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.
Because it is not the parents life to throw away. Also, you have taken upon yourself to define the perimeters the way you see them. Not everyone would define quality of life issues the same way. You do realize that the type of people you are describing generally don't have a long life because of medical complications so I hope that makes you feel better.
Keep in mind that tests are done on pregnant women looking for Down syndrome in their baby. MANY choose to end the life of that baby based on the presence of DS so don't tell me what people consider "hopeless" or throw away and what they don't. Thus, the issue with deciding to euthanize people with DS. People with DS can have a wide range of mental, physical and emotional issues. I can tell you that the doctor here wanted to know if I had a one of those legal papers saying what life sustaining measures I would want for my son and that some of those say "no heroic efforts", lots of them just dictate "Let him/her die." My son is 29 years old and I have in this for a long time.
Those that don't want to parent their children have adoption as an option to spare them the inconvenience.
We all know it is a slippery slope.
I do not find my tone "completely inappropriate" when you are talking about killing people with disabilities, to include mental, emotional, physical, etc. Killing the homeless? What is inappropriate is the topic especially since this is about the 3rd time this sick thing is being promoted here at C-D.
Get a clue! This isn't going to sell in the US for the foreseeable future, thank God!
Time for myself and my son to have lunch. You know my son, the one that many would think is just taking up space!
I did not make the opening post in the thread. I believe my position is reasonable according to many, and it should not have been met with an emotional, attacking post.
I already know enough about the Down's Syndrome debate. I think that issue is taking care of itself. As for more severe developmental problems, yeah, death often takes care of it before adulthood, but there can be many years in between. That's generally terrible for marriages and any other children in the household, as well as very expensive (probably funded mostly by the government, meaning us). I don't know that there are enough facilities or adoptees to handle all those cases (and that wouldn't address the financial drain). The Dutch are now allowing terminally ill kids to be killed. I'd say within 5-10 years, the United States will have legislation about that. It's not a big leap from that to kids who strictly speaking aren't terminally ill but might as well be dead due to inability to function with any independence, although I wonder how a test case would come about. Expansion of euthanasia beyond that seems highly improbable.
I did not make the opening post in the thread. I believe my position is reasonable according to many, and it should not have been met with an emotional, attacking post.
I already know enough about the Down's Syndrome debate. I think that issue is taking care of itself. As for more severe developmental problems, yeah, death often takes care of it before adulthood, but there can be many years in between. That's generally terrible for marriages and any other children in the household, as well as very expensive (probably funded mostly by the government, meaning us). I don't know that there are enough facilities or adoptees to handle all those cases (and that wouldn't address the financial drain). The Dutch are now allowing terminally ill kids to be killed. I'd say within 5-10 years, the United States will have legislation about that. It's not a big leap from that to kids who strictly speaking aren't terminally ill but might as well be dead due to inability to function with any independence, although I wonder how a test case would come about. Expansion of euthanasia beyond that seems highly improbable.
My son will never function "independently". I'm sorry if I seem emotional when someone is discussing killing people with developmental disabilities or mental illness. Really, shame on me! I guess I am just a horrible person. I know the intention is to keep it "sterile" and not bring individuals, real people into the discussion but we are talking about real people.
There really aren't as many of those children that you are discussing either. That is a very small, probably less than 1% of the population of people with disabilities. You'll be glad to know that we paid the expenses for our son, including the adoption fees and that he was home-schooled for all but 3 years.
So, you want to look at financial drain? Listen up people, your turn will come. We all know that ultimately, you will sit before a panel and they will decide if you are worth keeping alive or not. That is what ultimately this boils down to. When you hear "Well, we have determined that you aren't worth treating.", you'll be wishing you had been more vocal when you had the chance.
If you think this is great idea, just one question "Are you comfortable with giving the injection or pulling the plug on the individual deemed hopeless?" That is the true measure as to how devout you are in your beliefs.
Know that I understand "hopeless" in the scope of "terminal" in the final days and that is a personal issue between the involved parties. "Without hope" with medical technology making advances everyday has to mean "WITHOUT HOPE" and not decided by a bunch of people that have no personal involvement with the individual whose condition is "hopeless".
Again, emotional about putting people to death because they are deemed hopeless? Shame on me. NOT!
My son will never function "independently". I'm sorry if I seem emotional when someone is discussing killing people with developmental disabilities or mental illness. Really, shame on me! I guess I am just a horrible person. I know the intention is to keep it "sterile" and not bring individuals, real people into the discussion but we are talking about real people.
There really aren't as many of those children that you are discussing either. That is a very small, probably less than 1% of the population of people with disabilities. You'll be glad to know that we paid the expenses for our son, including the adoption fees and that he was home-schooled for all but 3 years.
So, you want to look at financial drain? Listen up people, your turn will come. We all know that ultimately, you will sit before a panel and they will decide if you are worth keeping alive or not. That is what ultimately this boils down to. When you hear "Well, we have determined that you aren't worth treating.", you'll be wishing you had been more vocal when you had the chance.
If you think this is great idea, just one question "Are you comfortable with giving the injection or pulling the plug on the individual deemed hopeless?" That is the true measure as to how devout you are in your beliefs.
Know that I understand "hopeless" in the scope of "terminal" in the final days and that is a personal issue between the involved parties. "Without hope" with medical technology making advances everyday has to mean "WITHOUT HOPE" and not decided by a bunch of people that have no personal involvement with the individual whose condition is "hopeless".
Again, emotional about putting people to death because they are deemed hopeless? Shame on me. NOT!
Downs Syndrome may not be "normal" as most people would think of it - indeed they are not - they possess the souls of Angels here on Earth.
We should treasure and value these special people, not EUTHANISE them!
Downs Syndrome may not be "normal" as most people would think of it - indeed they are not - they possess the souls of Angels here on Earth.
We should treasure and value these special people, not EUTHANISE them!
And, they have compassion which is more than some people have.
As the discussion started out as "voluntary", OP is discussing a group of people who may not be capable of making a sound decision about whether or not to "choose" to be put to death. Also, we all know full well that these people could easily be manipulated into making an irresponsible choice.
We do not want an "obligation" to die because of what someone else feels or because we want to spare someone else the pain or cost of our living.
Hey, if we free up those dollars being sucked down by the illegals, there should be ample money to deal with the issues that face some of our most vulnerable citizens. Really, I think most could be helped but all the cuts and lack of services, especially quality services, have them feeling "hopeless".
Sure, let's tackle illegal immigration - and before euthanasia - but this subject is important.
Quote:
There really aren't as many of those children that you are discussing either. That is a very small, probably less than 1% of the population of people with disabilities.
I'd prefer actual numbers instead of guesses, but yes it's obviously a very small percentage. But a very painful and expensive percentage, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's growing, due to modern life-preserving technology. In nature, newborns like that (of any species) are pretty much DOA. Nobody would want to be born like that.
Sure, let's tackle illegal immigration - and before euthanasia - but this subject is important.
I'd prefer actual numbers instead of guesses, but yes it's obviously a very small percentage. But a very painful and expensive percentage, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's growing, due to modern life-preserving technology. In nature, newborns like that (of any species) are pretty much DOA. Nobody would want to be born like that.
It is hard to impossible for me to give you exact numbers since I'm not sure of your criteria. I would think, if you are aware of functioning levels, that you would be talking about the profoundly mentally disabled. I did see some consumers at KNI that were bedridden younger adults: https://www.kdads.ks.gov/state-hospi...ical-institute They have been trying to close this facility and put them all in the communities but "politics" keeps that from happening. It is worth $$$$$$$ to the city where located in jobs.
In nature, lower forms of animals do a LOT of things that most human animals would not so I generally don't entertain that argument.
This is an excellent article discussing the costs and care of the medically fragile: Extreme Choices: Live or let die: A choice of sorrows I do think we need to look at what is causing this and take a long hard look at the pharmaceutical companies since the medications flow freely along with some other poisons that are in our air, water and soil.
We need to look at causes but no one wants to do that. There are reasons for everything.
Imagine though that today, no fault of your own, you end up homeless and many people have. They get into a sort of circle of doom. Imagine the mental stress involved. How many people could stand that before they started to snap? Then, you have someone offering you a permanent escape..............
If you haven't guessed, I believe that all life is precious. I cannot imagine what it would be like with a child such is described in the article but those parents are out there. I certainly couldn't have a conversation about letting the child die. I was horrified that the doctor might think I would not want the same medical care for my son as I would want for myself.
When I subbed many years ago, there was a young man, very low functioning and he was 20 years old at the time. He loved eating and hugs. I was looking at his record and saw a DNR that his mother had decided on, a mother who rarely saw him since he was in foster care with a woman who took excellent care of him. I found it heartbreaking because I saw who he was, the joy he felt and the joy he gave others. I saw his obituary about 3 years later. I was glad to have known him.
I heard of a group home where the wall was lined with DNRs. When asked by someone if they knew what that meant, they said they did not and these were higher functioning adults. The person ripped everyone of them off the wall and put them in the trash.
Know I will oppose this all the days of my life. And, it is very unlikely that my son will be a burden to anyone since people that function at his level generally don't live into old age.
Let's take a destitute family in a rural area of a developing country. Say they have several children to support, and one child becomes ill and is left a quadriplegic. The family can't afford real medical care, or to have the child institutionalized. The child can't attend school, no one visits. The mother must tend to the child around the clock, while she juggles her other family and domestic responsibilities. There's no hope that the quadriplegic child will ever recover; they'll need lifelong care from the parents or other relatives. The parents would prefer to have the child euthanized than to see them live out their life as a shut-in, in squalor. Is that right? Is it ethical?
What's wrong with a society where the circumstances of the family, and the child, can't be improved without resorting to euthanasia?
In different circumstances, say a wealthy developed country, that child's prospects wouldn't be so bleak. They'd have medical help, the parents would get hospice relief, there would be government programs, school, employment opportunities, accessibility laws for people with disabilities, new accessible technology, etc...
I think the problem with drawing a hard line on ethnical decisions, is that completely different choices will be made depending upon the circumstances. And those circumstances can easily change.
Sure, let's tackle illegal immigration - and before euthanasia - but this subject is important.
I'd prefer actual numbers instead of guesses, but yes it's obviously a very small percentage. But a very painful and expensive percentage, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's growing, due to modern life-preserving technology. In nature, newborns like that (of any species) are pretty much DOA. Nobody would want to be born like that.
According to the World Health Organization, about 15% of the world's population has a "significant" physical or mental disability. Around 780 million people. I don't know how they define "significant", but let's assume it's a disability that impairs a person's ability to work, attend school, socialize, be mobile, etc...
I'm debating whether I should make this a long post or a short one... guess we'll see.
For starters, I believe suicide should absolutely be encouraged and helped in terminal cases where a person is living in pain, no cure, no treatment, no hope. I had a great grandmother who had to kill herself because physician assisted suicide was not allowed, she had cancer spread throughout her body and she had lived a long full life. The laws in this country made her endure several weeks of pain in a hospital room. She decided to kill herself by refusing to eat, because the only thing that she could do legally was deny doctors to place a feeding tube or IV in her. So it took almost two weeks for her to die that way. Her doctor's hands were tied, but the humane thing to do would have been to assist her in her wishes.
As far as euthanasia for people with "defects" as a broad term... Well, it's nice to say that society should take care of everyone that it can who can't help themselves. However, it just isn't realistic. There are real costs involved, in terms of money, caregivers, etc. When those needs can't be met, what is going to happen?
I know a few people with autistic children. Their biggest fear is what is going to happen to their children after they die. A trust will be created for them, the money supposedly going to take care of them for as long as it lasts... but there are no guarantees. That money will probably end up going to the state, their child will end up in a home somewhere with similar individuals, and they'll only have their caregivers in their lives.
These are parents who, if you really get an honest answer from them, can't envision their children living after they are gone.
The fact of the matter is, humans are the only species that attempts to prolong the lives of those who would otherwise die. The longer this goes on, the more the total cost involved, whether it be money, caregiving, time, etc.
At some point, something will have to give, and difficult decisions like this will need to be made. It's really not much different than planning for your own retirement. You need to work and earn enough in your lifetime to make sure that you don't have to rely on the government for your life when you are old and frail. If you can't do that, then you are someone else's burden and they have to pay for you. Someday, there will be too many people needing assistance and too few people able to pay for it all. Then what?
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.
I guess I am just a horrible person. I know the intention is to keep it "sterile" and not bring individuals, real people into the discussion but we are talking about real people. 
