We are being told by various politicians, our Welfare bill is increasing exponentially, and one of the reasons given is we're all living longer ? Someone recently inferred, there'll come a time soon, when the number of people receiving some sort of welfare, will eclipse the number of taxpayers who are financially supporting that welfare ? Should we be worried about that ?

Will there come a time when some radical measures need to be introduced, in order to correct this fiscal disparity ? One such proposition I've heard;

When an individual attains a certain chronological age (eg. seventy?) and medical records reveal, that person hasn't enjoyed good health for some considerable period of time. Therefore it should be mandated he or she is required to appear before a medical assessment tribunal. Comprising of a physician, psychiatrist and a gerontologist for the purpose of determining whether that individual should be permitted to continue to receive government welfare for a further 12 months ? Provided that person is found to be sufficiently well enough, NOT to become a financial burden on society, welfare should be extended for another period, not exceeding 12 months, when another annually mandated assessment is required.

However if that person's health is concluded to be so inferior, and the treatment thereof so expensive, to the point of being completely unreasonable, then the tribunal must immediately cease any further welfare payments to that individual. Should that happen, that person must fund any further medical care and personal subsistence they may require in the future, entirely from private means.

The only other option available to such an individual, who finds themselves in such an invidious position, and unable to support their own medical care. Is to seek a government funded euthanasia combination that will allow them to painlessly, relinquish their life of agony and misery, at no cost to themselves. And in so doing, preserve their dignity in perpetuity.

Dear O Sung Wu,

You are contradicting yourself:

If they depend on the government for the euthanasia combination, then they already lost their dignity, so they may as well stay alive.

Anyway, once one appears before that tribunal they have also lost their dignity, but you failed to mention the penalty for not appearing!

All this shows why no medical records should be kept with the government. I certainly am going to opt out of this draconian scheme.

Oh dear O Sung Wu, what a dreadful scenario!
I am thinking of my parents in their mid 80's who are both still happily traveling and cruising, with no thought of euthanasia yet.

I would think that the day society considers non-voluntary euthanasia is the day the world should end.
Where would it all end?

If we agreed to the above conditions, it would only be a short step to also doing this with all welfare recipients, including mental and physical disabilities of all ages, smokers, drinkers, druggies, obese, too thin, and all people with any chronic disease or disability.

I guess it would help the population numbers, as there wouldn't be many people left standing!

o sung wu,

the philosophy of your scheme would of put Nick to death a along time ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKTg_INHgpc

My god, I hope you never get into politics.

If a person works and needs help in there older years you want to deny them that.
Go after the dole bludgers first, go after the welfare for lifers (in excess of 50,000 attributable to Labor alone), go after the people with millions of dollars in offshore accounts who are also on welfare.

Get rid of the useless public servants there is quite a few millions dollars to be saved there.
get rid of the politicians perks.

There are lots of wasted programs that need trimming.

Hi all...

Oh dear, a story re-told, is like 'Chinese whispers', full of inaccuracies ? OK, I'm sorry.

YUYUTSU, of course you're completely correct, I often contradict myself, in fact my entire existence, is one big contradiction ? That aside.

The proposition goes something like this ;

Once an individual reaches a certain age (established by legislation), that person must appear before a duly established 'Tribunal'. Thereat, their entire medical history is examined, and if a certain $ cost has be reached or exceeded, then that individual is given several options.

It should be noted herein: If that individual is found to be sufficiently healthy, and the total expenditure for health purposes, has not yet been reached or exceeded, that person shall continue to enjoy further payment of government benefits for a period not exceeding twelve months, whereupon another mandated examination is required ?

(i) If however an individual has exceeded that $ amount, all government welfare payments are to cease immediately. Thereafter the individual must sustain their own existence, until the natural expiration of their life. ALTERNATIVELY, that individual may elect to have a 'State Funded Euthanasia Package' (SFEP) with all costs, including the apposite disposal of that persons earthly remains. In all such cases, this expenditure is borne by government;

(iii) Should any person, without reasonable excuse, fail to attend such Tribunal when legally summoned in writing or, engage in conduct of a kind, calculated to deceive the Tribunal, that person shall be guilty of an offence pursuant to this Act. Furthermore as an economic imperative, all appellant rights in this section, are herewith extinguished.

A person who's been found guilty of an offence against any part of this Act, shall be punished, by Involuntary (painless) extirpation.