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.

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.

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..

"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.

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?

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!!)