Why do we keep old people around?

MonacoMonkey's picture
Rank: Neanderthal | banana points 2,217

Back before the internet and modern digital age, it was understandable. Old people could pass down tips of wisdom and general life lessons they amassed over their long lives. Everything from basic knowledge (such as apple seeds being poisonous) to insight into the local community (such as the best way to prepare dishes, good local restaurants, etc).

But now with everything so widely available online and in our pockets in an instant, is there really a need? In fact, one can argue it's become more of a burden than an asset.

Consider the average wage-earning American family, living paycheck to paycheck. Grandma Beatrice is 90 years old, while her 3 grandkids are burdened with student loans, and the family is struggling to meet mortgage payments. One day, granny suffers from a stroke, and the cost to prolong her life (acute stent operation, post-procedure recovery, nursing home, etc etc) is estimated at $250k. The doctor estimates that she could live for another 2 years in a best-case scenario.

Is the marginal extension of life (living until 92 instead of meeting the reaper at 90) really worth the cost? Arguably, the money would be much better spent on younger people who have decades ahead of them.

I come from a family of doctors, and the stories I hear at the dinner table are really troubling. You'd be surprised at how much money is poured into saving the very old, just to live for an extra few years (sometimes months, and sometimes weeks). Economically, it does not make sense for the average family. Sentimentally, it is hard to justify. If I was 90 and in Beatrice's position, I'd gladly (and voluntarily) give the money to my grandkids and end my life. To do anything otherwise is irresponsible and downright selfish. If not for their immediately family, but for society as a whole through higher insurance premiums.

Comments (106)

Best Response
Sep 7, 2017

Do you just walk around looking at the elderly and thinking--there's not enough ROI there to justify the medical expenses...Anyone over 90 should just kill themselves

    • 40
    • 1
Sep 7, 2017

ha, this was really funny.

Sep 8, 2017
timetogetserious:

Do you just walk around looking at the elderly and thinking--there's not enough ROI there to justify the medical expenses...Anyone over 90 should just kill themselves

This reminds me of The Giver and what OP is describing is something you would think of if you've stared at spreadsheets for too long that you've completely lost touch with reality and have no moral fiber left.

Interesting proposition but OP...if this was your own mother or father and someone said this to you how would you react?

    • 3
Sep 8, 2017

If we put a bullet in anyone with a negative NPV for society. --35% of America would be dead tommorrow.

    • 7
Sep 8, 2017

They have, and I reacted fine. My parents are both in medicine (non American) and have told me countless times that the fear of death in this country is insane and leads to vegetables being on life support for years at a time.

They expressed hope that by the time they reached that state of life, euthanasia would be an accepted medical procedure but if it isn't either would be happy to do it themselves.

Life's not that special. Americans, for some reason, thinks the universe revolves around them. No, you're not going to get "precious moments" from being a bedsore covered 92 year old with tubes sticking out of them who shits himself constantly. Is that really your ambition? Live as long as possible, quality of life not a part of the equation?

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Sep 10, 2017

this deserves like 10000 sb LOLOL. made my day. thanks

Sep 7, 2017

This is up to individual families to decide. The problem is with the insurance & medical system. Nobody considers the costs.

heister:

Look at all these wannabe richies hating on an expensive salad.

    • 2
Sep 7, 2017

"Grandpa, thanks for storming Normandy and preventing the Germans from taking over the world. Also, thanks for raising mom, finally, thanks for the memories when I was a child. Love you!

Ok now lets unplug him, old fuck is going make me have to step down into an A6 if we keep him going much longer."

Nice reminder to get a living will. I agree, I wouldn't want to be a burden on my family, however, if they have the resources to pay, let them.

    • 8
Sep 8, 2017

These kinds of rationales make no sense. If an old person is sick and in the hospital, not sure how keeping them there in misery="I love you for all the hard sacrifices you made for me". It's selfish to keep them around, because it only helps yourself feel like you are a pillar in society for doing everything you can for this person. Just let them go like Hailee Steinfeld says.

Sep 8, 2017

If they are coherent and want to be alive why should they just have to expire due to age? If they want to go into hospice or fight it until the end that is up to them.

If they are vegetative or at the end with Alzheimer's/dementia, that is a different story (living will reference). At that point it is up to the family and is a difficult decision for some.

Sep 7, 2017
MonacoMonkey:

Back before the internet and modern digital age, it was understandable. Old people could pass down tips of wisdom and general life lessons they amassed over their long lives. Everything from basic knowledge (such as apple seeds being poisonous) to insight into the local community (such as the best way to prepare dishes, good local restaurants, etc).

But now with everything so widely available online and in our pockets in an instant, is there really a need? In fact, one can argue it's become more of a burden than an asset.

Consider the average wage-earning American family, living paycheck to paycheck. Grandma Beatrice is 90 years old, while her 3 grandkids are burdened with student loans, and the family is struggling to meet mortgage payments. One day, granny suffers from a stroke, and the cost to prolong her life (acute stent operation, post-procedure recovery, nursing home, etc etc) is estimated at $250k. The doctor estimates that she could live for another 2 years in a best-case scenario.

Is the marginal extension of life (living until 92 instead of meeting the reaper at 90) really worth the cost? Arguably, the money would be much better spent on younger people who have decades ahead of them.

I come from a family of doctors, and the stories I hear at the dinner table are really troubling. You'd be surprised at how much money is poured into saving the very old, just to live for an extra few years (sometimes months, and sometimes weeks). Economically, it does not make sense for the average family. Sentimentally, it is hard to justify. If I was 90 and in Beatrice's position, I'd gladly (and voluntarily) give the money to my grandkids and end my life. To do anything otherwise is irresponsible and downright selfish. If not for their immediately family, but for society as a whole through higher insurance premiums.

psycho

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 3
Sep 7, 2017

Pretty much. When dollars are greater than lives it signals trouble.

    • 1
Sep 8, 2017

lives are cheap and renewable

heister:

Look at all these wannabe richies hating on an expensive salad.

    • 3
Sep 7, 2017

You may be right that it doesn't mathematically make sense to provide care for elderly people. But humanity is not defined in dollars and cents, in economic efficiency.

Sep 7, 2017

This country would be better off euthanizing young idiots than adults who have contributed to society.

Honestly, WSO, this is the level of autistic, stupid, drivel that is shit out more often than not. I have the urge to read 50 pages of a technical book just to offset the brain damage I get from the vast majority of posts on this site.

We have the worlds information at our fingertips, yet people are less intelligent than they were 50 years ago. Sure, we can do cool tricks with technology, but kids nowadays need baby diapers up until the age of 25.

Stupid old people. If only they took out $200K in student loans studying a major you could have learned from spending time in a library and then complain about the lack of opportunity or how older people "had it easier".

We do not kill old people because once you go down this route, you become a nazi ( in the actual sense, not the butthurt snowflake sense). Read up on Eugenics to see that this idea has been tied. I am sure plenty of old people know about this and have either lived and survived people who had this "brilliant" idea or fought and gave their lives to stop the people who thought this was a "brilliant" idea.

Oh wait, you knew all this because you are young and have the power of knowledge at your fingertips. Opps, you actually didn't know this and made a fucking stupid ass post.

As for your side point on the amount of money spent on the last years and months of life, there is some truth to this. We do a poor job of accepting death and focus on prolonging life rather than maximizing the quality of life. But that is a personal decision and the way our healthcare system is set up, people can take advantage of all the hail mary's in life.

Sep 7, 2017
TNA:

This country would be better off euthanizing young idiots than adults who have contributed to society.

Honestly, WSO,
Stupid old people. If only they took out $200K in student loans studying a major you could have learned from spending time in a library and then complain about the lack of opportunity or how older people "had it easier".

I liked this post but it WAS the old people who made college more expensive while at the same time making it more affordable. Granted not all of them, but it was some of them.

However when you get to 25 you have to stop blaming other people for your failures. I want to start a charity that buys copies of "Extreme Ownership" and gives them to college kids and Antifa.

Sep 8, 2017
TNA:

As for your side point on the amount of money spent on the last years and months of life, there is some truth to this. We do a poor job of accepting death and focus on prolonging life rather than maximizing the quality of life. But that is a personal decision and the way our healthcare system is set up, people can take advantage of all the hail mary's in life.

The funny part about OP's post is that he said he comes from a 'family of doctors'.

So basically, despite OP's negative view of the subject, his family profited on this facet of our society, most likely enabling him to get a chance in finance.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 1
Sep 8, 2017

There are two sides.

It is hard to decide at what point we let people die if we have the means to keep them alive, because at what point would we stop? What would be our trade off, 3 years? 7 years?

But also, I suppose there is a trade-off between the life and the expense required.

    • 1
Sep 8, 2017

Presumably you would implement a system such that there were incentives in place for elderly people to evaluate the value of their remaining years. I agree making it government mandated would be too totalitarian and could be open to all kinds of corruption (manipulating rules to change voter demographics comes to mind). But a system in which individuals could decide that their cost to society is greater than the benefit (tax breaks for their families as an example) might be workable.

    • 3
Sep 8, 2017

I do not think you should malign people for trying to start a discussion about an issue on which they have an opinion, particularly one that is as incendiary as this one. I agree that there is a fair amount of "drivel" on this site but that is what this is, a place for people (generally those interested in finance) to come share opinions, seek feedback and evaluate arguments. Like anything else, most of the products of this exercise are crap. But, every now and again, there is a solid discussion that can be enlightening. Sorting through the "drivel" to find that discussion makes finding it all the more significant.

You cannot paint every Nazi practice as abhorrent because some or even a majority of their practices were. Nazi Germany was a world power that drastically improved the German economy after it was crippled by the excessively punitive measures of the Treaty of Versailles. History is written by the winners. Nazi's got the idea for concentration camps from Native American Reservations, yet you wouldn't malign every practice of the people that implemented those would you?

Eugenics is about improving the genetic quality of the human population, much as humans have done with crops and livestock. OP is referring to the euthanization of the elderly who have (presumably) already passed their genes on to their descendants.

You agree that OP had "some truth" to his post and that humans "do a poor job of accepting death and focus on prolonging life rather than maximizing the quality of life" yet you still called it a "fucking stupid ass post." In my opinion, any post that begets such lively discussion is not stupid and I'd like to thank OP for starting it.

    • 5
    • 4
Sep 8, 2017
<span class=keyword_link><a href=http://tinyurl.com/3ho2nmo target=_blank rel=nofollow>Draper</a></span> Specter and Co.:

You cannot paint every Nazi practice as abhorrent because some or even a majority of their practices were. Nazi Germany was a world power that drastically improved the German economy after it was crippled by the excessively punitive measures of the Treaty of Versailles. History is written by the winners. Nazi's got the idea for concentration camps from Native American Reservations, yet you wouldn't malign every practice of the people that implemented those would you?

Eugenics is about improving the genetic quality of the human population, much as humans have done with crops and livestock. OP is referring to the euthanization of the elderly who have (presumably) already passed their genes on to their descendants.

You're completely right (sarcasm).

Lets improve the quality of the human race (sarcasm).

Lets kill all the feeble, all the LD people, anyone with issues that society deems is not quality. Lets abort all who do not have financial resources, kill all the elderly, diseased, and those with terminal illnesses (sarcasm).

The main question here is, who determines what is ''''quality'''''?

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 1
    • 1
Sep 8, 2017

I was not advocating for Eugenics. I was defining Eugenics as the term had been used to described what OP was suggesting, which is incorrect.

Today, people are, in fact, trying to improve the quality of the human race. They are just not doing it through extermination.

Prenatal Genetic Screens gives parents-to-be information about whether their fetus has certain genetic disorders. At this point, parents that receive poor results sometime decide to abort the pregnancy rather than have a child whose "quality" of life will suffer as a result. Aren't they determining "quality"?

There are also billions of investment dollars being poured into gene therapies to cure individuals and presumably, their descendants, who suffer from genetic disorders. Researchers developing these therapies have determined that the "quality" of the lives of the people with genetic disorders is poor.

My point is that you said "Lets improve the quality of the human race" sarcastically when, if you put some thought into it, that is exactly what we should be and are doing. You just disagree with the method by which the Nazi's chose to implement the philosophy.

You said the main question is who determines "quality." You are right. That is the question and the argument for a centralized definition is that if "quality" is decided at the individual or familial level, the consequences for society as a whole may not be considered.

    • 3
    • 2
Sep 8, 2017

Exactly, what part of the nazi governmen/philosophy are you for? Centralized planning? Genocide? Institutionalize racism? I am just curious here. I personally find everything about them absolutely horrible. Just my 2 cents.

Sep 8, 2017

I guess the philosophy I sympathize with the most is that crippling genetic defects should have no place in society.

Do I think there are more elegant solutions that euthanizing everyone child born with a crippling disease? Yes, there are a number of hereditary diseases (cystic fibrosis comes to mind) that allow people to live well beyond sexual maturity. These diseases have massive costs to society and still hinder the victims from having full, healthy lives.

People suffering from CF would not have been allowed to have children in Nazi Germany. They are allowed to have children in most societies today (moot point for CF men since most are infertile anyway but most CF women are not).

Should pregnant women whose children are at high risk for CF be allowed to give birth? Sorry but with 7.5 billion people in the world, until someone finds a cure, I don't think so.

    • 1
    • 3
Sep 8, 2017

Are you serious? You honestly think preventing people from being able to have children based on issues that you define as undesirable would be a worthwhile endeavor?

    • 2
Sep 8, 2017

Do I think that preventing the prevalence of a disease where a person basically coughs themselves to death over a 50 year period is worthwhile? Yeah I'd say so...

    • 3
Sep 8, 2017

I must admit, you are the first person I have ever heard say that they would be comfortable with preventing people of a certain demographic from reproducing.

Sep 8, 2017

Better than putting them in gas chambers

    • 3
Sep 8, 2017

That is true! Appreciate the honesty.

Sep 9, 2017

I'm more dumbfounded that he's put nazi germany forth as a shining model without batting an eye. Either way, there's always gonna be a few assholes around here.

    • 1
Sep 9, 2017

Yeah, last I checked being for eugenics was a very fucked up position to hold. I personally think it is incredibly evil.

    • 1
Sep 10, 2017

Wasn't Teddy Roosevelt for eugenics

    • 1
Sep 10, 2017

Washington owned slaves. It doesn't mean that now, in 2017, we should take that as a mark of the pros of slavery.

Besides, a lot of this stuff pre-WWII was fun philosophical debate. Post Nazi Germany it takes on a whole new perspective. I wonder what Stephen Hawking's take on all this would be.

    • 1
Sep 10, 2017

A lot of people were for eugenics, it was also implemented in the US in the form of sterilization.

CNN - 20,000 sterilized in California

Sep 10, 2017

So because you or even a majority of people disagree with a position, it is automatically "fucked up?"

I suggested that we consider a philosophy behind a practice implemented by Nazi Germany on its own own merit instead of automatically painting it with an "evil" brush and therefore I am an asshole?

I am surprised that questioning a popular opinion or advocating for consideration of an alternative point of view is met with such derision.

Sep 10, 2017

When you have an alternative point you should be ready for such responses. You took the side of what is the worst government to have existed within the last 100 years. Then managed to present one of their worst pursuits as a worthwhile cause. It may not be gas chambers and race/religion based, but is very much similar in design. Remember, sterilization was implemented in 30 states and has since been abandoned. Sorry, but I know plenty of people on the left and right and have yet to hear one be for eugenics.

    • 1
Sep 11, 2017

Just because I should be prepared for them, doesn't mean that you should provide them. You could have respectfully disagreed with my view and offered your own opinion as opposed to just criticizing me and mine. I am not so precious that I can't take a little name calling, but that is the sort of "drivel" I was referring to earlier that does not contribute to healthy discussion.

I think what I presented is drastically different in design but similar in principal. I'd say there is a pretty big difference between euthanization and sterilization. Preventing people from procreating doesn't necessarily mean denying them the joys of parenthood. There are plenty of orphaned children who would be happy to have a parent, sterile or otherwise. If more people thought like that, maybe 20,000 institutionalized Californians could have been saved from sterilization.

As I explained in a post above, there are multiple examples of initiatives to improve the genetic quality of the human population. They are just not thought of or labeled as "eugenics" because the term has a negative connotation. You may not yet have heard one person be for eugenics but I imagine you have heard many people be for medical research and the curing of disease.

    • 3
Sep 11, 2017

Providing a parent the ability to voluntarily rid a trait that the parents deem negative is substantially different than preventing them from having their own child in the first place.
Saying that a sterilized person can adopt is still allowing them to be forced into sterilization. Yes, there is a possibility that if some of the people forced into being sterilized were adopted they may not have been sterilized. However, they were still sterilized by the state against their will and that in and of itself is wrong.
Researching a disease and pursuing the best treatment/cure is not the same as preventing the person with the disease from existing against the will of their parents.
The evil is coming from the oppression of a group from a basic part of life based purely on the prejudices of another. The fucked up is coming from the fact that you stated you are for it, particularly using a disease that does not pose a threat to others outside of the persons gene pool as an example. Disallowing your views or promotion of them is wrong, however, failing to identify them as such is giving merit to a way of thinking that society has moved past.
Finally, what group should be left to decide what is truly desirable? Would a trait found in higher numbers of one group/race/creed lead to an unnecessary reduction in their claim on life? I would much rather have imbeciles, criminals and the risk of disease present over the possibility that my genetic sludge be unable to procreate due to religious beliefs (or lack thereof), sexual preference, political identity or any other reason that a group could one day decide is undesirable.

    • 2
Sep 12, 2017

Thank you for explaining your position. I believe I now understand the moral backbone of your argument. I agree there is a difference between forced sterilization and providing parent's the ability to voluntarily rid the trait.

I disagree that CF (and other disorders like it) does not pose a threat to others outside of the persons gene pool. This discussion was prompted by the question "Are the costs associated with keeping a certain at risk subset (elderly) of the population "healthy" worth the benefit?". There are significant costs associated with keeping people with CF (an other disorders like it) healthy. Not all of the people with these disorders have people who care about them to shoulder the burden of these costs. When they do not, the burden of the cost falls on the system. When the system is overwhelmed, it fails them and others. In my mind, that is a threat.

I'd like to pose this question, "If there were economic therapies that could cure genetic disorders, should they be mandatory?" Would you allow parents the choice to condemn their offspring to lives of pain and suffering when human innovation has made that avoidable?

    • 3
Sep 12, 2017

I wouldn't make them mandatory, however, if an option is available of course the parents should be able to select. Exact same as "you run a high risk of passing along this genetic disorder. Please take this into consideration when planning your family." Nothing wrong with informing and allowing parents to make an informed decision, I would assume that the majority of people would like to know prior to conception.
If I knew that my children ran a higher chance of having a disorder that would have a huge impact on their life I would immediately start looking into alternatives - adoption and whatever advances may be available.

    • 1
Sep 12, 2017

In my hypothetical, there isn't any doubt. The parents have a child. The child is diagnosed with a genetic disorder. Should parents be allowed the option to deny their child treatment? You would start looking for alternatives, but do you think that every parent-to-be would?

Rules are in place to guard against extremes. Not everyone is a murderer but murder is illegal so those who aren't are protected from those who are. Similarly, not everyone would choose to have a child with a crippling genetic disorder, but some (due to religious beliefs etc.) would. As I've explained before, this is a threat to the success of the systems designed for a prosperous society and should be protected against.

    • 1
Sep 12, 2017

Personally, I like living in a state where religious freedoms are the norm with virtually no limits to how it is practiced. It is an essential part of liberty. So if a family that practices Christian Science does not want to bring their child to the doctor, so be it. Ultimately, the option is up to the patient or the legal guardian. When it comes to medical decisions I personally think that the state should be unable to intervene with the exception of someone being under ward of the state and incapacitated.

    • 1
Sep 12, 2017

But that is exactly what the state of California did with its wards, intervened in a medical decision. My understanding is that you were against that or were you not because there was no discrimination on the basis of "religious beliefs (or lack thereof), sexual preference, political identity." You were a ward of the state and therefore you were sterilized.

If your criteria is that they have to be wards of the state AND incapacitated. What about minors? Are we going to let 10 year olds make decisions about their medical well-being?

Sep 12, 2017

The 'medical decision' that over 30 states made was not to treat anything, was done for oppressive purposes and not for the interest of the patient. Yes, a ten year old who is under the direct care of the state should be given treatment that is in their interest, solid point. This would not include being sterilization for a disease, handicap or crime that some board deems as being unfit.

"I guess the philosophy I sympathize with the most is that crippling genetic defects should have no place in society."

Why do you hate people who have genetic disabilities to the point that they should have no place in society? They are humans that have a medical condition. Plain and simple, they have not caused direct harm to anyone outside of additional medical expenses. They have families that love them and a descent portion of them are very capable of living normal lives.

"Should pregnant women whose children are at high risk for CF be allowed to give birth? Sorry but with 7.5 billion people in the world, until someone finds a cure, I don't think so."

How do you know their offsprings total quality of life? Wouldn't proper medical advancement be pursuing cures and treatments rather than just trying to slice off a portion of the population?

    • 4
Sep 12, 2017

The state has to evaluate decisions the same way that a family unit does but without the luxury of safety nets. Should a low income family with 7 kids pay for an expensive but necessary surgery for one of the children that will likely bankrupt them and leave the remaining 6 kids without proper healthcare coverage? The smart money would say probably not. The difference between the family and the state is that the family has alternatives in the form of the charity of others (non-profits, church, pro-bono etc.). Those kinds of alternatives are not available to the state (at the highest level) and therefore the people running it have to make the choices that make a catastrophic outcome for everyone as unlikely as possible.

I don't hate people with genetic disabilities and I'm referring to people who cannot live "normal" lives. Tay-Sachs causes death in early childhood. For people with Haemophilia, the slightest cut can be a death sentence. Are either of these "normal"? I am trying to evaluate a problem our society faces equitably and with objectivity. As the recent spotlight on the failures of the healthcare system in the United States demonstrates "additional medical expenses" is no small thing and (among other things) is bankrupting the country.

CF is a recessive trait and about 1 in 25 people is a carrier. You will never successfully "slice off a portion of the population" unless you euthanize every carrier in the world (even sterilization could never realistically be implemented on a global basis). Therefore, there will always patients on whom potential treatments could be tested. However, you won't have researchers to discover and test these treatments if the system paying for the research grants and subsidizing educations is bankrupted trying to cover healthcare costs.

    • 3
Sep 12, 2017

"I don't hate people with genetic disabilities and I'm referring to people who cannot live "normal" lives. Tay-Sachs causes death in early childhood."

So you only hate children that are going to die young? You only hate the family that decided to have a child that ended up with a debilitating illness? Or is it only the parents of these children that you hate?

"There will always patients on whom potential treatments could be tested. However, you won't have researchers to discover and test these treatments if the system paying for the research grants and subsidizing their educations is bankrupted trying to cover healthcare costs."

So the state is running low on funds to subsidize medical research. But, they have the resources to enforce preventing the people that want to be parents from giving birth to the unfit? All for what is ultimately a lost cause as these cases will continue to appear?

    • 1
Sep 12, 2017

You are throwing the word "hate" around alot. My views do not stem from some deep-seated revulsion of sick people but a logical evaluation of the costs to humanely sustain their lives and the benefits to society.

Do I blame and harbor resentment towards families for their choice to have children with debilitating illnesses? Absolutely not. It is an excruciatingly difficult decision and I believe conflicts with the basic function of all living organisms, reproduction.

However, society is built upon the human capacity to defy our base instincts to eat, fuck and kill everything and anything we can. I think preventing the prevalence of genetic disease is further application of that capacity for the benefit of society as a whole.

If the state was not burdened by the staggering costs associated with caring for an exponentially multiplying number of people with crippling genetic diseases, then yes it probably could afford to promote research and enforce its policies. The cost of childbirth alone is ~$10000. Sterilization procedures range from $1500 to $6000, and you only have to do them once.

If you are funding medical research, it is not a lost cause because hopefully someone will find a therapy that can cure the disease by fixing the genetic mutations that are being passed on.

    • 2
    • 2
Sep 12, 2017

Well, I am using the word hate because you said that genetic disabilities have no place in society. The only way that genetic disabilities are present in society is by the people that have them. If you think that something has no place in society than you must despise it. If it is only carried by people than you must despise those people. Not to mention that our discussion began with the inquiry of "Exactly, what part of the nazi governmen/philosophy are you for?" How is one to derive anything other than hate from that response? Particularly when you put forth the idea that preventing their birth is a worthwhile pursuit. Your justification is to reduce the cost of healthcare - as a benefit for society allowing society the ability to allocate more resources towards medical research. You literally want to prevent the existence of a group of people, who carry traits that have no place in society for the benefit of society - yes very in line with the Nazis, who happen to be very hateful people. So, these people do not belong in society, their very existsnce is such a burden that their birth should be prevented and somehow you do not hate them?

Denying people the right to have children based purely on cutting costs for growing medical expenses is wrong. Why should a child with Tay-Sachs be denied life? Yes, the death is going to be difficult for the family, however, at least the parents will be able to have time with the child. They will at least experience the joy of having a child and the memories you would have denied. If someone can expect 37 years with cystic fibrosis and have a beneficial role in society for a portion of that period, why deny their life from the start? Maybe I am old fashioned, but I believe the words 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' hold a lot of weight. So why deny a potential parent all 3? Why deny their offspring the potential for all 3? Were these words not used to declare independence against an oppressive government? Did we not fight an oppressive government that utilized these methods? Did the world not see the negative impacts of a powerful few can unleash? Did we not already implement these methods and decide they were not worth pursuing? If you are that concerned about the cost of health care you are a free person and you can come up with a better solution that does not impede on anyone else's rights. Instead, you would rather start by oppressing people who pose a risk.

    • 5
Sep 13, 2017

Ever read "A Time to Kill" by John Grisham? An African-American father brutally murders the two rednecks who assaulted and raped his 10 year old daughter and has to deal with the fallout. Do I sympathize with him? Absolutely and I would probably do the exact same thing were I in his shoes. Do I think that murder should be legal to allow for the rare circumstances like this? Absolutely not because you can't have a society with rule of law if everyone is allowed to kill each other with no consequences. Thinking something has no place in society doesn't necessarily translate to hating it.

In response to "the Nazis did it, therefore it must be hateful" comment, I believe it is very myopic to think that the word "hateful" can appropriately describe every single person, practice and belief that was part of a ~12 year period of German history. Life is not that simple. People, practices and beliefs need to be evaluated both independently and in the context of the regime of which they were apart of in order to be understood.

"If someone can expect 37 years with cystic fibrosis and have a beneficial role in society for a portion of that period, why deny their life from the start?"

Simple answer, because you cannot afford it. Why don't you give most of your salary away to charity? Because, you couldn't live the life you want for yourself if you did that. You have to balance your philanthropic principles with the demands of your lifestyle. Governments, have to balance their philosophic principles with the realities of the problems they are facing. I'd love a better solution that doesn't impede on anyone else's rights, but until one is found, we have to make decisions that prevent poor outcomes for everyone.

I like your point about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and was actually thinking about referencing it in an earlier part of this discussion. What I proposed doesn't deny any living man their life. No one is being enslaved and denied their liberty (unlike the guy who wrote those words did). And as I've articulated before, there are alternatives to childbirth that allow for the pursuit of happiness.

"Did we not fight an oppressive government that utilized these methods?"

Yes the United States did but (and here is where nuance comes into play) not until a German Ally attacked a United States naval base in Hawaii. The United States did not get involved in a war an ocean away out of some inherent disgust with the Nazis. It was provoked.

    • 3
    • 3
Sep 19, 2017

Yes, saying something has no place in society does mean you despise it. Using an example of a story about a person retaliating against their child's rape and murder is not drawing a parallel to preventing the existence of someone that carries traits that have 'no place in society.' Frankly, I would like to see our society as one that welcomes challenge rather than backs away from it.

Sorry, but those in Germany that were at least vocal against what the Nazi's were doing were locked up - if not killed. True, not every citizen was pumping gas into a chamber, but their society allowed it to happen. There is nothing myopic about pointing out your hatefulness when wanting to prevent those with traits that 'have no place in society.' Particularly, when used as an example of a Nazi ideal that would be worth pursuing. What is myopic is your inability to see far enough into how one could draw this conclusion.

When it comes to World War II, yes we did what we could to avoid it. The First World War was fresh in our memories and the US was dealing with severe economic hardship. And yes, Japan did a great deal to drag us into . We then declared war on them and then the remaining axis powers declared war on us. However, to say that we did not fight the Nazis because of the holocaust is ignorant. The first time the US received anything official about 'the final solution' was in August 1942, from a letter sent to the state department. Now, at that point they perceived it as a potential rumor that required further investigation. Ultimately, even with the war waging in the pacific and the initial questioning of the letter, the US first found themselves engaged in a battle against the Nazis in November 1942. Maybe the letter was not the only reason why we entered the European front, however, it stands to reason that it played a role in why we decided to fight. Matter of fact, by December 1942 the US, along with 11 other allied powers, denounced the Nazis for their atrocities and made it known that the perpetrators would be held responsible - meaning action was going to be taken. So with in a few months of finding out about the Nazi plan to kill off all Jews in Europe, we managed to engage them in battle multiple times and denounce their actions.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are clearly being denied when you are not allowing someone to pursue what is in fact a natural part of their existence. Liberty is being denied for someone who wants to have a child that they wanted to father/deliver/raise. Also, this would be a clear denial of their pursuit of happiness. The person that is being prevented from ever existing is then in turn being denied all 3 and you are also denying the life in which their family would find some happiness. It is incredibly short sided for you to claim that you would not be denying them this.

Finally, back to the cost cutting. Who is being asked to give 100% of their wealth for people being born with genetic disorders? No one. The additional cost that having those that you claim 'have no place in society' is slim versus the administrative costs that have been a major part in driving up the price of health care in the US. So before claiming that those who you say 'have no place in society' should not be allowed to experience life, before preventing ordinary people from pursuing what they want with their life at limited expense to others, and, for the love of God, before siding with Nazi's on just about anything, please try to look briefly down other other paths for cost cutting or solutions to the problem. Not to mention that once this door is opened there is no telling where the path could lead - restricting treatment for cancer, Alzheimer's, MS and so on - all in the name of cost cutting.

As a quick FYI, when it comes to worthwhile pursuits of the Nazi's is tuning of A4 at 440 Hz would be a much more fashionable opinion. It apparently improves the sound quality of certain chords and gives the world a common target in terms of tuning their instruments - this was not always the case. This allows the performance of music to spread across the world easier and brings joy to many lives. That being said, since learning about A4 at 440Hz being a Nazi invention, I have since been tuning my guitars to A4 at 432Hz.

    • 3
Sep 20, 2017

It doesn't really matter if it is a story or not. If I cared to comb through public records of homicide trials, I guarantee you that I would find numerous examples of motives that I would find justified. In these cases I wouldn't "hate" the murder but I still don't think murder has a "place in society."

I wasn't referring to your accusing me of being hateful as myopic. I was referring to your characterization of everything and anything to do with Nazi Germany as hateful. I can, in fact, very easily see how you could draw this conclusion as it is a popularly held view that the Nazi's were hateful. However, I would think that intellectual curiosity, at the very least, would dictate questioning a popularly held view.

The insinuation that the letter played a role in the US participation in the European theater of WW2 is just not correct. The letter was received after the US was already at war with Germany. Involvement in the European theater was primarily driven by the Allies strategy (formulated well before the letter at the ABC-1 conference) to defeat Germany first, as both London and Moscow could be directly threatened by Germany (allowing them total control of Europe), as opposed to Japan, who couldn't threaten any of the major Allied capitals. I'm not saying the letter didn't matter at all, but these battles you're referring to were the results of pre-formulated military strategy as opposed to "atrocity denouncement."

There are very well defined criteria for life and therefore when someone is a person. A ball of cells inside someones uterus does not meet those criteria. Just to clarify, the spirit of the policy is to prevent EVERYONE from having children with a high likelihood for a genetic disorder. If pre-natal screening indicates that an otherwise healthy couple's child is at high-risk, they should not be allowed to have the child. I proposed sterilization as I assumed anyone with an existing genetic disorder has a high probability of passing it on. If this is not the case for certain genetic disorders, then those people need not be sterilized. I guess we are "denying liberty" but if the same rules apply to everyone (like no one has the "liberty" to assault another person) it seems our society is willing to accept it.

We aren't debating the drivers of increasing healthcare costs in the United States. We are debating the merits of a policy that sterilizes people with genetic disorders. There are costs associated with the healthcare of people with genetic disorders that are not associated with people without genetic disorders. When you are budgeting, you evaluate all of the expenditures, large and small. These costs may be comparatively "slim" but they are part of the problem and are deleterious to a sustainable solution.

    • 3
    • 1
Sep 21, 2017

Justifiable murders are a gray area - mainly in terms of self defense and one state's laws vs another's. Now vigilante justice is indeed murder, plain and simple. I understand the emotional drive one would posses to want to do something illegal in retaliation, however, it is no less a crime. Also, it is still irrelevant as an individual case is different than a policy that would be forced on society. Society will always have crime, this is a fact. The bigger issue is when society is committing a crime against its own people.

With regard to the Nazi's ideals being viewed as purely hateful, what parts were not hateful? They wanted to control the majority of the world as a superior race, hateful. They committed genocide on specific segments based purely on prejudices, hateful. They wanted prevent the unfit from existing (hateful). Anyone that voiced opposition to their actions was improsined and potentially killed, hateful. Now, let's look into what you could derive as 'positive Nazi ideals' they were opposed vivisection (why test on animals when you have perfectly good humans). They supported animal conservation, I cannot argue against that. They built the autobahn. Welfare, only for those that deserved to live, but we will ignore that aspect. Advancjng aerospace engineering, nothing wrong with technological advancement. Medical advancements discovered via torture on unwilling participants (cue Angel of Death by Slayer). Which means that they ultimately placed 'undesirable' humans on a lower level than animals, and that would be hateful. So good things are considerate of animals, the welfare state (obviously another area of debate), technological advancement, medical advancements (sans the elimination of human rights) and infrastructure. These are areas worth considering the Nazi's as being worthwhile. However, none of these are solely Nazi ideals. When you look at the ideals that are specific to the Nazi's they are purely based on hate.

So you mean to say that we did not fight the Nazi's because they were carrying out a mass genocide? Seems interesting, the US would never have enforced eugenic policies or engaged in genocide. There is no way that our government would ever stand idle as genocide unfolds, particularly in the 30's and 40's. You are 100% on in asserting that is not that the primary reason as to why we got involved with the European theater. If anyone brought up the idea of invading Europe leading up to our entrance in WWII it was probably met with a great resistance. Also, eugenics was in itself practiced within the US. That being said what the Nazi's were doing was condemned by the Allies and those who were involved were pursued and punished. The point being that it was once widely accepted and practiced. What is key is that we moved on voluntarily from forcing people into being sterilized as a society.

Now you have added on forced abortions. You are going to tell people with an at risk birth that they have no right to their religious beliefs or feelings towards abortion as you know what is best? At least you are admitting that you are denying people liberty. It is interesting that you think since assault is illegal that society would accept forcing sterilization/abortion on people. You need to understand that by outlawing violent crimes we are not denying someone the liberty to partake in these actions, rather, we are trying to prevent them from denying the basic liberties of other people. The government taking away a basic human right - as you would like to see - is in fact an assault on it's own citizens.

You are clearly making the cost of healthcare the reasoning for why you are willing to embrace Nazi ideals. When given an example of a massive expense in health care that has greatly increased the cost for everyone you hide behind the assertion that the driver does not matter. That all expenditures large and small need to be considered - essentially establishing a health care system that is set up to oppress patients rather than treat them. Well, the red tape is really large. Does it not make sense that reducing the red tape as much as possible allows substantially more to be spent on medical discovery as well as care for the individual patient? Instead, you would rather increase the administrative burden, mandate screenings for specific traits across the population and add on more screenings for seemingly healthy parents who are pregnant (all because you do not see their children as having a place in society). This would take up large portions of valuable lab time as well as require additional resources being allocated towards enforcement. Instead, you would rather jam up the system more and take away a portion of the populations rights along the way. At one point you said you were in favor of medical research, it does not appear that away. It seems that you would much rather have a medical SS unit eliminating traits you deem unfit. What makes it even worse, these are things that are outside their control. These are just normal people who are ill. Who knows in what ways they could benefit society that could potentially bring a bigger benefit than the costs they impose.

There is no merit in denying the basic freedoms that are enjoyed by all in order to enforce the elimination that you have deemed unacceptable. Also, there is no telling what will found as unfit tomorrow.

    • 3
Sep 21, 2017

I'm not trying to draw a parallel to the policy we are discussing. I was using murderers as an example of how I can think something has no place in society and not hate it just like I don't hate people with genetic disorders yet think the genetic disorder has no place in society.

However, I do feel comfortable saying I might hate the subset of people with genetic disorders whom decide to procreate fully knowing that they're child is high-risk for the disorder. This in my mind is a reckless, selfish decision akin to knowingly infecting another person with HIV through unprotected sex (or childbirth in the case of pregnant, HIV-infected women), which is a crime in the United States.

I am glad you have evaluated individual practices and decided that there are some areas worth considering the Nazi's as worthwhile in.

It seems we are on the same page with regard to the drivers behind US involvement in WW2.

On the matter of "denying basic liberties," how many otherwise healthy people will not have access to healthcare resources after the system has spent X dollars caring for a genetically diseased person for 40 years? 2 people? 3 people? What about after it has spent X dollars caring for that genetically diseased person's offspring for another 40 years? How many people are being "denied the basic liberty" of access to healthcare resources because they were allocated to a few "special" people?

Do you know whats involved in "reducing the red tape"? I do not. My rudimentary understanding is that high administrative costs are the results of multi-payer system attributes which includes many competing providers and insurers as opposed to a single-payer system controlled by the government. I believe the "red tape" exists because US citizens prefer a healthcare system governed (at least partially) by the free market as opposed to the alternative. I do not know if switching systems to "reduce the red tape" will make healthcare low cost but low quality as well, so I cannot argue for it's merits.

I do know that there is a cost to caring for people with genetic disease that far outweighs the cost of screening, sterilization and abortion. I do know that decreasing the demands on the system decreases the systems chance of failure. This is why I can argue for the merits of policies to decrease the prevalence of genetic disease in the population.

I have enjoyed this discussion very much. You've made some very good points and have forced me to flesh out practical arguments for practices I thought had merit in theory. I agree with you that no one knows what benefit to society any individual could provide if allowed the chance. A fundamental belief in the human spirit dictates being very loth to deny that chance to anyone. When making decisions, those in power must endeavor to strike a balance between principle and practicality.

    • 3
    • 1
Sep 11, 2017

**i replied to the wrong post. post below is in response to Draper Specter & Co, with his post beginning in "Just because" and ending in "with such derision".

very well said.

furthermore, I'd like warn people against looking at generally accepted acts of decades/centuries ago (eugenics, slavery, child labour, etc) with the same "morality lens" that we use today. you were not there, and cannot simply deem something "wrong" based on the standards of today. doing so is rather arrogant.

in 200 years I can say with absolute certainty that people will judge something from 2017 as "abhorrent" and ask how we could've possibly practiced something so vile. As naive, unquestioning citizens, we simply don't realize and/or don't look hard enough to find the numerous atrocities masquerading as "normal" [and vise versa, the examples of very normal habits masquerading as "atrocities"]. i have numerous examples in mind, but will keep them private because I don't have time to reply to the ignorant backlash.

i think if people lived with a bit more objectivity, the world would be a much better, more efficient place. this applies to my original post on old people, and pretty much every other societal situation.

-Jay

    • 1
Sep 11, 2017

I agree with the concept of the historical lens - it is incredibly important to remember when looking at history. However, the issue is not that they happened, rather it is thinking that it is wise to implement the same policies that have proven to be atrocious in the recent past.

Sep 10, 2017

At some point the governments of the worlds will have to implement this. We can't have people having litters of children. I don't think it would be wise to have 15 billion people straining the earths resources.

    • 1
    • 1
Sep 10, 2017

Well it's not a good thread until some fucking twat starts defending Nazi eugenics.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."

    • 2
    • 1
Sep 8, 2017

I think this is a misread on the OP. I read, "why do we (as in the personal usage, as in us individuals) choose to keep old people in our lives?" I think it's a fair point to be discussed. If the idea is to institutionalize the process of ridding the country of old people, I want no part. But I think it's morally correct to ask the question of, "why do we do it?"

    • 1
Sep 10, 2017

If that's what he meant, he's had plenty of time to clarify.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."

Mar 7, 2018

"We do not kill old people because once you go down this route, you become a nazi"

^ keep in mind that many prominent people in German society supported the National Socialists, including professors, politicians, doctors, and otherwise highly educated individuals.

It's only after they [the Germans/Axis] lost the war that being a "nazi" is a blanket negative term.

yes, they did some bad things, but we cannot let that undo their numerous contributions to society.

in fact, the US government agreed to offer IMMUNITY to the German (Nazi) scientists in return for their medical tests on humans. our (American) hands are not as clean as we believe.

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Sep 8, 2017

"Old people need to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use."

- Homer Simpson

    • 2
Sep 8, 2017

I am just speechless by reading this. This is the reason why most young people can't be given managerial or senior roles. They just lack "empathy" to others. You won't make money just by inventing the coolest apps. You need empathy, leadership skill, and vision for the future; all of which comes from having the love for your family, the love for your people and the love for life itself. When you try to justify pulling plug on your granny to save money, this is just wrong on so many levels. Simply, it shows that you are willing to screw people for your own short term benefit. This is the same type of mentality that creates corrupted CEOs who led Enron and Lehman Brothers. This is also indicative of the bro-culture we have in the today's tech world - where everyone is willing to screw others to make a quick buck. People are not stupid and they have a very long memory. If you choose to screw people just for your personal short term benefit, they are coming back to you to extract their pound of flesh.

    • 7
    • 3
Mar 11, 2018

I'm far more empathetic to my dog than any human. Even my girlfriend.

Humans are vile, reprehensible, boorish creatures that have become a cancer to the world.
And like you alluded to, greedy motherfuckers who are "willing to screw people".

So if you think "CEOs who lead Lehman" or the "bros in the tech world" deserve applause, why suddently are you speechless and defending old people?

Mar 11, 2018

Having issues with reading comprehension? I said that people who are willing to pull plug on their grannies are the same type of evil people who led Lehman Brothers and tech bros who create useless apps.

Sep 8, 2017

Okay, I think I'll pitch in.

I always thought my grandpa was an old fart, who dabbled in politics and gambled away his savings on lottery tickets. He never fought in WW2, made money through selling a local addictive drug, and wanted people he was rich by buying up a lot of unnecessary shit. He was married to my grandmother at 16-17, made 6 kids, two of whom went abroad (my uncle and dad), while the other 4 daughters ended up becoming fat broiler chickens (my aunts), who in turn ended up breeding even more. Oh, and my dad was the only one bright enough to complete college. He ended up living up to a sweet 94 yrs before passing away due to old age (and possibly cancer from chain smoking - we couldn't diagnose it as he was too weak for that).

My grandmother, looks back to the "fond" memories of the past, where child marriages and godmen and weird ass orthodox rituals were the norm. She actually enjoyed being a child bride, it seems. All she does is indulge in holy books, and complain about her withering legs. Why can't she walk? Laziness, lack of exercise and an indulgent sweet tooth put a diabetic end to her legs' motion. She's 84 now.

Sound pretty useless right? I thought so too. Until my grandfather's funeral.

When he died, the number of people who visited topped 8000. Not a typo. People had come from as far as the Gulf countries, Singapore, Malaysia, the US, UK and China to pay their respects. National politicians flew from our capital to pay their respects. Why? Turns out, all that money we thought he had gambled away, he had actually spent sending these people out of good will, not expecting a thing in return. He didn't know about investments and all, he just thought he had to give to them since he was the richer one. The number of people who rose up because of his actions is just mind-blowing. In fact, when my grandmother wanted my dad to be this religious cleric, it was he who told her to shut up, while sending him to college in the city. Truly great man, and even greater chain smoker.

As for grandmother, I used to think that she was too rooted in her old ways. But the number of prayers she has chanted for all of her grandchildren's benefits are uncountable. It actually pains me seeing her suffer with her diabetes the way she is right now.

I wonder how OP ended up managing even $300k of other people's money, by being such an insensitive, unempathetic prick in PWM. Maybe that's why he's stuck at $300k

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

    • 1
    • 2
Sep 8, 2017

Well then, I hope your family holds you to your promise of dying ASAP once they figure out the NPV of keeping you alive is negative. Don't want to be destroying any value for your family.

"We listen, if it feels good we shake."
"This town is nuts, my kind of place."
-WSMFP

    • 2
    • 1
Sep 8, 2017

He's not saying to euthanize old people. He's talking about spending millions of dollars for weeks of life for people who are on life support, miserable, and barely conscious.

heister:

Look at all these wannabe richies hating on an expensive salad.

    • 3
    • 1
Sep 8, 2017

easy fix: make sure your legal documents are in order and your healthcare agents are informed. medical professionals are obligated to do no harm and do whatever it takes to preserve life, so unless you have documents detailing your wishes, they will do this, and therein lies the problem.

in the situation OP described, those are very expensive treatments, end of life care is basically palliative. reminds me of those cancer commercials that say "we increase your chance of being alive at 6 mos versus 3 mos" at which point I turn to my wife and say "you know if that's me, I want you to pull the plug right?" but we've gotten all that spelled out.

I hate to turn this into a diatribe on PWM and needing advice, but these are the kinds of situations that can be avoided with some unselfish planning.

    • 2
Sep 10, 2017

His post has nothing to do with old age, he is simply saying "Euthanasia should be encouraged. Albeit when the probability of death within 2 years =1"

i.e 2_p_x = 0

Sep 8, 2017

Our society is at the first step of a long path to keeping people alive. As more is invested in the technology, more improvements will occur.

Keeping old people alive in this matter is kind of like hair replacement. The methods now are crude, kinda of like the first shitty hair plugs that came.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/google-co-founders...

Sep 8, 2017

You will be old someday too and karma is a bi$ch

    • 1
Sep 8, 2017

No, we all stop aging at 30 and never die. You should no this by now...

Sep 8, 2017

Pretty sure there was a Futurama episode about this, except they didn't kill them but sent them to basically a giant space filing cabinet forever

Sep 8, 2017

Let's start a project on Kickstarter to see how much people are willing to pledge to get rid of people like you!!!

    • 2
Sep 8, 2017

MonacoMonkey does have a point

Sep 8, 2017

1.) This is the kind of thread that pretty much confirms the "people in finance are sociopaths" stereotype
2.) Discussing this without discussing the ridiculous cost of healthcare in this country is pointless
3.) I don't see how it is anyone's business if an individual family wants to go bankrupt in order to extend a loved ones life

    • 1
Sep 8, 2017

I have no idea why people do this to older loved ones. I honestly think it's just done because it's easier than making any choice at all. Most people can't complete their NYR they set for the year, even if it's something as simple as eating healthier. It's really seems just to be a basic inability to make a choice at all, especially when the choice is this controversial and consequential. But more to the general point you might be making, a national review of keeping the old and sick going is just weird.

    • 2
Sep 8, 2017

Yeah that makes logical sense: It's clear that the NPV when discounting for future years' output from the elderly is definitely negative. We should let them die.

Actually, lets go a step further: cripples clearly have a negative effect on society. Let's be real here, they require specific laws and infrastructure improvements just for them. If we get rid of them, then we can pass on all the savings to the rest of society.

But wait, out of this rest of society, there's clearly some that are better than others. After all, there's a bunch of people who can't see properly, they should be eliminated for everyone else's safety. A vision impaired driver is basically driving a weapon around, so this makes sense.

And speaking of sense, the uneducated should also go. As a species that has risen through the ranks on the brunt of our intelligence, these inferior members should not be allowed to reproduce because it only weakens the subsequent line of genes that result from fornication.

Now that I think about it, we should just cherry pick who to eliminate if they don't have an outstanding gift to contribute to society. I know! Let's promote a master race: I think pure blooded Aryans is a good starting point.

Sarcasm aside, do you see how quickly this kind of thinking can spiral out of control?

    • 2
Sep 8, 2017

Start with George Soros

    • 1
Sep 8, 2017

By the way, nobody is proposing "killing" the old. Some people lived to be 100 in ancient times. They can putter around all they want. "Not pulling every single trick in the book to keep someone alive regardless of consequences to them and the healthcare system" isn't "killing". It's letting nature take its course.

And for those who didn't see my earlier post, I am not a hypocrite nor do I intend to become one. My parents, both medical professionals, have expressed this opinion in regards to themselves and in fact made me promise (I am the least emotional of my siblings) that if they get into the sort of state you see people in this country in, I would absolutely let them die or even help them (hoping it doesn't come to the latter because that will probably be a felony - but they're my parents and they would've done it for me if I needed it).

One day, you will die. It's what you experience before then that matters. If your choice is to die of a stroke at 86 or be kept alive paralyzed in a hospital bed drifting in and out of consciousness in horrible pain for another five years, why the fuck would you pick the latter? I really don't understand Americans' obsession with living as long as possible when there is no living to be had, only waiting to die.

And I'm not saying "yeah, kill all the others but leave me alive." I'm asking YOU, why do YOU think a few years of being bedridden and in pain is a good proposition for YOUR DESIRES, costs aside?

And then let's not forget that this obsession does have a cost, an immense cost to our healthcare spending which could be better used elsewhere.

TL;DR Prolonging peoples' misery makes no sense whether from a purely selfish perspective or an ethical perspective, and on top of this it costs enormous amounts of money.

Sep 8, 2017
Here'sJohnny:

TL;DR Prolonging peoples' misery makes no sense whether from a purely selfish perspective or an ethical perspective, and on top of this it costs enormous amounts of money.

Catholicism prohibits it.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

Sep 8, 2017

Yeah and Judaism makes you chop off a piece of your cock and Islam (on top of also doing that) forbids you from drinking. People have all sorts of beliefs with no rational basis. I'm sure if I knew more about Buddhists, Hindus or various animists I'd come up with some ridiculous things they believe in as well, but I only grew up around the three Abrahamic religions.

Call me cynical, but I'm inherently skeptical when some old dude on a golden throne claims that God speaks only to him. Seems like the most obvious scam in the world.

Sep 8, 2017
Here'sJohnny:

Yeah and Judaism makes you chop off a piece of your cock and Islam (on top of also doing that) forbids you from drinking. People have all sorts of beliefs with no rational basis. I'm sure if I knew more about Buddhists, Hindus or various animists I'd come up with some ridiculous things they believe in as well, but I only grew up around the three Abrahamic religions.

Call me cynical, but I'm inherently skeptical when some old dude on a golden throne claims that God speaks only to him. Seems like the most obvious scam in the world.

In this life, to live in many ways is to suffer. To suffer for something gives meaning. It is not our choice to take away the value that God has planned in our lives. Suffering in life is what life is all about. We don't learn about ourselves as much when times are good. To suffer is the essence of humanity. To suffer brings us closer to Christ. It might not make any sense to you but that is the essence of Christianity.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 2
Sep 10, 2017

Ah yes, no one actually wants to stay alive...it's their evil families doing it against their will! Who could have guessed.

What a moronic comment.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."

Sep 8, 2017

If this HF thing doesn't work, you can always write headlines for Buzzfeed/Thrillist/5MM other clickbait sites. Talk about bait and switch.

Sep 8, 2017

I almost wonder if they come here to practice.

Sep 8, 2017

I quite enjoyed meeting with my grandparents near the end of their lives. Never met someone that was as happy to see me as my grandma the weeks before she died. We probably could have pulled the plug earlier, but who cares. It was her and my grandpa's money we were spending and to them, seeing all their family again was probably worth the $100k+.

Sep 8, 2017

This is ridiculous for a lot of reasons, some of which have been said.

  1. Aside from the obvious moral implications, the most glaring reason in my mind is the fact that you can't measure something/someone's purpose or right to exist just from the marginal 'productivity' or monetary value it/they are perceived to have. I must be one of the crazy people that actually cherished and looked forward to the times I saw my grandparents. It was genuinely a lot of fun to spend time with them right up until the end of their quality of life. Fishing, playing board games, sharing/preparing meals, listening to awesome stories about WWII and previous decades, etc. just to name a few. A poor comparison since a car is not a person, but I think a decent analogy is a classic car. An older/antique car doesn't go nearly as fast as newer models, is much less safe, is less efficient, is way more of a pain in the ass to maintain, and provides no objective utility other than the enjoyment it provides to the owner. So, just because they aren't directly 'contributing' to the economy doesn't mean an elderly person can't be a joy to be around and make a positive impact on society or the lives of those around them (barring any debilitating/incapacitating issue obviously).
  2. Secondly, the amount of jobs and broader sub-economy in healthcare (including OP's parents) that are bolstered or in some cases wholly sustained by the existence of the elderly is quite large. To say that they don't contribute or are no longer valuable is insane. You say that they are a liability/expense, but the first rule of accounting states that if there is a cost/liability associated with something, there has to be something on the other side of the equation to counterbalance.
  3. The United States is fortunate to have a pretty awesome quality of life attainable relative to other countries. If you are able to sustain that for a longer period of time, why would you not want to do so? Makes no sense to want to cut the party short, especially on a site of people who predominantly want to retire early and live the good life even longer than the average citizen.
  4. As @TNA mentioned, the elderly are not the issue, it's that many ignorant people don't plan/think forwardly when it comes to becoming retirement age/a senior citizen. These people were most likely drains on society long before they became elderly. The differentiation is that the U.S. essentially worships potential and youth. Even if you've squandered both for a significant portion of your life, society would view a 30-40 year old who is a complete drudge as being in a better position than an elderly person who is wise, thoughtful and was previously a contributing member of society and lived a full life. Think about it - If the Big Lebowski featured a guy doing the exact same shit, but they cast an 85 year old in the role, it would have been received very differently.
    • 3
Sep 8, 2017

There may be a lot of information on the Internet but nothing can substitute the words of advice from an elderly person with wisdom and life experience. If a person has clearly stated that they do not want to be kept on life support, perhaps the family can consider this and come to a suitable decision. But to say that old people should not be kept alive because of rising costs is not something I consider right. Just my personal opinion.

    • 1
Sep 9, 2017

Holy christ, what is this.

My generation is probably fucked. All I have to do is refresh the off-topic forum here to convince myself of that.

Ironically this pretentious, moronic post is something that someone with the wisdom acquired by living a full life over the course of 90 years would never have written.

Hope you're never in a position where someone might want to "pull the plug" to save money.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."

Sep 10, 2017

"Old age gets us all, premature death is a random event. Pension should be a contract between generations, not an insurance." - TN Thiele

Sep 10, 2017

So they can get drunk and tell us their Navy stories at Red Lobster's bar.

Sep 13, 2017

I think the nature or life have its way for every living beings no matter how young or old they are. Don't know whether I could live that longer or got accidentally dead when I back home-maybe car accident or heart attack. So why not cherish or mind your own life or business? --Just my ideas.

Sep 14, 2017
Sep 14, 2017

I am pretty sure Medicare would pay for Beatrice's surgery ... not the family

Sep 15, 2017

Why do we keep people with down syndrome? Why don't we just euthanize people with low IQs? Where does the line stop?

Sep 15, 2017

Should we euthanize people from NONTARGET schools?

    • 1
Jun 13, 2018
Lloyd BIankfein:

Should we euthanize people from NONTARGET schools?

Nah, they are pretty much already dead.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 1
Feb 2, 2018

This OP is nothing more than phishing for attention. And here we are, falling for it hook, line and sinker. I don't believe the OP'er really believes in what they posted. They simply wanted a reaction.

Otherwise, this has to be one of the dumbest posts I've read in the last 12 months

Feb 2, 2018

I don't know, OP has a lot of queationable posts

Feb 2, 2018
Mar 7, 2018
Mar 7, 2018
Jun 13, 2018