It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Assisted suicide for healthy elderly...

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackPoison94
 

Let the oldies live!

Why not? I think it is horrible that some people say OK kill them - wait til you r this old.

Don't you love your grandparents? And, if not - so what.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
I believe they would like to exit with some dignity. And jumping from the roof of the retirement home doesn't comply with their idea of dignity.


Ah thanks, shouldn't have.


I've heard that many people go overseas to commit assisted suicide - however only terminally ill people are in certain countries.

May I ask what would be a way to exit with some dignity? Such as overdoses? Restricting food or medication or something? Although by being healthy, many people would however decide that there is something to live for e.g. family and many people could be against for that reason.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


Maybe they don't want to kill themselves.

Uh oh, the years will creep up on you and YOU WILL BE OLD!!!!!

Unbelievable!!!!!



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by kawacat
reply to post by BlackPoison94
 

Let the oldies live!

Why not? I think it is horrible that some people say OK kill them - wait til you r this old.

Don't you love your grandparents? And, if not - so what.


I do love my grandparents. I'm not saying that go ahead, kill them for no reason but if they want to do, who are we to say no?

I don't think we have the right to decide for them. They're healthy, have a right state of mind, surely they can then decide for themselves.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by kawacat
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


Maybe they don't want to kill themselves.

Uh oh, the years will creep up on you and YOU WILL BE OLD!!!!!

Unbelievable!!!!!


YOU WILL BE OLD and maybe you will see yourself as a burden on your family who have to look after you. You may then ask them to assisst you with your suicide. and seeing as you are a burden on the family, who no longer have the time to care for you, they will assisst you with this moment of DIGNITY!



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Well OP, if you are REALLY for equality, why stop at the elderly?

Why not make it available to EVERYBODY? Or are some MORE equal than others? Are you advocating this to the elderly, because you feel that the elderly have nothing to offer the collective?

Hell, why not have it available to parents to decide whether or not their children should be assisted?

You know, equality?



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
it makes perfect sense... Geronticide is de facto just not de jure... the more you give people the option, the better... i wrote about this today on an overpopulation post... this was my view: : the simplest, most humane, most economical and
most beneficial way to go about this for the human race and the earth is to
introduce mandatory euthanasia at a certain age or even better when one's first
child or grandchild becomes a certain age and squew it so you're penalised for
having anything above two children... if you have no kids, you live as long as
you like BUT there are NO PENSIONS for anyone
the benefits of the latter being it will discourage people from having kids too
early as effectively, having a child starts your death clock ticking... many
people will not have children and the fact of the matter is that these are the
selfish people... who will die out and leave no genetic trace so after a few
generations, the human race should become more social and less self centred
which can only be a good thing.
you don't diminish the quantity of young, fit, healthy human beings but you UP
the ratio of those versus the old grazers...
it's not actually too hard a sell to the populace... your kids and your
offspring in general inherit a world that can support them much better if you
end your life when your quality of life is diminishing greatly anyway. You have
a definite end time, so it takes away the not knowing and the angst...
Economically it's a no-brainer... think of the health care costs, the pension
costs... let's face it... the two of those costs are what is and what are going
to cripple this global economy, with the populations of India and China getting
older, it's only going to get worse...
No parent would ever NOT lay down their life for their kids or their kids' kids.
Geronticide is de facto when resources get short and the economy falters... old
people suffer straight away anyway... health care and patients gets slashed
straight off so old people die anyway; if it's official and policy, it's much
more humane.
Two of my own grandparents who died in their 90's when i asked them about this
said theyd be all for it... both said that their quality of life after the age
of 85 hadn't been really worth it...
This will happen de facto or de jure.. it's the only logical conclusion to an
aging population and dwindling resources, especially with the economy going
where it has to go.
The only question is how grown up we can be as a species to realise the need
for a cull, the way to do it... because if we shirk our responsibility to our
offspring and our planet, the alternative is that the young will die through
war and/or disease...



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
im all for it; it should not be limited to elderly, it would benefit society. i wish it came to america; but then people would have to be more mindful of "infection".



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by kawacat
No-one has the right to say who will live and who will die.

No-one has the right to dictate to other people.

No-one has the right to wage war.

No-one has the right to cause starvation.


It sounds to me like you are a firm believer in Moral Absolutes.

The problem is that these moral "absolutes" actually come from your own perception of what is right and what is wrong. They seem like an "objective" collection of altruistic principles that would serve everyone on Earth well. They are based on inner beliefs and life experiences you have had. They are based on your perception of reality and your interaction with others.

What authority do you have to declare that these statements are moral obligations that humans beings ought to abide by? Why do you have this right to declare that nobody has the right to do those things you mentioned?

(Please do not take this as an attack on you personally. I am challenging the "moral absolute" stance of those statements and the level of "certainty" they seem to be based upon.)


[edit on 10/2/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Well OP, if you are REALLY for equality, why stop at the elderly?

Why not make it available to EVERYBODY? Or are some MORE equal than others? Are you advocating this to the elderly, because you feel that the elderly have nothing to offer the collective?


I sense that you are somewhat agitated by what i wrote but i think you base your judgment of my opinion on a misinterpretation.

I am for equality and if somebody has the right to get assisted suicide then everybody should have the right to assisted suicide...

that's all....

I am actually trying to get an idea of why elderly people are trying to get this legal...

Why do elderly people feel that life has nothing to offer anymore? Is it something that comes with getting older? Is it a sign of our times or is something we see all throughout history with old people....etc

Now go back and read the thread again and then post a reply that will help me understand instead of just typing up stupid things like...


Hell, why not have it available to parents to decide whether or not their children should be assisted?


That's murder. It fundamentally differs from assisted suicide...


Peace

[edit on 10-2-2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I can see where you're coming from, but I can see 2 problems.

1) If they are not ill, then why do they need assistance committing suicide? They should be perfectly capable of doing it themselves.

2) It does leave a bit of a door open for people to just "bump off" their elderly relatives for inherritance etc and claim that it was assisted suicide.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by nik1halo
I can see where you're coming from, but I can see 2 problems.


Thanks for your reply nik1halo. I can see a lot more then only two problems but let's adress these first...


1) If they are not ill, then why do they need assistance committing suicide? They should be perfectly capable of doing it themselves.


Like i said earlier, i think it would be because it will be less messy and more effective if you get a professional to assist you. Besides it would be done legally and thus not leave your family with the bills for funeral service etc. because the insurance won't cover it


2) It does leave a bit of a door open for people to just "bump off" their elderly relatives for inheritance etc and claim that it was assisted suicide.


Good point
. But i think the need for a professional to preform this act should remain. They will have talked with the person wanting to die and can assess if it is really done out of free will and for the right reasons.

Like Republic said, assisted suicide cool but under certain restrictions like a "think it over" period and some serious counseling.

Peace



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by nik1halo
I can see where you're coming from, but I can see 2 problems.

1) If they are not ill, then why do they need assistance committing suicide? They should be perfectly capable of doing it themselves.


Haha, I asked about that one as well.

And well for your second question - obviously there would have to be certain guidelines in order, that's for the government for decide. Maybe a consent from the person wanting to commit suicide and so on.

And yes - equality all the way.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nik1halo
I can see where you're coming from, but I can see 2 problems.

1) If they are not ill, then why do they need assistance committing suicide? They should be perfectly capable of doing it themselves.


While the thought is not a pleasant one either way, would you rather have 20 people have access to assisted suicide in a controlled manner or 20 people jump out of buildings, hang themselves, set themselves on fire etc.? Also think of the families having closure on the issue instead of worrying "why...what if". Remember the whole thing would be controlled and planned. Less likely for other people around the person to suffer physical and/or emotional harm because of some random variable that was unforeseen by the person wanting to die.


2) It does leave a bit of a door open for people to just "bump off" their elderly relatives for inherritance etc and claim that it was assisted suicide.


Fair observation but I'm sure there would be guidelines in place to avoid that. For instance, assisted suicide cannot be endorsed by anybody who is to gain from an inheritance if that person dies. All legal paperwork would need to be decided beforehand. And of course let us not forget that the individual themselves would have to give full consent before.

[edit on 10/2/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
as long as its open to all the people the government deems a citizen then its a great idea; could you imagine the mass suicide of people who disagree with policies, a new functioning body would stem in its place.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
should be available everywhere with walk-in branches at every corner, like post offices, no need for wars and diseases then

called "doors to heaven" or something




posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 


In that case they really should consider putting up one of these [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/519dff7c7ac779d5.jpg[/atsimg] on every city block....


But seriously, we should be concerned about elderly people wanting to have this right. Are they perhaps not getting the TLC that they deserve from the brats they raised. You know, the brats that seems to have convinced everybody, including them selfs, that money is the new religion and has the highest priority in life.....???

Peace

[edit on 10-2-2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Well thats a sticky issue. I think some form of counceling should be offered to the said people who are older without medical issues, because some of them may not be in there right mind at the moment. So that being said, if they got alot of counceling, and over the course of months still felt the same way, I think its there choice. It is their life.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


I vote we use them after they are gone-





posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
No government has the right nor the power to tell someone they have to live.

Assisted suicide should be available everywhere.



I'm in full agreement with poster 'brainwrek'

and I'd add to that that no member of the clergy has the right nor power to tell someone they must 'live'

Death is a choice. People don't need to explain their reasons to anyone else

Further, I'd like to see the Scandinavian Freeze Dry Burials method introduced asap

www.promessa.se...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join