Survival Of The Fittest
Are all lives worth the same, or is that one of those lies we tell ourselves? We usually have the luxury to treat all people like their lives are equally valuable -- but what if we don't? From an AP story:
Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won't get it in a flu pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding who to let die.Now, an influential group of physicians has drafted a grimly specific list of recommendations for which patients wouldn't be treated. They include the very elderly, seriously hurt trauma victims, severely burned patients and those with severe dementia.
The suggested list was compiled by a task force whose members come from prestigious universities, medical groups, the military and government agencies. They include the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The proposed guidelines are designed to be a blueprint for hospitals "so that everybody will be thinking in the same way'' when pandemic flu or another widespread health care disaster hits, said Dr. Asha Devereaux. She is a critical care specialist in San Diego and lead writer of the task force report.
The idea is to try to make sure that scarce resources -- including ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses -- are used in a uniform, objective way, task force members said.
..."If a mass casualty critical care event were to occur tomorrow, many people with clinical conditions that are survivable under usual health care system conditions may have to forgo life-sustaining interventions owing to deficiencies in supply or staffing,'' the report states.
The Constitution says "all men are created equal," but does this mean we tell ourselves that an old man in a nursing home who can no longer take care of himself should, in a heads-or-tails toss, be given a vaccine before the 26-year-old nursing student?
And, then, what about when there's no pandemic?
How about the way some fight to "save" the brain-dead, to keep them on life-support for years or decades? If your family has the cash to keep you alive as a turnip on a bed, and there's reason to believe you've always wanted to be a big, bed-ridden turnip, have at it. But, most likely, your care is going to come out of the health care dollars of the rest of us.
So...when is it "too expensive" to keep a vegetable "alive"? Should paying to keep the Terry Schiavos of the world "alive" be voluntary...as in, through the charitable contributions of those who believe in that sort of thing?
Finally, these days, developing fetuses that parents know (from testing) will never be autonomous human beings, and may be in for terrible suffering, are still brought into the world and kept alive with great effort from their parents, and often, at great expense (often or usually by the rest of us).
But, as for those who don't die terribly in childhood, but live on as parental dependents needing constant care and supervision throughout their lives...what happens when their parents grow old and can no provide that care and supervision (the subject of a story I read recently that I can no longer find)?
When, if ever, should pandemic logic apply?
Thanks, Flynne!
Hey, nobody has to wait for a pandemic. While everybody's whining about the price of gasoline and global warming, they should be thinking about global starvation.
Most of the world has been breeding with no thought but for the next opportunity to breed.
Radwaste at May 19, 2008 2:16 AM
Extend the question: what is the value of a human life? The person's potential lifetime earnings? The average lifetime earnings of people the same age? A flat amount: $100,000? $1,000,000? more? Answering this question in an objective fashion would be of tremendous benefit in medical decisions, in insurance, in tort reform and undoubtedly many other places.
Of course, if one has such standards, one must be willing to then apply them. In the event of a pandemic, will the hospitals really be able to fend off the teary relatives and let granny die, in return for saving the young, otherwise healthy person with no family? And should they? After all, a cold, impersonal application of objective standards is arguably just a bit inhuman.
Hard questions with no good answers...
bradley13 at May 19, 2008 4:06 AM
bradley13 there are good answers its just no one wants to hear them.
The fact is a young person in their prime is a better canidate for medical care than n old woman because it todays society we have written records and dont need to keep the infirm alive to glean their wisdom. And after a large scale pandenic, attack or natural disaeter who do you thin is going to help rebuild and repopulate
A menopausal bedridden geriatric or someone who can lift a 2x4 with out having to worry about brittle bones?
While all men may be created equal miliage does vary
lujlp at May 19, 2008 5:46 AM
While all men may be created equal miliage does vary
Ding ding ding! And lujlp wins the prize. With the caveat that while milage does vary, the color of money rarely does, and in this land of the Golden rule (you know, the ones with the gold make the rules), it seems to me, the bottom line will be who will be able to pay the most money to get the best health care. YMMV.
Flynne at May 19, 2008 6:15 AM
Unfortunatley I think Flynne is right, is the face of some major catastrofe you will seem good canidates for treatment turned away due to the rich thring to keep their infim alive.
And while I understand the impulse to keep those you care about alive, I must admit I never understood the rational behind many of this counrtys emergency response programs.
I mean face with exteinction level events how does it make any sense to preserve the octogenarians in congress while thos capable of having children are left to die?
lujlp at May 19, 2008 6:19 AM
I like the idea of hard-line criteria, and am especially fond of lujlp's "mileage does vary." I think additional criteria (that really already fits in with the existing criteria) would be, how much of a positive contribution is this person probably going to make to society? It doesn't matter how many people are still in the world that love the person. Love isn't necessarily logical. So, if you have the family black sheep, who's been convicted of six DUI's and has caused several accidents, never paid his/her taxes, can't hold down a stable job...yet they have 5 family members standing around crying about the potential death - well, too bad, the government isn't here to function for individual emotions. That person is likely to be a tax on society. So why would society - the taxpayers and the government itself - want to pay for that person to survive?
So, yeah, I think age, health, abilities, etc., should all come into play, I do like what's been put together, but I also think personal history of functionality within society should also come into play.
Jessica at May 19, 2008 6:20 AM
aND AMY HERE IS A STORY FOR YOU
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-02-28/news/one-mom-s-struggle-to-keep-her-son-alive-in-the-state-s-care-highlights-the-challenges-of-supporting-the-developmentally-disabled/full
woman has a kid who is born without a fully formed brain, needs half a dozen surgeries to prevent his death before he is a month old - the article is written from the prespective that the state isnt doing enough to provide for his needs.
I got into an exchange with the mans mother on the comments section - turns out both she and her husband sabatoged their careers to stay below the povery line to get funding for his needs (even though they already had other children)
lujlp at May 19, 2008 6:22 AM
But yes, I concur with Flynne and lujlp, money buys everything. However, I'm okay with that. If someone has the money to pay for whatever efforts to keep an individual alive, fine. It's not a burden on me as a taxpayer. I just don't want to pay for someone else who will be a drain on society anyway, someone that doesn't have the private funding. Unfair? Elitist? Perhaps. But I'm a capitalist, and it simply makes sense to me.
Jessica at May 19, 2008 6:24 AM
Here was our last exchange, I dont know if she thought I was being to harsh and refused to continue the argument but here was our last excahnge
>>: I took the time to read the comments (about "Arrested Development," Megan Irwin, February 28) and was taken aback by one ("Why should I have to pay for their care?" Letters, March 13). First off, Drew's parents had to stay at or below the poverty level for 18 years to have the Medicaid money needed to pay for the average of $100,000 year in medical expenses.
No insurance would touch our family even if we could find a company that would take us on. That meant my three sons and we two parents had to forgo medical care and a normal life all that time until my son became "a family unto himself," in Social Security terms. It doesn't matter what the expenses are in relation to the family income, only that the diagnosis be severe enough for the family to be at poverty level.
All those years that two college-educated professionals could not work in their career fields because it would put us over the income level [to get government assistance]. And, remember, no insurance would cover anyone in the family!
Second, we were not members of any church at all, so your comment about our religion making a difference in deciding to help Drew live was off the mark. It was our personal values and morality, and isn't that enough for a personal family decision?
Third, who would [the letter-writer] suggest make these life-and-death decisions?
If government money is not used for the support of those most vulnerable in society, most dependent and most unable to ever "pay their own way," then what is a government for? Oh, yeah, perhaps some people would rather all their taxes go for more bombs and weapons for the War of Terror.
I could have made a career and income to support myself, but instead I spent 28 years struggling to make ends meet. Now I face old age with no security at all. But then I made my choice.
Meanwhile, this family, consisting of myself and my three sons, does its best see that Drew is taken care of and survives each day. When I'm gone into the great beyond, I just hope that there is a government system that not only supports him, but does so with an adequate quality of life. It's looking grim out there, and it will get worse.
BJ with all due respect - bite me.
You made a You made a decision, why should I have to pay for it?
You were told in no uncertain terms exactly the kind of life Drew would have, in fact according to the article, you were told it would be worse.
Tell me did you mention in your interview that you and your husband deliberately sabotaged your careers to fraudulently get government assistance? Do you know how many men are in prison for sabotaging their careers and failing behind in child support? How is what you did different?
Ever think that had you worked, and had your family help out, you might have earned enough to provide for your sons care rather than relying on the tax payers? Do you know how close the country is to bankruptcy because of the war and moronic social welfare programs in this country?
You say your religion played no part because you don’t belong to a church, I never said church I said religion, and your comment about the great beyond shows you to have some sort of faith.
As to who should make such life and death decisions? The parents should, and guess what?
YOU DID. You made the decision, and then after you made the decision you made another one - let society pay for it. Its like had you smoked all your life knowing the dangers and then once you had cancer you expect the government to pay for your treatment, hoe is that fair?
So tell me how is it working out?
I know this sounds callous, hell it is callous, but what kind of life does your son have bouncing from home to home rarely seeing his family never in one place long enough to form relationships? That was the life YOU chose for him, not me, but you. And your upset with me because I would rather spend my money on my family rather than yours?
This wasn’t some horrible accident that happened to him later in life, something totally unexpected and unforeseen. It was a birth defect, one that would have caused, and one day will cause his death if not for constant medical intervention.
This is the life you chose for yourself, this is the life you chose for your family, this is the life YOU CHOSE for Drew. So again - why should I have to pay for your choice?
lujlp
lujlp at May 19, 2008 6:28 AM
Excellent, lujlp, and I heartily agree with you. My parents are retired. Dad had a strep infection in his leg last month and had to be hospitalized in order to treat it. 5 days in the hospital proper, 2 weeks in a rehab facility after that. Thank the gods my parents are responsible and have insurance. They will still have to pay a deductible and some other costs, and Dad was joking about having to sell some of his stocks to cover the rest of the costs (or was he?), but at least he was able to take of it, and he's doing very well. It was touch and go there for the first few days, and the possibilty of him losing his leg was there, but, as it turned out, unnecessary. If these people knew that Drew's life was going to change the quality of theirs, and they deliberately sabotaged their jobs to get government assistance, I have absolutely no respect for them whatsoever. They should be made to pay at least half of it back. The parents are college graduates? Lovely example to set for your children, you would have thought they would know better. It's that over-inflated sense of entitlement at work again. Sheesh.
Flynne at May 19, 2008 6:43 AM
Right on, lujlp!
bradley13 at May 19, 2008 6:45 AM
If government money is not used for the support of those most vulnerable in society, most dependent and most unable to ever "pay their own way," then what is a government for?
That's their philosophy of government, not mine.
I'm with you, lujlp!
Amy Alkon at May 19, 2008 8:03 AM
> If government money is not used
> for the support of those most
> vulnerable
There's no limit to that kind of thinking. You can start down that path and never stop, not until the most productive and fortunate people have been taxed until they're in the same condition as the least productive and unfortunate. What's the point?
Rich people have the right to get needs met by government, too. First, because the promise to improve the lot of all is the moral charter by which government is granted power; secondly, because their payments to government are often disproportionately higher.
I love, love, love Loojy's spelling of catastrofe
Crid at May 19, 2008 8:14 AM
What the fuck does that matter, when those capable of having children are opting out either because they can't be bothered or they believe all the claptrap about overpopulation?
brian at May 19, 2008 8:34 AM
Yea, I need to be better about using spell check, I gots me the dyslexia, and a bad memory for some words. A few years ago when I was on another blog I'd occasionlly get so agitated that I'd often transpose words and sometimes entire phrases.
I tend to opperate under hte asumption that is sounded right in my head to I must have written it the same way.
I try these days to read my post aloud before hitting the button but I occasionaly skip that step
lujlp at May 19, 2008 8:37 AM
pandemic logic always applies when resources are scarce and demand is very high.
j.d. at May 19, 2008 9:11 AM
With all this talk of government health care this election I’d like to put in my two cents. Why not have a catastrophic national heath care policy? That should drop normal insurances rates, since they would have a loss sealing. Also, it would allow terminal ill to receive care.
There has always been a greater good in caring for folks that will not recover. We slowly improve care methods, we learn much about the ailments, and we are able to improve overall medical knowledge. The terminally ill are a great test group for new therapies also.
So since we all benefit from their care, why shouldn’t we have a catastrophic national health care policy? After all, isn’t the reason we actually have insurance catastrophic illness?
rusty wilson at May 19, 2008 9:17 AM
What's the point of insurance if you're sharing in every that everyone takes? How does this protect anyone?
Crid at May 19, 2008 9:30 AM
I see the whole article as a moot point.
My Late Grand-Father was a World-War two veteran. He served as a Medic. During his service in Italy, "Triage" was a fact of the service. There was so much wounded and so little medical resources than someone needed to chose who would receive the care. At that time, it was a necessity. With a battlefield nearby, wasting energy saving a "lost Cause" might cost the life of other lesser wounded.
This is the same case for a pandemic. Front line workers (Doctors, nurses, EMT personnel) should be receiving the vaccine first, followed by the able. This philosophy painfully clash with the "Let's save everybody" policy everybody loves in Hollywood movies. In real life, such thinking is suicidal.
This bring me to the "Lujlp's Bandwagon". What is the duties of a Government? The government's only duty (In the west) is to protect the individual rights of the citizen because it exist only by the desire of the individual citizen. in no cases I saw a duty for the "Support of the Vulnerable".
Do anyone noticed that the states out there who claim to care for "The Vulnerable" are in fact dictatorships? How many Communism regimes we saw claiming they are working for the poor and the weak? We all know how repressive those regimes turned out. Less government is better than too much.
Toubrouk at May 19, 2008 9:33 AM
lujlp -
I use firefox with the spell-check ad-on, works like a charm and saves some embarrassment. (unfortunately, it does, nothing, for, grammar, and, punctuation)
DuWayne at May 19, 2008 9:38 AM
Toubrouk, while I see your point, the fact is that pandemics rarely happen as fast or as furious as that of fighting on a battlefield, and the triage of a pandemic can usually be performed in a timely, not frenzied, manner. That said, when a pandemic is in the formative stages, you can bet your ass that the wealthy CEO will likely have more and/or quicker access to a vaccine than a welfare mother or an elderly person in a nursing home. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all that.
Flynne at May 19, 2008 9:45 AM
How much is a life worth? From observation, healthy people make life choices that reveal what they think their own life is worth. They buy or forego safety measures that reduce or increase risk. On average, from my reading, people value their own life at about $6 Million when they make choices about protecting their life.
When they buy insurance to protect their families, they value their life a lot less.
Andrew Garland at May 19, 2008 9:45 AM
Not to mention, that while they're slacking off in their careers so that tax payers -- and that's not just the higher earners but people like me who don't have college and earn just above assistance levels (and PROUD of it too, damn it, I am so proud not to take handouts, I don't get how anyone can not be embarrassed to take them)-- while they're doing that, note that, simultaneously, she expects to have people readily available to do the physical work of taking care of her dysfunctional son. How dare she be angry at that caregiver for refusing to take him back into the home after he assaulted her and tried to choke her when she herself is not willing to take that risk or do the physically challenging job of actually administering his care?!!!
Donna at May 19, 2008 9:46 AM
Wow, wow, wow! this hit me hard -- & v close to home; as 12 yrs ago we had to make the tough decision to terminate MY pregnancy (fortunately we found out early in 2nd trimester); my baby girl had hydrocephalus AND spina bifida. I didn't want that kind of a life for her....
Val at May 19, 2008 10:37 AM
Val, I'm sorry, that must have been terribly painful, but you are truly awesome and unselfish for making that choice.
Jessica at May 19, 2008 11:08 AM
Yeah, Val, what Jessica said.
Flynne at May 19, 2008 11:12 AM
Props.
Crid at May 19, 2008 11:15 AM
I'll pile on.
Amy Alkon at May 19, 2008 11:22 AM
"What the fuck does that matter, when those capable of having children are opting out either because they can't be bothered or they believe all the claptrap about overpopulation?" Well first if there is an extinction level event the overpopulation argument becomes moot. Second what the hell are those idiots going to do post event. There are going to emerge from the bunker and start a political discourse about how to run said new world. Those of us who happen to survive outside of their bunker will be the ones actually rebuilding all of this shit that they are then going to rule over.
"When they buy insurance to protect their families, they value their life a lot less." What? Where is this coming from? All the safety measures in the world are nothing more then a risk reduction. You can do everything right and still kick without warning. Planning for possible shit going wrong does not mean you don't value your life, unless in paying for the insurance you let slip preventative measures.
Val, I'm very sorry you had to make that decision. I know it's little consolation but you choice was made for her benefit. I can't imaging anyone wanting that kind of life. This mother put her feeling ahead of her son's.
vlad at May 19, 2008 11:41 AM
These questions are going to come up when Medicare starts going belly-up. People on Medicare have something like 80% of their expenses covered and then get the rest through a line of insurance called Medicare Supplement, which they have to pay for themselves. However, there is no upper limit to what Medicare will pay for, like there is with regular health insurance. Will people feel entitled to being kept alive for ever and ever and ever, regardless of the cost to taxpayers? You'd better believe it.
Pirate Jo at May 19, 2008 12:04 PM
Dementia? This is going to cut dangerously close to saving only the neurotypical. Not that I mind personally, but what about the severely autistic? Severely retarded? Just askin.
Kate at May 19, 2008 12:04 PM
lujlp--
why, knowing the dismal state of AZ's services, did the Bolanders move there? There seems to be a lot of magical thinking on their part.
Kate at May 19, 2008 12:08 PM
"What the fuck does that matter, when those capable of having children are opting out either because they can't be bothered or they believe all the claptrap about overpopulation?"
Oh that's nonsense. Just because a minority of the population chooses not to have children does not mean there won't still be plenty of people around who have them. Most people DO want children - why else do you think the childfrees get looked at so funny? There is just no reason to take that argument to the 'But what if EVERYONE' extreme. I chose not to be an airline pilot, but for some reason no one runs around, stricken with panic that just because *I* don't want to be an airline pilot, no one else will. You sound like you think the world is going to run out of people, or sommething.
Pirate Jo at May 19, 2008 12:11 PM
"This is going to cut dangerously close to saving only the neurotypical. Not that I mind personally, but what about the severely autistic? Severely retarded? Just askin." I don't think it's cutting that close to the concept but you do have a very valid point. In those circumstances it's all a matter of what benifits can that person provide to the whole. The benifits are not in order: Food, water, shelter, end of said crisis, and order. However there is also the issue of moral and keeping people working towards a common goal.
Lets look at this scenario:
A family has a severely autistic child (disabled relative etc.) and policy would dictate no vaccine for that person. Now what if that family was a pair of professions that were extremely valuable to society during the crisis, both parents are Paramedics, Doctors, special function engineers etc. If the child is refused the vaccine they will not work, refuse openly. Do you give the vaccine to one lower valued individual and lose 2 highly valuable people (who are already vaccinated) or do you give it to their kid and keep them working, by doing so let the lower valued person die? Do you shot them to make an example?
Also many people would take a huge moral lose if the fact that the government let a school full of retarded children die got out. When people are panicking a lose of morale can be disastrous.
vlad at May 19, 2008 12:54 PM
*Gulp*, that wasn't too bad, I'll go ahead & use my URL...
But Jessica, you just made the hair on the back of my neck stand up, would you believe that is the name we had picked out?!?
I will never forget the dedication & kindness of my OB/gyn; the bad news piled on right before we were scheduled to go on *vacation* - she pulled many strings to get things taken care of over the weekend. (so I didn't have to go on another 2 wks w/a baby we knew was doomed)
I sneer w/absolute contempt at those who froth-at-the-mouth over "partial birth" abortion [there's really no such thing] since they have not the foggiest clue what they're raving about...
Val at May 19, 2008 1:48 PM
Kate they claim they didnt know, why they didnt look into it before moving? WHo knows, the real question is Why did they stay once they found out?
vlad it depends on the situation, if its just a low level plauge let them refuse, and they can go with out the vaccine as well.
If it is something that literally threatens human existance - shoot them as an exmple to others who would put their petty concerns over the welfare of the ENTIRE SPECIES
lujlp at May 19, 2008 3:54 PM
"shoot them as an exmple to others who would put their petty concerns over the welfare of the ENTIRE SPECIES" So why should they care about the species as a whole? Also unless it some astral catastrophe the species in not going to be wiped out. Large portions of the population will die but the species will not vanish.
That's not the most judicious use of resources. Now your down to highly useful personnel and 2 bullets. Logic would dictate you vaccinate the kid, ethics says no but what's one low value person as opposed to 2 high valued people. Since we are talking about extreme circumstances and you can't view them as people but supplies.
vlad at May 19, 2008 4:09 PM
"...or they believe all the claptrap about overpopulation?"
Hmm. Missed the link, did we?
So many people think the laws of nature don't apply to them. Tsk.
Radwaste at May 19, 2008 6:10 PM
As a leading edge boomer (1948) I've had my eye on this one for some time. I think I'm probably gonna shuffle off before the long walk on a short ice floe becomes a wildly popular approach to elder care. Just because I'm at the demographic leading edge. The rest of you, get ready for Logan's hobble, hobble, splash.
--
phunctor
phunctor at May 19, 2008 7:33 PM
The laws of nature are useless here. If you take the laws of nature as they are understood at any given time, England and India should be utterly bereft of life at this moment. That they are not gives me great hope that all estimates of the carrying capacity of the Earth are vastly understated.
What matters - especially to modern societies with massive social services expenditures - is that there is a profound lack of people being born to pay into the systems. Reference, for example, Japan - where there are more people over 65 than under 15, and the gulf is growing every year. Where do you suppose Japan is going to get the money to pay for the care of the elderly when there is no working class left? Is China going to step in and take care of it out of the goodness of their collective heart? Hell no, because they'll be hip-deep in pensioners of their own, with a massive drop in population caused by their wonderfully progressive one-child policy.
There is a reckoning coming. And nobody is going to like the choices that will be imposed upon them.
Welcome to the Monkey House.
brian at May 19, 2008 9:17 PM
"The laws of nature are useless" / "There is a reckoning coming."
All you did was repackage the problem in a way you like. Meanwhile, feel free to point at any law of nature from which you are exempt. That some effects are delayed has no bearing on their inevitability.
Radwaste at May 20, 2008 2:02 AM
Rad - the reckoning has nothing to do with population pressure, and everything to do with a distinct lack thereof.
Overpopulation requires two things - too many consumers, and insufficient ability to generate food and other resources to sustain them.
Over the last 50 years, advances in food production have outpaced population growth. Every prediction of mass starvation from overpopulation had not come to pass. Every singe famine that has happened in my lifetime was a result of politics, not lack of food.
The reckoning of which I speak is what Europe is looking straight in the face. Millions of oldenfools expecting that their every need will be catered to because, after all, they paid into "they system". But they all bought a pig in a poke. And 50 years later, they find out that there never was a pig. All they got was a massive loan on the backs of the yet to be born.
Which they promptly opted out of creating.
So it is precisely the lack of children that is going to lead to some VERY uncomfortable choices in the next 50 years in all of these socialist states that mortgaged their futures.
And if the US ever ditches religion as so many here seem to dream about, and the Southern Baptists stop having 18 kids to tax, you're all screwed too. Because whether it's taxpayers to cover the bill, or warm bodies to change your diapers, not having children is going to put a limit on how much care you're ever going to receive in your old age.
You might wanna get the black pill lined up, just in case.
brian at May 20, 2008 5:52 AM
brian it is a religious aversion to suicide which has created so many problems.
What kinda moron WANTS to lice in a demented state wherin you dont know who or where you are and someone had to be paid to wipe your ass?
And where xactly does it say suicide is a sin anyway?
Lets see, we have a god who tortured and sacrificed his son, commanded many of his followers to do the same. He commanded the jews to slaughter thousands of women and children. If you belive the catholics god also commanded the torture and murder of heritics and millions of indians and that god is pro slavery
Given all of these horrible things are eendorsed by god, why is suicide a sin?
lujlp at May 20, 2008 6:57 AM
So what you're telling me is that you approve of a society in which the elders are encouraged to take themselves out rather than be a burden to their children?
Glad to see you've got your priorities straight, fella.
brian at May 20, 2008 7:51 AM
Oh, and I'll tell you the same thing I tell all the people bleating about overpopulation -
If you think suicide is the best option, start with yourself and leave the rest of us alone.
brian at May 20, 2008 7:52 AM
Damn Brian, you are on a roll today!
Flynne at May 20, 2008 8:05 AM
Thanks, Flynne. I've decided that I'm no longer going to sit silently while idiots mouth (type?) the same old discredited lies that the left has been using in their attempts to subjugate us for 40 years.
No, I'm going to smite them with the mighty sword Cluebringer.
And maybe a few will get clueful, and maybe a few will off themselves. Either way, I win.
Humanity is not a blight on this planet. You look at any 100 year span of history, and you compare it with the last 100 years. There has been more advancement in intellectual pursuits, the collective understanding of the natural world, and the expansion of human comfort in the last 100 years than in the entire sum of human history before it.
I'll not sit idly by and listen to some mewling ne'er-do-well kvetch about how it's all going to hell because there's just too many babies being born.
If I didn't hate kids so much, I'd make a few just to spite 'em.
brian at May 20, 2008 9:07 AM
The ne'er-do-wells, that is. Not the kids. Why would I spite my own kids when I could be teaching them to take over the world?
brian at May 20, 2008 9:07 AM
You can borrow mine for show any time, Brian! I especially cracked up over that Bullwinkle line on the other thread, that was priceless! Sometimes I think Cluebringer may not be enough, which is when I'll pull out the Clue-X-4, name yer length, I'll go with an 8 footer, then I can pretty much distance myself from the aftermath.
Daughter #1 and I were at breakfast this morning, before #2 joined us, and of course I was bitching about a couple of things, and she said, "Ma, WWTDD?" And I was, "what?" She got that "innocent" look on her face and said "What Would Tyler Durdan Do?" I damn near fell on the floor laughing. She's a pistol, that one. o_O
Flynne at May 20, 2008 9:19 AM
Brian, if I ever reach the state lujlp mentions, I'd gladly take that option. Make the appointment with Dr. K! pronto! Unfortunately, the religionists that make their religion law won't allow that. If I try by some method from my ameteur ignorant hand (and elderly and physically ailing making it even worse) and, surprise, surprise, fail, they add insult to injury and lock my feeble, suffering miserably no kind of life ass in a nuthouse to boot. If my daughter, who well knows my feelings on this matter (if I can't feed, clothe, bathe myself and most importantly wipe my own ass, let me go) can't stand seeing her fiercely independent mother suffer and puts me out of my misery and gets caught, her young ass goes to jail or the chair and what's that going to do to my grandson? No, there should come a time when you can get a script to end your suffering by a professional that knows what exactly it will take. Life isn't precious when it's a long, drawn out torture that will only end in death anyway.
Donna at May 20, 2008 9:21 AM
Donna - you have no right to force a doctor to violate the Hippocratic oath and kill you.
My advice? If you're going to kill yourself, don't fuck it up.
Seriously, it's not that hard to die. Just don't burden anyone else's conscience with having to pull the trigger for you.
brian at May 20, 2008 9:37 AM
The tired, old Hippocratic oath argument. (yawn) Give me a doctor who's in it to ease suffering and man (or woman) enough to be able to admit it when there's only one way they can.
Ending your own life is harder than you think. Given what happens to you when you fail, I'd have to be 100% sure of success and since I'm not hugely knowlegable and even if I were, if I were in that state, it might be kind of difficult to achieve, let the doctors prescribe already!
Donna at May 20, 2008 9:55 AM
Donna, it starts with let, and then it becomes force. There is no small number of doctors who will not engage in euthanasia for moral or ethical reasons.
And I guaran-damn-tee you that they will find themselves with the full coercive power of the state brought to bear on them the moment they refuse to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a patient who demands it.
And I'll also guarantee you that the first time someone manages to convince a doctor to kill them when there's nothing debilitating or fatal wrong with them, there's going to be a shit/fan collision so big that nobody's going to be able to duck.
That's a Pandora's box I'd prefer not to open.
brian at May 20, 2008 10:01 AM
I don't know if either of you (Brian or Donna) watch Boston Legal (Denny Crane [William Shatner, I love him] for President!), but there was a recent episode about this very thing. It was Shirley's (Candace Bergen, I love her too) dad, the man who started the law firm, who was old and infirm and couldn't take care of himself anymore. She wanted him to die with dignity, mainly because that's what he wanted, although he couldn't say so, because his condition has so rapidly deteriorated. She actually went to court to argue the case, to have a morphine drip administered, actually Alan Shore (James Spader, love him too!) argued the case for her, and she won. If you give your loved one(s) proxy, I believe they can make your final wishes known and adhered to. I clearly state, in the living will that I have, that I do NOT want to be kept alive via artificial means, not when I'm old and infirm, not if I'm in an accident tomorrow and will not recover from it. Harvest what you can use, burn the rest.
Flynne at May 20, 2008 10:13 AM
brian would you be willing to be injected with a drug cocktail which would cause you mind and body to behave in such a manner?
Dementia, delutions, terror, pain in every nerve center of your body, unable to clean feed or think for yourself?
Would you be willing to live that way for a day or two? and then once you come out of it then you have the right to say peopl in that position have no right to ask for help
lujlp at May 20, 2008 11:31 AM
"So it is precisely the lack of children that is going to lead to some VERY uncomfortable choices in the next 50 years in all of these socialist states that mortgaged their futures."
I would say the problem is with the original decision to mortgage their futures in the first place. If you have a kid now (and it actually grows into a taxpaying member of society), sure that will help pay for the current oldenfools. But those kids grow into oldenfools themselves someday, creating future drains on the system as well. That's just the nature of a pyramid scheme.
I don't want kids either, Brian, but even if I did, I wonder how I would pay for the Boomers to have 30-year retirements and pay for raising kids of my own at the same time. Since I know what's going to happen to the system, it seems a lot wiser for me to save the money I would otherwise be spending on kids and sock it away for my own future care. Yes, the system will go belly-up, but it SHOULD. That is also the nature of a pyramid scheme.
Pirate Jo at May 20, 2008 11:59 AM
You're not talking about asking for help. You're talking about asking someone to fucking kill you!
Do you understand what you are doing here? You are creating a back door through which any manner of psychopath can get a free pass on killing people. The nurse around here (I think it was in CT) that was killing patients that she thought weren't salvageable would have an instant out under such a legal doctrine.
No, I don't support legalization of professionally assisted euthanasia because I believe in the slippery slope. You legalize it, and eventually people will be offered it as the way to avoid medical bills because insurance companies won't cover expensive treatments.
Combine it with a nationalized health-care system, and you've got a wonderful kettle of fish there.
brian at May 20, 2008 12:18 PM
Ah, there's the rub. The system won't be ALLOWED to go belly-up. You think that raising the retirement age to 75 or 80 is going to fly? How do you think that someone who is 60 and on the cusp of retirement is going to react to being told "ok, you gotta work another 15 years, bub".
No, the endpoint is either we start having a whole shitload of babies, we start importing people who will, we raise taxes on the remaining productive population, or we put down an old fart revolution.
None of that is going to happen. Which means we either end up like Japan (where they are trying to create robots to care for the elderly since there are no babies) or Sweden, where the marginal rate is somewhere north of 80%, and government spending exceeds GDP (or so I'm told).
brian at May 20, 2008 12:23 PM
brian there is a difference between professional killing under their own internal code
and the occasional indiviual who fills out a leagal form stating at exactly what point of deteriorating hell he wants the freedom to check out at
lujlp at May 20, 2008 12:27 PM
Well, Brian, in that case my guess is that we will end up like Sweden, "where the marginal rate is somewhere north of 80%, and government spending exceeds GDP (or so I'm told)." Why would I want to bring a child into this world just so he or she could live as a slave? There's another rub for you.
Just curious, who do you think should be the judge of whether or not a life is worth living other than the person living that life? You have stated that you don't think assisted suicide should be legal, but what about straight-out suicide? Who owns any given individual's life? And if it's okay for you to kill yourself, why is it not okay for you to pay someone else to administer the injection for you?
What if it WASN'T within a system of nationalized health care? What if I simply don't want a bunch of expensive treatments that will prolong my death more than they prolong my life? Let's say I'm in pain and would rather leave my vast wealth to a charity, or to someone I know. MY decision, not the government's.
Pirate Jo at May 20, 2008 12:41 PM
PJ - As far as straight suicide goes, I have no God in the fight, so if it doesn't personally impact me, I pretty much don't give a fuck.
The reason I have a problem with paying someone else to do the deed is that of inevitable mission creep. You'll go to your doctor, for instance, and he'll say "no, I'm not going to inject you with a lethal drug". You'll sue, and then we'll get a law that requires doctors to kill people regardless of their beliefs on the matter. Such things regarding other medical procedures and the assumption of other medical risks are already leading to lack of doctors in other fields.
And since we're running headlong into a national healthcare nightmare anyhow, I want to deny the government any opportunity to kill the inconvenient.
brian at May 20, 2008 12:51 PM
Brian, I think you and I see eye-to-eye on this, it's just that my comments stem from the assumption that we will retain some freedom in these decisions. Yours stem from the (possibly more realistic) assumption that "we're running headlong into a national healthcare nightmare."
In my world, I guess you'd have a certain type of doctor who would do this - general, random doctors could not be sued or forced into it. As for insurance covering expensive treatments, they are bound by contract to cover whatever an insured's premiums pay for. Then you as an individual can decide how much you want to compromise your current quality of life (how much you want to spend every month) versus how much risk you are willing to take. But the responsibility would be solely yours, if you want millions spent on keeping you alive. Become a multimillionaire, or buy expensive insurance.
Pirate Jo at May 20, 2008 1:06 PM
"Over the last 50 years, advances in food production have outpaced population growth."
And that is no longer true. Be my guest to compare food production rates with population rates. Good gravy, have you really not noticed that every animal population expands to consume the available food supply? Stand by. Have your bowl out.
When you can't transport food because you're out of fuel; when you harvest everything in the food chain with nets; when you don't plan for the future, you get what is handed to you.
Radwaste at May 20, 2008 3:08 PM
"Good gravy, have you really not noticed that every animal population expands to consume the available food supply?"
If that is true, then why do American and Western European countries, where food is most plentiful, not reproduce at self-replacement rates? On the other hand, the really poverty-stricken ones, who are just scraping by on whatever foreign aid their corrupt dictators will allow them, continue to reproduce at above-replacement levels.
This is changing - I think South Africa and India are down to 3 or 4 instead of 6 or 7. Reason online had an interesting article about it last month. Turns out most serial breeders aren't doing it to expand to the available food supply, but because they haven't always had access to reliable birth control. As globalization and its medical benefits reach the poorest people in the world, they have fewer kids by choice.
Pirate Jo at May 20, 2008 3:23 PM
You raise some very good points, Brian, and they should be considered. However, I'm more to Pirate Jo's way to thinking on this. It would have to legislated but there's no reason we couldn't have doctors who specialized it that kind of mercy "killing". I wasn't being facetious when I mentioned Dr. Kevorkian. I admire the man. Obviously, there are a lot of legal issues about when and if that would have to be hammered out. But expecting me to do it the illegal way by the time I wanted to is just not realistic. Merely due to the physical state I'd want to be in before having my life ended. If I can't wipe my own ass, I doubt very much I'm gonna be able to put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger. If I can't feed myself, I can't take a shitload of pills without assistance either even assuming I was able to somehow stockpile the right amount (and know how much that is).
Donna at May 21, 2008 7:49 AM
Salut les meilleurs , j'ai aimé devorer ce commentaire. Thanks
spina bifida life expectancy 2008 at July 10, 2011 11:02 AM
Leave a comment