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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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