Ok Boomers and euthenasia

[Backinthecloset123]

I'm in NZ where a bill has just been passed to have a referendum on euthinasia/assisted dying. This will take place next year.

I have always been a firm advocate....until now. As one of the last baby boomers I'm aware that our numbers are starting to peak in elder care and resources, and will continue to peak for quite a few years.

My issue is, will euthenasia be embraced by the woke in a similar way that gender/queer/trans issues have?

Will, or could, many non boomers think of us boomers the same way they think of te*fs? (non rationally). Could it get out of hand as trans ideology has?

I'm blown away how quickly queer Theory entailed rationality went out the window, and can see the same possibly happening in other areas including assisted dying.

Strange times.

After reading about euthanasia in Holland I hope the bill doesn't pass. People there are, allowed to use it just because they're depressed, a victim of sex abuse or because they're on the Autistic spectrum. The numbers there are awful.

SirChing please do not make assumptions - I am not a baby boomer and I have a child with additional needs, I have always been against euthanasia. The posters here are not necessarily the same ones who responded insensitively and dismissively to you, they just happen to be responding to this thread.

No, I see SirChing's point.

The point that the OP is making is a very deep one.

What happens if 'assisted dying' becomes as commonplace as 'changing sex' seems to be becoming?

The fact that euthanasia is such a fraught issue that raises such high emotions shows that there are ethical, moral and deeply human issues about the end of life. It is something that we all fear unless we are completely out of touch with our feelings. That this debate happens at all shows that there is something very special about human life.

When euthanasia becomes as accepted and commonplace as putting down a dog as one pp suggested then we are into a whole realm of problems.

It will change the whole consciousness around the value of human life and it may well become entirely acceptable that someone has no choice but to submit to 'assisted dying' if their savings have run out or if their disability stops them from working.

Most people will be able to live much of their lives pretending that nothing has happened. All of this 'assisted dying' will take place behind closed doors while most of us are watching television etc.

But the clock will be ticking for all of us - and who knows how casually state-licensed 'euthanasiaists' will end our lives if we should, for some reason, fall under their jurisdiction? Whether we want them to or not.

Yet people who are obviously raising this issue, like Sirching, are being told that this will never happen.

Now, where have I heard that before?

SirChing

Though I agree with Arella - this has morphed from what was originally a slightly daft opening (that a silly internet meme would lead to euthenasia) to a more general discussion.

I have doubts about euthenasia because of cases like yours (and the targeting of people with depression, and the imbalance between the sexes in uptake which I think is a clear indicator that external pressure is acting on those who "choose" to end their lives).

It's certainly not the case that I've suddenly thought "might happen to me, time for a rethink."

And it's another case where the media is selective about the cases it covers: the person with MND who doesn't want their spouse prosecuted for taking them to Switzerland, or the young Paralympian with the degenerative condition. Often (the Guardian and BBC are guilty of this) opposition is portrayed as a purely religious thing. So it takes people a while to think through for themselves the downsides, because these aren't given a fair hearing.

Yet people who are obviously raising this issue, like Sirching, are being told that this will never happen.

Now, where have I heard that before?

I thought that too, especially as I typed my comment about how one-sided news coverage was.

I strongly disagree that the risks are not given airtime, UK coverage often focuses on the risks, eg social pressure to die, and rarely takes a religious angle IMO. IMO it glosses over the issue of palliative care - even the very best- not alleviating pain and distressing symptoms.

IMO the MND cases are covered because those people and families are at the sharp end, it takes away mobility and has horrendous symptoms, it’s one of the most obvious, clearest cut cases, so perhaps those people and their families most likely to lobby.

Of course I'm thinking about it more as I age - because I've watched people die and there was nothing uplifting about it. If palliative care had kept up with other advances in medicine then maybe I would change my view but, from what I've seen, it's hit and miss at best. I never see this discussed anywhere.

Euthanasia has been a subject of discussion throughout the 20th century and probably before that. It's not new.

Obviously there are insidious links to killing undesirables, but that sought to obfuscate the serious issue of a personal desire to end one's life before it descends into the loss of anything being recognisably functional as a human being.

I think it's the measure of a civilised society to have provision for it.

Consequently, I cannot understand the argument that there may be some people who are threatened because of their relatives. The majority of those seeking to end their life do so in a peaceful manner surrounded by their loved ones, or not if they so choose.

Every controversial medical intervention is open to misuse, that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, for example abortion.

In regards to it being dangerous to women, I dispute this. The majority of residents in care homes are women. They are kept alive by a cocktail of drugs and nearly all of them have a DNR certificate. It is more profitable this way.

@Loopytiles - that kind of proves the point though. By saying that people with MND are some of the "clearest cut" cases, what happens (if euthanasia is legalised) to those with MND who DON'T want to die like that?

Does funding for palliative care dry up because people haven't taken the "clearest cut" option? They are likely to already feel a burden on their family. This would put greater pressure on them.

If the Overton window shifts to allowing euthanasia as a way out, then you can bet your life that society will soon view it that those who choose to stay alive with be "selfish".

There has to be a greater emphasis on the currently woefully funded palliative care. No-one should be scared they will feel pressured into dying before their time.

Yes, palliative care is woefully funded but I think that's at least in part because we don't want to talk about why it's so badly needed. I could describe some of the things I've seen - and I'm sure a lot of posters could do the same - but I know people would find it distressing so I don't. The trouble is, that means I become part of the problem.

The pain consultant I was chatting to about it, said that in some countries, people are placed into an almost induced coma I think it was, so that they couldn't feel pain at the end. There was some legal reason why this couldn't happen here. But it seems far less harsh than either suffering or euthanasia.

I'm a late boomer. We're not all living in the land of milk and honey. Many of us have little or no pension provision beyond the state pension, are still paying mortgages and supporting our young adult children as best we can. We don't all have huge mortgage -free houses and can't always be the bank of mum and dad, no matter how much we might want to be.

We also have the problem that we are seen as unemployable, so when we get kicked out of our nice middle-management jobs because we're over 50 (and yes, that's a thing), we can't find other work because "too old". Even those of us who have kept up with new technology (cos it's really not that difficult is it, it was our generation that invented it) can't get past the filtering process at application. Governments talk at length about keeping older people working but HELLO you point me to a decent employer who overlooks age - there aren't any.

I want to be able to choose euthanasia when my life becomes too difficult. I may well be in good health at that point, but I don't want to eke out my days in poverty thanks. I want to be able to give an advance directive which will be acted upon should I lose my marbles and I want that to be the benchmark - no advance directive, no needle, for anyone.

And given that people with illnesses like dementia often have periods of lucidity at the start, what happens if they change their mind by the advance directive says otherwise? Forcible killing?

Also, anyone who doesn't want to live because of pension provision etc, does have the choice of non-assisted suicide. So why do people need euthanasia in those circumstances?

The pain consultant I was chatting to about it, said that in some countries, people are placed into an almost induced coma I think it was, so that they couldn't feel pain at the end. There was some legal reason why this couldn't happen here. But it seems far less harsh than either suffering or euthanasia.

You think being in an induced coma is an attractive option? Horses for courses but I would rather be dead rather than appear dead but not be. And like it or not economics come into it. There is no infinite fund of money in the healthcare system. I personally (note I said personally) would be deeply unhappy that my comatose body was occupying a hospital or nursing care facility bed while someone with a prospect of life was on a waiting list or a chair in A&E.

An induced coma would do me nicely. I have to admit, I had assumed that was what happened in most cases and it came as a shock to learn I was wrong.

I want to be able to choose euthanasia when my life becomes too difficult. I may well be in good health at that point, but I don't want to eke out my days in poverty thanks.

So, let me get this straight. You are advocating state-sponsored euthanasia for the poor?

Have you really thought this through?

Also, anyone who doesn't want to live because of pension provision etc, does have the choice of non-assisted suicide. So why do people need euthanasia in those circumstances?

I'd imagine part of it is that we don't generally know how to kill ourselves in a wholly effective way and with minimal trauma to ourselves (and to the person or people who may find us). If I could be given the appropriate means I'd be happy to make the decision about taking it and could tell those I wanted to tell that that was my intention. Euthenasia also allows for a framework which means you don't have to have an autopsy or investigation which you would if someone had just killed themselves at home.

@clitherow - surely a personal decision or preference is not the same as advocacy for a policy?

I don't see anyone advocating state sponsored euthanasia for the poor. For goodness sake, keep within the parameters of the argument!

Is the state funding abortions for the poor?

We are talking about changing the law to enable assisted dying. In countries with national health services, this means enabling doctors to help people to die. This is called euthanasia. The pp says that she would want help to die if she found herself in poverty.

In the Netherlands, doctors have helped young people with depression to die.

You need to think through the wider implications of what you are saying.

In fact, I wasn't clear enough. The NHS is irrelevant.

Any state that makes it legal to help people to die because they are poor are in breach of human rights. Period.

People with MND NOT wanting assisted dying would have that choice.

It seems clear cut, to me and other proponents of assisted dying for people with terminal illnesses, that there should be a choice. Others disagree.

It gets much more difficult IMO in other categories of cases, eg dementia, severe pain (I have a close relative in this situation due to musculoskeletal conditions, and recall the case overseas of the man who had been a victim of an acid attack) and severe mental health issues.

I don’t think potential, future risks need stop action to benefit a relatively small number of people with terminal illness such as MND.

Good palliative care, while important, doesn’t change the reality of living

This is a big deal blimey

*I want to be able to choose euthanasia when my life becomes too difficult. I may well be in good health at that point, but I don't want to eke out my days in poverty thanks.

So, let me get this straight. You are advocating state-sponsored euthanasia for the poor?
Have you really thought this through?

Are you hard of comprehension? That's a no. I don't want to live that way. I want the option of euthanasia. I want people to be able to choose. I don't want other people to decide that I should live a life that is intolerable.

Wrt changing ones mind from a decision made in lucidity to another made in dementia - that wouldn't apply wrt euthanasia - if you change your mind, you change your mind - no ifs or buts, no needle, no matter what your capacity.
Yes, I have thought this through. I want the same rights as animals.