3 ms·
Well the quality of life improved greatly in the last 50 years, when I was younger people in their 60's and 70's were way older - both mentally and physically.
by libertine 6y ago
Well the quality of life improved greatly in the last 50 years, when I was younger people in their 60's and 70's were way older - both mentally and physically.
>Every one of them did not want medical intervention when their time came.
That's their choice, because they have something to chose from. I'm not saying that we should do everything to keep the age ticker ticking - I'm saying they should have the same rights as everyone else, and they should be free to make their choices.
Else, what would be the age threshold that would strip us from rights? Who would decided that?
- lotsofpulp 6y agoTo clarify, I’m specifically talking about very old people who I think should have the option to take or be given a cocktail and go peacefully, rather than continue to live in a painful state that ties up everyone around them. For example, my grandparent that lost their kidneys at 93, they continued to live through dialysis for a couple years, but if they were offered assisted suicide, they would have taken it. They would not have had to suffer through dialysis, the country could have invested those funds elsewhere, and my parents would have been free to do other things. But right now, a 93 year old with kidney failure would not qualify for assisted suicide in most states, maybe not even the ones with assisted suicide. What I also meant was that in decades prior to recent ones, there were no possibilities to extend someone’s life for weeks/months/years with things like dialysis, artificial lungs, etc. So there’s a lot more resources that can be spent on extending someone’s life compared to before. Whether or not society should refuse to treat a 93 year old with dialysis is a question I am not able to address right now.