4 ms·
See this is where the hypotheticals go. Let's say your grandpa doesn't want to do the assisted suicide thing. Are you willing to "withdraw care" (the medical te
by hotpotamus 5y ago
See this is where the hypotheticals go. Let's say your grandpa doesn't want to do the assisted suicide thing. Are you willing to "withdraw care" (the medical term for when doctors kill people on purpose) or even take more active measures? I know the arithmetic is pretty obvious but as you say walking the walk is something different entirely.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoIf the question is would I want a significant share of society’s resources to not go towards extending the life of a 93 year old, then my answer is no. Of course, I would not want society to force anyone to accept assisted suicide (which would not really be suicide).
- hotpotamus 5y agoOk, what if we tell the grandparent that we'll take half of their expected costs for care and give that to their grandchildren's college funds if they go through with the suicide? Is that an acceptable compromise or horrible dystopian bargain? Basically it's the trolley problem in that there are endless hypotheticals you can construct to determine your values, but as I said it can get pretty distasteful.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI do not think it would be useful for a society to specifically allocate the resources saved by not extending a 90 year old’s life specifically to their grandkids. Society already triages resources for various populations. It is not like the government throws unlimited money at old people to get all the gold plated healthcare they need. It is allocated roughly based on how rich you are, with poor people getting less care via reduced Medicaid reimbursements and a million other ways to price discriminate recipients. If anything, this opaque maze of who does and does not get a share of society’s resources is worse than a transparent policy.