Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I googled and pulled up several articles from other countries where the mentally ill were being allowed to choose euthanasia but none where they had no choice.
I am pro-life. I have an adult son with Down syndrome who at 28 years old functions at the pre-school level and my husband and myself are both 61 years old. I see this as edging toward eliminating anyone that might cost the government money, like those with developmental disabilities or older people.
There is so much prejudice against anyone with any disabling condition that allowing someone to be pulled off the street, deemed a possible danger to himself and others, is just really scary as the potential to "get rid of people" if you have the power and money is too great.
I think the real crime here is that institutions were closed in the name of allowing these people the freedom to live in the communities. Community supports were not put into place. Those that didn't understand the needs of those that were institutionalized were the ones fighting for their release into "freedom". The government heard this and saw "$$$$$$$$" in their eyes so jumped on it. They did this with many of the mentally disabled also.
So, now the proposed solution to the problem created by the government is to put the people down like stray dogs that go unclaimed. I don't even like to see this done to dogs, so I won't be promoting the idea and would openly and vocally oppose such an injustice.
And, the proposal of deadly drugs, is just horrifying. Can you image them being sold at the junior high in your town? Drugs and cash change hands very quickly. I wouldn't agree to poisoning any of our population, again, not even domestic animals.
Very well stated.
Frankly, this thread is absurd and plumbs the depths of what is worst in our society.
Many/most people with mental illnesses can "stabilize" if they just take their meds. I think this should be tried first before just killing people who might otherwise contribute to society and bring others joy if it were not for a simple pill. And hell, maybe s/he is happy in their psychosis. Not everyone who is schizophrenic thinks that the TV is talking to them and the mafia is out to get them, etc. Some hear "happy voices."
The problem with the severely mentally ill is getting them to stay on their meds. But we all do things in our lives that are "bad for us" that could be compared to stopping a needed medication (e.g., returning to abusive relationships, drinking too much, not taking insulin as prescribed, etc.)
I find it odd that this thread started by singling out "mentally ill adults."
When i think of groups of people that it *might* make sense to "humanely kill" i think of adults and kids with late stage terminal illness and adults and kids with PROFOUND MR where they assault themselves and others 24/7 and have been abandoned by their family into group homes and institutions. The first group has no hope of life and the second group has no concept of it.
But many children and adults with mental illness kill themselves everyday so don't worry, OP. The is a suicide once every 15 minutes.
Yes, and there is a teen suicide once every twenty-eight seconds - and that's just in N.America. There's an interesting book on the subject entitled Why They Die. Can't remember who wrote it, but it's available from Amazon. It'll break your heart.
I don't understand why everyone gets so squeamish and righteous around subjects like this. It would truly be more humane to put some of these people out of their misery. We've already pretty much established we're not going to take care of them. Unless you're willing to pay (either through private funding, charity, or increased taxes) for proper mental health facilities or some sort of camp or something for "transients" you're just going to let them wander the streets harming themselves and others. I don't see how that is the more "humane" option. You're willing to let people suffer and lead horrible, miserable lives just because you're too afraid to make a tough decision? That is true cruelty.
It is my opinion that mental health professionals are just as greedy and manipulative as medical professionals.
Using a cure would put them out of work.
You know it and I know it , but no one is going to do/say anything, because they have the influence to put you away.
Who sets the limits for what is worthy of death, we know for a fact that once a president is set ,it paves the way for compromise till the values are so obscure no one knows what's going on.
Put your own head on the chopping block simply because you happen to think differently.
I don't understand why everyone gets so squeamish and righteous around subjects like this. It would truly be more humane to put some of these people out of their misery. We've already pretty much established we're not going to take care of them. Unless you're willing to pay (either through private funding, charity, or increased taxes) for proper mental health facilities or some sort of camp or something for "transients" you're just going to let them wander the streets harming themselves and others. I don't see how that is the more "humane" option. You're willing to let people suffer and lead horrible, miserable lives just because you're too afraid to make a tough decision? That is true cruelty.
Have you thought this through at all? Or even tried to envision it?
We're not talking about 22 year old cats with arthritis in their back legs... but sure, let's talk about all the parameters and the logistics of such a humane project for humans. Is there a time limit on their homelessness? I mean, if someone's been homeless for 48 hours, are they marched off to a nice comfy clinic and lethally injected after the 48 hour period? Or no, you say, lets get rid of the ones dressed in rags who are begging and shouting at people for money.. they've been sitting out there near that church for 6 months now.. do we round them up into vans, tell them everything is going to be okay in a few minutes, maybe tell them what's waiting for them on the other side is MUCH better for them? Or do we tell them, no, it's better for everyone else? lol. Ohh lets not count your brother in law who has been homeless and sleeping in his car for a month because he owes $3,000 in alimony payments. He's ok, right? His only mental problems are a bit of depression and some bi-polar stuff but he can be useful to society in some way.. but what if he is STILL on the streets in 6 months?
But let's just say we're ironed out all the parameters and we vote the right leaders in, to write up the bills in a way that makes most people happy. Next comes enforcement of the law. Proof of homelessness for a certain time period? Detectives snapping pictures, maybe getting DNA samples in case of mistaken identities? What if a relative takes them in for a couple of days and then drives them to another city to be homeless? Oh, a central database. Ok. Fingerprinted and photographed, maybe.
Now we're really on a roll and all the misfits have been rounded up, packed into vans or schoolbuses, or maybe in warmer climates there are so many of them that trains and transport trucks need to be used. How are they all killed? Maybe the SPCA can share some techniques. I'd imagine you'd prefer it was painless. Either way, as you want, finally these cities will be rid of the blight of useless homeless people.
Fast forward 10 years. The program is working so well that some people suggest not just homeless, but useless people - they should go too. No job, no money, all people who are liabilities must be rounded up. And those who are too sick to work - why waste money on them? In another ten years it could be all people who wear glasses. Oh and all those over 240 lbs but only if it's mostly fat, not muscle.
Anyway, I'm getting carried away and need to be stopped... so please do tell if this isn't what you had in mind.. and what you really were thinking.
when i see a waterbug in my home, i immediately kill it. ditto if i saw a mouse or rat. when i was in asia, i saw a large waterbug/roach in a home of a guest and that guy found some paper in his home, picked up, and put it outside. these are two differing philosophies we have in the world, both to their own extremes. one sees a pest while other sees a creature (in this case's topic, a "human') that is worthy of life.
homeless and mentally ill ppl. create jobs. by the millions. for that reason, i'd keep 'em around just to keep the economy propped up. cops, social workers, churches, etc. all need someone to cure or take care of or watch or they'll be out of a paycheck. keep these guys around i say. i see a few of these vagrants here on kings highway in brooklyn. there's this really mentally ill guy who begs with a cup outside of rite-aid. i see him daily even in the winter. he is filthy. now that mayor deblasio has let progressivism run rampant, i am seeing more mentally ill ppl. lazing around the nyc streets. anyhow, i spoke to this guy before and he is absolutely a loony. all he does is bring filth to the area and he should just go kill himself but the fact is he does stimulate the economy or at least keeps it chugging as a small part. for that reason, i told him, i applaud him.
so to the topic, no, let us not kill off our cash cows. THAT would actually be insane and ironically WE would be the loonies in this case, not the ones we are trying to exterminate from the gene pool and our streets.
I don't understand why everyone gets so squeamish and righteous around subjects like this. It would truly be more humane to put some of these people out of their misery. We'e already pretty much established we're not going to take care of them. Unless you're willing to pay (either through private funding, charity, or increased taxes) for proper mental health facilities or some sort of camp or something for "transients" you're just going to let them wander the streets harming themselves and others. I don't see how that is the more "humane" option. You're willing to let people suffer and lead horrible, miserable lives just because you're too afraid to make a tough decision? That is true cruelty.
Mentally ill people are far more likely to be victims of crimes then perpetrators. What most don't seem to want to accept is that there is no "normal" with mental health. Its ALL on a spectrum just like sexuality, IQ, attractiveness, etc.
If you want to discuss euthanizing "sociopaths," that's a different topic. Most mentally I'll don't hurt others but many hurt themselves.
It's coming. It will be called something like enabled voluntary euthanasia. As soon as we've developed the required vocabulary, it will start. If there's a way to PC it, it will happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
