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

"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.

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.

"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.

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?

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].