Idk what the movement is called, or if there's any organized movement at all. I've been meeting a lot of people separately and randomly who in support of: implementing legislation to prohibit (life-dependent) medicine to an elderly person (over some predetermined year). So the theory is that old people (and we're talking old, old) don't provide anything to society currently. Medicine is evolving over time and the average lifespan is growing over time. So if they aren't contributing anything then why keep them alive and use our natural resources / medicinal resource, according to the theory. I asked them "Even if they're having a heartattack?" & most say yes because overpopulation, blah blah blah So it makes sense in theory, I just think it's a little crazy. But they say to think of it saving humanity and to leave emotion and personal connection out if it. Idk... I'd still say no
This is awful. It's just what the Nazis did all over again. Singling out a demographic that's not worthy to live and then not letting them live.
It's not the same method, they're not going to put all old people into concentration camps, but it's the same principle. Deciding based on a random factor who is worthy to live and who isn't. You shouldn't discriminate people based on age, as you shouldn't discriminate them because of colour, sex or religion.
In this country, and I would imagine most Western countries, it is not only illegal to assist the suicide of someone who is in agonising pain and is desparately pleaing to be let die, it is illegal to deny them life supporting 'care' even when they are begging to be denied it. Some doctors 'accidently' give their patients too much medication eg. painkillers, so they can slip away. I wonder from time to time, how parents feel about having brought someone into the world who will, if they don't die young from disease, violence, etc, have to go through the process of growing weaker and quite possibly the trauma of losing their mind to some extent, before dying a painful death, coughing up blood in a pile of their own shit or whatever. And it's forbidden for them to (virtually, relatively speaking) safely and painlessly opt out of this process. I think the answer is that most parents are too selfish to consider things like this before reproducing- although of course they will comfort themselves with all sorts of rationalisations- religion helps in this regard although its not indispensable.
It's easy for me to think now that I wouldn't want to be kept alive if I didn't have much to offer. When I'm actually there it's hard to say what I'd wish. I will admit the idea you presented does have its roots into me. The best I can think of is it being the spirit of the selfish child that remains within us well into adulthood. One question to ask is what's this society that the elderly no longer contribute to? The society that allows younger people to do fun things? The society of making some persons bank account bigger? I'm thinking a big reason for movements like this is parents and children failing to have a proper talk about later life care. Seeing my own parents get older I know full well there's talks we need to have.
A few things: On a side note, I wouldn't want to live that age of not being able to physically contribute anything bc I don't want to be that old. Being that old would be a living nightmare, I think 80 at the absolute latest but before then probably. I would like to move on "has it's roots into me" whay does this mean? Does it mean attention grabbing? Related to you? Just curious I don't really believe in this theory, I just brought it into questioning. Also I think it would be terrifying for a person that, for whatever reason, wants to live to be really old when they turn that cutoff age. Also, I think they meant more that old people can't physically contribute anything and they take up natural,medical, food sources that should be preserved for humanity. But then you challenge that to which route is saving "humanity" in the long run. Not just that they're retired. I plan to retire mad early (I'm saving up now) and not contribute much from that point except family and stuff like that. Lastly, your last paragraph is mad sketchy bro
That would include a bunch more people then just the elderly. Kids, disabled people, people who are non functioning addicts, unemployed people. The list is long. Also, have you considered the economic impact of not caring for them. Huge reductions in nursing jobs, care taker jobs, whole industries that serve geriatric needs in the categories of food, clothing, medical devices. Those same industries that lengthen their lives puts food on the table for millions of young people. As a general rule I am not in favor of any more legislation. People dont need top down laws to handle end of life or near end of life care decisions. With laws that radical there would be millions of people that just wouldnt comply, then what? Put them in jail and make even more unproductive individuals dependent on society?
Kids round here are useless I can tell you that much. Not only can they barely do anything for themselves, but despite having been in this country for a couple of years in some cases, they still can barely speak a word of English. They've got fuck all muscle mass too. Pussies.
