life, that's all, no after-life, one brief flash of light in between eternities. We don't go to heaven afterwards, we don't get a second go at it. One life, that's it.

Personal wills and voluntary euthanasia - if they can be managed, that's fine. But so often, the discussion degenerates into the killing of people who are too insensate to kill themselves, or who haven't clearly expressed such a desire - implicitly (and sometimes, from the above, not so implicitly) this is passed off as 'for the good of society' in some way.

Get something straight - it's not your call. It's up to the individual, and her/his autonomy, his/her right alone to make that decision. After all, it will be the last one they ever make and then - nothing. Forever.

And BTW, if someone does feel depressed enough to want to top themselves, surely there should be counsellors available to talk them through it all.

Death is not the answer: choose life - I've always thought, in my naive way, that that was the left-wing position. As a Marxist, I believe that's all there is, a short life, hopefully one which has made a contribution to our fellow humans, but then it's over. Don't rush us all off to Soylent Green just yet.
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 30 May 2010 8:24:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Atman

"death camps for the elderly" is just the 'hard' statement of "Rationing healthcare" which is the soft version.

Does it really matter if you are in a death camp where a doctor says "work" or.."Selected" (with the ominous implications of the latter?)
OR
if you are in a hospital and a doctor mutters under his breath "Hmm.. better let this one go..too old"?
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 30 May 2010 8:25:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two “standouts” on this thread I would like to endorse.

Loudmouth, well said, “You obscene b@stards.”

Proxy, I agree, Brian Holden should lead by example.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 30 May 2010 9:21:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many ex gov. ministers & bureaucrats definitely manage to prolong their fleecing the public purse purely through not having to half-wreck their bodies over 40 years..
Posted by individual, Sunday, 30 May 2010 9:25:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks divine_msn. I have been reading the posts waiting for one from somone who had a clear head.

The Department of Community Services is so underfunded that all evidence of child abuse can no longer be followed up. The abused child then has 70 years of psychological problems ahead of him.

If we had the money to spare for the intensive care of the over 80s, then that is OK. But we don't.
Posted by Brian Holden, Sunday, 30 May 2010 9:44:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At 79 I have long supported voluntary euthanasia. It is, I believe , my right to determine what I wish to do with my life and/or death. I have been responsible for making decisions throughout my adult life, as is expected of all citizens. Allow me to continue to do so, legally.
Posted by C'est Moi, Sunday, 30 May 2010 9:45:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower,

Supposing my child had a serious illness. Supposing further there existed a drug that had a 50% chance of prolonging my child's life by one year.

Unfortunately the cost of one course of treatment with that drug was $10 billon – which is more than the entire budget of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). This is not a result of price gouging by a mean drug company. This reflects the actual cost of manufacturing this drug.

I would think it a bargain. If I had $10 billion I would willingly spend it on a 50% shot at giving my child an extra year of life.

But I don't have $10 billion. Would you seriously expect the Australian taxpayers to stump up the money?

Of course not. I would be told that was impossible.

On the other hand if the cost of treatment was $1 it becomes a no brainer.

So somewhere between $1 and $10 billion lies the maximum we would be prepared to spend per patient to give them a shot at an extra year of life. Unless healthcare reformers are prepared to discuss these sorts of numbers – it need not be the same for every class of patient – we shall get nowhere.

Resources are not infinite. Money devoted to very expensive treatments is not available for primary health care, the creation of jobs or better education.

Yes I agree that there are many built in inefficiencies. We could get more "bang for our healthcare buck" and that would alleviate the problems.

But, in the end, we have to decide what is cost effective and how much we are prepared to spend. Emotive arguments about "death camps" etc won't cut it.

Richie10 asks why I need the approval of society to kill myself.

If I start dementing then, absent positive euthanasia, I shall have to kill myself early on in the process.I cannot take the chance of losing my wits so rapidly that I lose the ability to form the intention.

The absence of positive euthanasia may thus end up depriving me of years of life.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 30 May 2010 9:50:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C'est moi,

Yes ! That is called suicide, the right to take one's own life, and of course it should be legal. But the right of someone else to take your life, when you are incapable of doing so, or of knowing that it is actually happening - No !

So how is 'positive euthanasia' (stevenlmeyer) different from murder ? My advice, steven, would be to do it yourself, while you have the wits. It would be an expression of your personal autonomy, your last actually. Nobody else has that right over your life.

As to whether doctors or nurses can let someone slip away - a sort of passive euthanasia - by turning off the machines, that would really be a different kettle of fish. As long as there is no medication to deliberately shorten a life, or pillows over the head, etc., if there is genuinely nothing more that doctors can do, then yes, people should be allowed to slip away. But that certainly does not seem to be what many contributors to this thread are advocating as the limiting factor to their definition of euthanasia.

Suicide, yes - euthanasia, no.
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 30 May 2010 10:26:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My 85yo uncle just had open heart surgery after an otherwise long, healthy and productive but frugal life during which he paid health insurance with little claim.
Should all those years of contribution be denied when he needed to collect?
If so, what incentive to contribute to the collective welfare?
If not, what of those whose contributions fell short of their claims?

The world that Brian Holden is proposing is monstrous.
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 30 May 2010 1:34:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Brian's watched 'Logan's Run' one time too many.

This is exactly why, despite agreeing with voluntary euthenasia in principle, I have a lot of problems with enshrining it in law. If you work in aged care, you soon see too many families who'd just as soon bump Grandma off, because it's just too 'hard', impacts too much on their lifestyle, and is too much of a drain on their inheritance, to keep the selfish old bat alive for a few more years.
Posted by Clownfish, Sunday, 30 May 2010 1:38:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This may be a newsflash for some people but the medical profession in this country is already rationing medical resources in our public hospitals and practising a form of euthanasia, and despite the peception that most people probably glean from watching too many American medical dramas those in a brain dead state or given no chance of ultimately surviving are not forced to be connected to life support systems. The next of kin are routinely given a choice in these matters.
Posted by snakeplishken, Sunday, 30 May 2010 2:07:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish,

I'm sure that none of those unsavoury thoughts have ever entered anybody's head - that their support for the euthanasia of others is entirely altruistic ;)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 30 May 2010 2:08:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note Brian will only answer his supporters but has no answer to his critics.

This is clearly the thin end of the wedge for extermination of undesirables masked as the the considered opinion of a nature loving hippie.

I will reiterate -

The elderly have already PAID for their health care. They are using their OWN money
Posted by Atman, Sunday, 30 May 2010 2:11:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks to all for many insightful posts and again, tough questions all round. Now no-one's looked at the human guinea-pig factor with new medical advancements that can be derived from our sick and aged. Lab animals can give us only so much when it come to the sciences and where would the pharmaceutical company's be with-out the terminally ill to test upon?

The sick and dieing do still have their purpose for aiding the better haft of our human populations, with all the humanity mustard one can do in this day and age.

So there's a bright side to your demise, only if you choose.

TTM.
Posted by think than move, Sunday, 30 May 2010 2:11:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think I need to clarify my own position here.

I am NOT endorsing "80 and out". The tragic tale of the man in Mumbai is a red herring.

--I am calling for some realism about what it is possible to achieve technically AND financially.

--I am also saying that in some cases "passive euthanasia" – pulling out the feeding tube – is unbelievably cruel.

--Finally I think dementia sufferers are effectively brain dead long before the EEG flatlines. Certainly by then anything that made them human is long gone.

Proxy,

In the case of your 85 year old uncle of course he should have his surgery. If the company accepted his premiums they have to pay up once he claims.

What is more, if the prognosis was reasonable I think he should get his surgery even in a public hospital if he did not have private cover. In any event open heart surgery is hardly constitutes "heroic" treatment these days.

Clownfish

The person who makes life and death decisions in regard to someone who is incapable of looking after themselves should have no financial interest in the outcome. What we need is a system of court appointed neutral curators.

That was where I had a problem with the Terri Schiavo case. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

The husband who wanted to pull the plug on his wife had a financial interest in the outcome.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 30 May 2010 2:21:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman,
I totally agree.
Extremely sad to think that our elderly would be denied medical care just because of their age.

Proxy,
I hope your uncle will be able to enjoy life for quite a few more years.
As I said, my Grandmother had radiation therapy and a masectomy when she was 82 and lived a very enjoyable and healthy life until she died at 93. The expenses of the cancer treatment were totally worth the extra 11 years she got to live that wonderful life of her’s!

Loudmouth and Clownfish,
If you think that in countries with euthanasia laws in place, it is even possible for a family to bump off Grandma, then you are hugely misinformed.
Have you read my previous posts and you should do some research about what voluntary euthanasia entails.

Excellent post, Stevenlmeyer.
Re dementia sufferers, I would have a problem with euthanasing them because it would be involuntary, unless laws are in place that would have enabled them to make these arrangements while they were still in good mental health.

I can only support voluntary euthanasia at this stage, but it is reasonable to think about exceptions, like dementia sufferers who also suffer from a painful and incurable illness… In that case, some thought can be given to neutral curators, and a team of medical professional staff, while closest of sin’s view could be taken into account to be able to form a complete picture.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 30 May 2010 3:41:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian
Euthanasia aside for a moment.

Re-reading the paragraph about intensive care, I don't believe that a desperate funding shortfall in one area, like community care (child protection) should be plugged by transferring funding from another area equally relevant to quality of life issues. IMO age should not diminish one's rights and we should respect those older Australians who have done much to build this country. While I advocate voluntary euthanasia under stringent conditions I would hate to see a situation where people are made to feel guilty just for getting old and for needing care. My mother always said respect your elders.

If you are concerned about child protection issues, there are so many more areas of waste that can be re-prioritised. Why select age care specifically? Who are we to draw the line on when care should be withheld.

Wouldn't you rather our decision makers channel more money into those areas that enhance quality of life rather than wasting it on over-quoted school halls and insulation debacles. It will also create long standing jobs rather than those that flux with the rise and fall of the building sector, which is good for the retail sector as well.

There is a difference between voluntary euthanasia and shifting funding priorities from older Australians as a matter of policy. As another poster said these older Australians have paid their health care costs all their lives generally much of it will be used for those the older age group who generally require more care.

The key is sustainable populations, if we keep growing populations to offset the cost of care to older Australians, we just continue to exacerbate the problem in each generation. The government line about care for an ageing population is bogus in any case, it is purely being pushed in the interests of economic growth and profit creation.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 30 May 2010 4:08:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What this article is about is piggy-backing the euthanasia debate to push some very strange opinions. The author lends support to the campaign of intergenerational jealousy successfully waged by both sides of government to divert attention away from their own lack of planning, poor spending decisions and some lousy policy, two examples being:

- The invasion of Iraq. Australia's military expeditions alone have been enormously costly both to the budget and to international reputation; and

- The continuing failures in Aboriginal policy. Devastating for the public purse ever since the Whitlam government multiplied the windfalls in guvvy money for the consultants, fraudsters and crooks, both black and white, that are endemic in the victim industry.

Is the author out to support voluntary euthanasia? No siree, he has other balls in the air that are far more important to him that that. Bin the aged and put the 'saved' dough into his flakey social policies.

That is a pity because what this article does is poison the water for ernest and caring supporters of voluntary euthanasia like Robin Chapple who introduced his Voluntary Euthanasia Bill into the Western Australia parliament last Thursday:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/western-australias-euthanasia-bill-paves-way-for-legalised-euthanasia-in-the-state/story-e6frer4f-1225869523980
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 30 May 2010 4:14:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia, you have obviously never met an elderly person who is basically pressured to feel like they'd be better off shuffling off this mortal coil, rather than continue to be a 'burden' to their families.
Posted by Clownfish, Sunday, 30 May 2010 6:39:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is common to read reports of old people saying they are being treated so abominably they wish they were dead.

The treatment of old people in Australia is a national disgrace. The following report has become increasingly common. These were the young children of the Depression and the adults who suffered through WW2:

Unfed and unwashed: Nursing home residents 'living in hell'
By Rosie Squires, The Sunday Telegraph May 30, 2010

'Elderly patients in nursing homes are being fed cold and inedible food, left sitting in urine and faeces and subjected to cruel and at times inhumane treatment from overworked and underresourced carers.

The Sunday Telegraph worked undercover inside two metropolitan nursing homes for three weeks and found that some of Sydney's most vulnerable citizens are being mistreated and left to die inside sterile, cold and smelly aged-care facilities.

The high-care homes - run by Bupa Care Services and Domain Principal Group and overseen by the federal Government - advertise superior aged-care offering personal support and respect for the elderly.

However, many miserable, despondent and desperately lonely residents, who pay 85 per cent of their $671.90 fortnightly pension, live in often despicable conditions and are treated with disrespect. Frail but mentally sound residents talked about being "scared", "lonely" and "waiting to die"...'

http://www.news.com.au/national/unfed-and-unwashed-nursing-home-residents-living-in-hell/story-e6frfkvr-1225872968031

Hmmm, obviously one doesn't have to go to Mumbai for confronting sights. Still, these old buggers are a burden to some and they had no right to live past 50, or was that 41 or 36? Hold on, wasn't a terminal age of 18 also mentioned?
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 30 May 2010 8:28:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear serf,

An assessment by the Productivity Office has determined that your treatment is not economically justified ,and consequent to the provisions of the Working For Health Act, no treatment can be offered to you. This leaves you with the options of becoming a beggar or checking out.

Becoming a beggar, an option chosen by many, has become more difficult due to the recent economic downturn. Whilst recent measures by the Department of Population Growth are expected to bring great improvement soon - including the One Dozen for the Country compulsory fertility program, Migration Three Million program, and the introduction of public flogging for contraceptive trafficking- it is unlikely that the improvement will come in time to save you from starvation. In light of this I would recommend to you the option of checking out.

The Checkout Free with Zyklon B initiative is still available, but the program will close soon. Under this option you can die peacefully with other patriots by choking on your own vomit in the Dying for a Better Australia communal shower. When the program ends you will still be able to participate in the Take Lead for Australia initiative, but a ballistics charge will apply for this option if negotiations with charities are unsuccessful.

A list of testimonials has been included to help you make an informed decision.

Best wishes.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 30 May 2010 9:16:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Productivity Office,
Attention: Fester,
I am interested in your kind offer but I require more information before making my final decision.
Please forward the list of testimonials as it seems to have been inadvertently omitted from your communication.
This will help me to make a more informed choice.
Yours sincerely,
Serf Proxy.
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 30 May 2010 9:40:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Proxy,

All participants in national improvement programs are issued with post participation surveys. These will be forwarded to you when available, but I can assure you that I have generally found participants to be favourably disposed towards the program.

Regards,

Fester
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 30 May 2010 11:21:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do Your Family Tree and see what averages fit in your jeanes. My family tree blows his averages to hell with a big bang. That is why you never build anything to last using averages as they tend to err on the side of the unproductive which is a poor principle to build a future on.
Posted by Richie 10, Monday, 31 May 2010 3:48:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FESTER...that was hilarious :) please contribute more more more!
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 31 May 2010 6:05:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good work, Bryan
As an oldie who has recently been to a palliative care ward, I wish to advise you that there is solution that you may like to follow up.
The Sydney South West area of NSW Health has a planning program called "Advance Care Planning Program" on a website at www.mywishes.org.au.
If you are interested, you complete the forms from this site.
The forms would be completed while you are capable of rational decisions and they give you the option of asking the medical staff at a hospital to refrain from giving you intensive care that would leave you as a vegetable in a nursing home.
The effect is that you would be given any necessary pain relief, but not intensive care.
This program was recommended by a senior doctor and I trust that it will relieve the pressure on the staff to keep you alive at all costs.
Good luck with this program.
Posted by Harrell, Monday, 31 May 2010 11:50:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hope you lot know, that to enter a nursing home and you own your own
house the government takes that away from you. So bugger your family
you cop the bill for care.

I know that it is a well known fact, that doctors will sometimes put
chronically and irretrievable patients kindly out of their misery.
Just a little bit more morphine for 'pain'.

Just be careful what you wish for though. There was this Austrian guy
who put to sleep disabled people with no compunction at all. Then started on other degenerates. Even that great old Winston Churchill once said, he felt all mentally defective people should be sterilized. So they didn't pass on their defective genes to the next generation.

Nursing homes are the last resort if there are no relatives left to
care for them. Or willing to care for them. A undignified way to
end ones days. If there is absolutely no chance of recovery then
why not? But recall that people in comas can miraculously recover
after years in a comatose state when doctors didn't want to pull the plug.

Some sense here, there should be an 'out' option. Provided it is made when still conscious of the decision. And not forced on one by zealous rellies who want your estate before all pleasure in life is
gone.
Posted by Bush bunny, Monday, 31 May 2010 2:50:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushy, my mother is now in a nursing hpme, a very good one, since I can no longer handle her care.

She told centrelink that she lived in her own self contained granny flat, which she did, except it is an extension of my home. As a "home owner" she is deemed to have assets above the threshold to require an accommodation charge, as well as fees.

They are paid $541.10 per fortnight fees, from her pension, & I pay the $350.70 accommodation charge the government pick up, if the person has no assets.

I am assured we will get this problem sorted out soon, which I don't expect to be any quicker than sorting out the Queensland health pay fiasco. It may be a while.

Even if it were hers, we could hardly sell part of the house to recoup the money, & even if I wanted to, I could rent out the granny flat, as it is not registered for rental. From what I see of councils, it would probably cost more in fees to get it registered than it would be worth anyway.

I do believe that the elderly should use some of their assets for their support. It is not a function of the tax payer to preserve pensioners assets, so they can be passed to their childrem, but it would be nice if our public servants could get something right, just now & then.

I am disapointed in myself for doing it, but I can't help hoping that these public servants get treated with the same inefficiency, we are recieving, in their old age.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 31 May 2010 4:26:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, I am sorry to hear this. Similar situations happen in UK, even worse. However, a friends mother, transferred all her home to her daughters years before she went into a nursing home.

However, if you don't have assets you only surrender 2/3 of your pension in Australia.

With home care etc., it does cost of course. My mother was 90 1/2 when she died. I was receiving a carer pension for her before this, but non live in. She contracted Acute Myoblastic leukaemia, and was given 2 weeks to live. I moved in to give care. I got help from the community nurses for the last four weeks, twice a week. Mind you she was a difficult lady, very inflexible. However, she died in my arms after 4 1/2 months, I don't regret it one bit. She refused transfusions etc., it was very distressing for me though. But better at home than in a nursing home. She was lucid to the end though, although she did argue with me about a desert spoon being a soup spoon. And the doctor told me they would help her on her way, if she was in too much pain, which she wasn't. But if I hadn't been there, what would she have done?
Posted by Bush bunny, Monday, 31 May 2010 4:58:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen: If she were to return to her granny flat, that $300 you pay would pay for home help and nursing in her own place? Have you thought
of that. If she has only a short time to live it might be worth thinking about. You could also claim a Carer's Pension, it is not means
tested. It's $700 per fortnight, plus you get lump sums once a year.
Posted by Bush bunny, Monday, 31 May 2010 5:04:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushy, thanks for the suggestions, but she is now 99, & totally bedridden. She can no longer stand, even to get into a wheel chair.

It's too much for me, & she needs better care than I can give.

I am very happy with her care, as she has got, physically, more healthy since going in there.

I just hope we can sort the money bit, before I go broke.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 31 May 2010 5:30:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,99! well - I suspect you aren't a spring chicken either? LOL
But best of luck and God Bless poor old mum, maybe she will live long
enough to get the Queen's telegram or is it the Governor General's in
Australia.

That's my share for today, keep well everyone. For as long as you want
too.
Posted by Bush bunny, Monday, 31 May 2010 7:26:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well written Fester. I am still chuckling.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 9:16:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The subject of euthanasia is a particularly hard one.
Who gets to decide?
It becomes more of a situation of human morals not necessarily based on any religious belief.
I agree that when a person becomes vegetative it may not be the right thing to keep them alive artificially but who decides the cutoff point?
I do believe in the idea of being able to decide for one's self.
Posted by Bethany, Thursday, 3 June 2010 5:08:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy