39 ms·

I looked for that also and there was no mention. There's no doubt that if that was actually his father's expressed wish he would have featured that prominently

I looked for that also and there was no mention. There's no doubt that if that was actually his father's expressed wish he would have featured that prominently in his article. What he does state is: > I'd like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some dignity. But my government says I can't make that decision. Neither can his doctors. He also points out early in the article that there are financial considerations: > His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of perpetual suffering.

VLM 13y ago
"He also points out early in the article that there are financial considerations: > His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of perpetual suffering." Now you understand the reason for opposition to euthanasia. The purpose of government is to keep the rich, rich, and the poor, poor. Emptying his estate into the medical industrial complex is not an incidental side effect, but the sole purpose of its existence. You want to see pet (dog/cat) vet assisted euthanasia made illegal? Implement pet health insurance. Try it and see.
- mgkimsal 13y ago
  Pet health insurance does exist, just isn't widespread. re: "medical industrial complex" Right now, some arguments against euthanasia center on the heirs bumping someone off early to keep their estate. We rarely hear the opposite view which you so cynically bring up - it's in the financial interest of many megacompanies that we continue the practice of prolonging life at all costs.
- Xdes 13y ago
  That's quite a conspiracy you have there.
  - VLM 13y ago
    Politicians aligning laws to maximize corporate profits is not exactly unheard of...