Morality is a very difficult and expensive ideal to protect by law.When morals dictate Americans have a right to a "living wage", we all
pay for that new "right."When morals dictate Americans have a
right to a social security net, we all pay for that new "right."When morals dictate Americans have a right to access medical care, we all pay
for that new right.Unfortunately, the government was never built to
efficiently support our desired prophylactic "rights."My
parents generation has mortgaged their children's prosperity for their own
fiscal security and comfort. I doubt my generation will be any better. At a
certain point, however, we will have to admit we cannot afford to live our
ever-expanding interpretation of what constitutes a "right".
Absurd fact:We the People of the United States deem that individuals
cannot choose when or how you will die. But the government can.Indeed, there is a fear that America cannot rely upon individual families and
persons to make educated, prepared and compassionate decisions regarding their
own lives. Thus, the government compels many to an unnaturally artificial,
limited, painful and dependent quality of life. What is unnatural is often very
expensive. This is no exception.I am disappointed in the Deseret
News for its lack of nuance in approaching these issues. The editorial
board's logic is consistently unsound and frequently contradicts itself
depending on the issue.
Why, oh why, do all discussions with moral implications (what's right and
wrong)on this thread, devolve into black and evil, this reminds me of Nazi
Germany, so you'd rather live in communism, or some other equally
hyperbolic and absolutely inapplicable comparison?If something
can't be defended or discredited on it's own merits and needs the
support of exaggeration you might think twice about the position.
The promise of the Declaration of Independence, that all people “are
endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” presupposes life. Indeed, the
very notion of an “inalienable right” is a right that cannot be
abrogated. Except that the DNews and its owners constantly fight
(and attempt to justify on the basis of religious grounds) to abrogate some
peoples' "inalienable" right to life, liberty and pursuit of
I am LDS, and have an opinion probably against my Church, but both my wife and I
agree that we don't want to be a burdon, financial or otherwise, on our
children when we get to that stage of "just waiting to die". Plus that
stage is usually accompanied by a lot of pain and indignity. And, with medical
technology, many people live beyond what nature, or God if you will, would have
determined. As far as I'm concerned, I should have the choice, and be able
to give my spouce the legal choice, to pull the plug when the right time comes.
I think that, just like a will, a legal contract should be allowed to be
executed which would determine the circumstances that a person could be given
that last overdose of oxycontin, and allowed to check out.
I wonder if, faced with this scenario being a reality in our lives, we'd
make decisions differently than we armchair QB them now? I can't imagine
having to sort through options like this under duress like that of a child with
a terminal illness. And I don't think anyone who ever has to even
contemplate this situation cares one iota what the rest of us think. Or what the
law says. Nobody is suggesting that we take this lightly. But we who have not
arrived at this place owe dignity to those who have, and to their families. In a
lot of cases, I think they're going to take it in any case. I'm not a
religious man, and I don't buy into god as is marketed around here. But I
do see an assessment of fate in the statement 'there, but for the grace of
god, go I'. Whether god or fate or chance intervenes in our lives,
we're bloody lucky to have this discussion externally rather than as
@GildasWhat is odious and evil about someone who lives a life of
constant agony wishing to end things on their terms?Does everyone
understand that people can be in so much pain, the strongest pain killers we
have wont begin to ease it?Does everyone understand that you can get
diseases that will waste away your muscles, diseases that have no cure. You will
spend your last few months unable to go to the toilet by yourself, feed yourself
and be in constant pain.Life is worth living and blah blah blah but
if I have the prospect of having my wife or children change my diapers and feed
me mush, I think I would rather take the bye bye drink that you get at dignitas.
@ Joe Blow hard. I agree you are a straw man. As for the difference between the
70 or 85 year old I believe that should be theirs and their doctors decision not
a bearucrat board of fiscal alcoholic politicaly motivated government
appointees. Every socialist/ marxist philosophy promotes this idea of
eliminating the less fit for the good of the whole. Unfortunatley it never turns
out that way because the people with control levers, power, money and
connections can always find justification or corruption on why their life gets
extended and spared while someone else doesn't. It also becomes a political
tool of oppression against those who are opponents to those in power as has been
repeated in every one of these grand experiments. And yes I say get rid of
medicaid and SS if we are going to death panels. I am tired of supporting
generational theft by people who have known since the 1960's these programs
were unsustainble. you pull your own weight plan for your retirement and save
for your own medical needs rather than leech it from me.
"What if that procedure extended life 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? 1 year? Or
cost $500,000, 200? Or even just three hundred dollars? "Yes
Darrell. That is the conundrum. It is a difficult issue. But, the answer
today is typically to do anything and everything. Why? Because someone else is
paying.We shouldn't demonize people for talking about the
problem openly. It is an emotionally charged issue. We need to have mature,
fact based discussions.And, the extent of end of life care is really
a very separate issue from euthanasia.
I certainly do understand that when an odious evil practice is first suggested
it is attended with all kinds of "safeguards", exemptions, etc and has,
at first, just an isolated and unusual, special case, application. Then it
becomes more common and we get more used to it and the propaganda is meanwhile
stepped up. What we need to consider is camels, noses and tents; frogs, warm
water, boiling water.
And what happens when the Medicare fund starts to run out? Total
Medicare spending is projected to increase from $523 billion in 2010 to $932
billion by 2020. From 2010 to 2030, Medicare enrollment is projected to increase
from 47 million to 79 million, and the ratio of workers to enrollees is expected
to decrease from 3.7 to 2.4As the fund runs out... Does the
government scramble to find more money? Does medicare tax skyrocket? Bank
accounts confiscated? Does the age-limit for when some of these procedures are
allowed go down? Obviously adjustments will be needed to save it.The current medicare system was based on the population growth trend we had in
the 1950's (the baby boom). We know that trend is over and has reversed.
People are retiring earlier and often living till 100 years old. What will
happen when there are more people on medicare than there are working people
paying into it??These are things we need to think about BEFORE they
happen. While there is still time to fix it before it collapses.
Darrel,And I've never suggested I have all the solutions
either. I just don't like when people get caught up in the emotion behind
something that yes is very emotional and they are unable to reconcile those
emotions with reality. The reality is that we can't afford
health care costs currently and insurance companies are still crucified for not
covering a great deal of services.So we can't afford it, but we
want more services, but we don't want to pay for them. Sorry, reality and
logic are missing there.So anyone who says that insurance companies
need to start covering more need to back up their talk by start paying their
insurance companies more than their premiums are and ask that the excess funds
be used to cover more than what is currently covered.
@ChristopherBI don't disagree with you, but I must ask...What if that procedure extended life 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? 1
year? Or cost $500,000, 200? Or even just three hundred dollars? Who gets to make those decisions? You? You're family? An insurance
company? The government? You're doctor? What if instead of
you being old, it was a kid that was only a few months old? Or a teenager? A
30 year old?Should one's status in life, and financial ability
be a consideration when determining "Right to Life?"The
problem we run into (and I have no solution either) is we do not have a clear
set of criteria that can be applied in all situations. When and where does that
line get drawn?
liberty,Yes, I'm proposing when I get old and have incurable
cancer, if there is a procedure that costs $1 million and could increase my life
expectancy by 2 months, I should have to pay for it. No insurance company(and
therefore taxpayers) should have to pay for whatever procedures I want,
regardless of the cost, purely because it helps.If your proposal is
for taxpayers(through insurance costs) to pay for whatever expense anyone wants,
sorry it doesn't work.I suggest you be the one to start paying
double what your insurance premiums are and just tell your insurance company you
want them to start covering more expenses for the elderly.Or if you
want medicare to pay more - I suggest you start giving the govt double the taxes
you and specify you want your contributions to go medicare.Well, are
you willing to start doing this?
@jsfIf you can't separate genocide committed by Nazis to people
choosing something much closer to the equivalent of pulling the plug, I
don't know what to tell you.
@JoeBlowYou nailed it...Healthcare for 65 and older, why
that Patriotic Americanism64 1/2 and below...is nothing short of Red
"If you truly have a problem with medicare going to elderly then I say scrap
it for every one."Nice strawman. There is quite a difference
between treating an otherwise healthy 70 year old with prostate cancer and doing
a hip replacement on an 85 year old with lung cancer.I find it
curious how the same people that justify spending endlessly to extend someones
life a few months but want to deny healthcare to younger people with their whole
life ahead of them.Somehow one is humane and the other is not?
Does anyone in this comment section actually understand how euthanasia works in
Belgium? You do all realise that it has to be requested dont you??? This isnt a
case of doctors going around and killing the old and infirm. People have to
apply, go through a series of checks and interviews and state that they wish to
die.Comparing this to the nazis and eugenics shows a clear
misunderstanding of how this all works.This is for people in
crippling pain or those with a condition with no cure that will leave them with
no dignity as they wait for a death.
"so old people can live 6 more months" and the spin goes on maybe we
shouldn't allow a retirement because it puts a drain on the children. A
movie from 1976, "Logan's Run" depicted a society that had
determined the optimal period of life and exterminated people when they reached
that age, thus no drain on society. There is no moral position that supports
this kind of policy.
@ Joe Blow and Christopher B. I hope your personally volunteering to be first in
line. If you truly have a problem with medicare going to elderly then I say
scrap it for every one. The people who need medical coverage the most are the
people in the beginning or last stages of life.It is the height of self serving
narcissism to have posterity regard their aging parents who scrimped saved and
sacrificed their whole lives for them to deny them the treatment they need to
help them enjoy the fruit of a lifes labor worth of pain blood sweat and tears.
If you guys are so concerned about the cost I suggest you all open your
checkbooks and pay your parents back the 150K-200K they spent on average to
raise you. thats the average we all cost our parents by the time we leave home.
Or we could go back to how america used to take care of our elderly. When they
got to old to be self sustaining it was your job to have them move in with you
and support them. I personally prefer that idea.
Would any same adult allow a child to eat candy without constraint? There is a
reason that children are under the protective care of adults. Adults realize
that life, once extinguished, is gone forever. Children may not fully
understand that consequence. No child is capable of making the
decision to commit suicide. No adult fully understands the full consequences of
'self-killing'.Before we assume that we are gods,
shouldn't we fully understand the purpose of mortality?
Soilent Green is PEOPLE!! (Charlton Heston)
We are 17 trillion dollars in debt. A baby born today is 50,000 dollars in debt
(if one adds in unfunded liabilities, make that 150,000). Ruining the futures
of children so old people can live 6 more months is immoral. As for euthanasia
and children, children deserve the option. I would prefer no children suffer
persistent horrible health, but I didn't create this universe.
"Compassion with the one who suffers intolerably should be a guiding
principle in judging." The Nazis determined 10 million, (6 million Jews)
were suffering intolerably and thus were released from their suffering as a
race, because they didn't equal the greatest race and were destined to
forever suffer as inferior.
I see it now, euthanasia camps across America and Europe. Where Grandma goes to
stay. Or the government reroutes you when you thought you were going for a
cruise in the Bahamas. "Arbeit macht frei" "Jedem das Seine"
Apparently the concept is not appalling to some posters. "we DO need some
form of end of life panel. Call it death panels if you want, but it needs to be
discussed in a logical, factual way without over-the-top political rhetoric
(code for don't bring morals into the discussion) which shuts down the
discussion." "comparisons with Nazis and gas chambers are very
inappropriate" If the Nazis had only euthanized 600,000 it would be
acceptable. Maybe if it was only five it would be acceptable. Eugenics is
alive and thriving in the US. Already we turn our backs on 50 million children
killed since Roe vs Wade. We live in a black and morally depraved society.
I always believed that the countenancing and regular practice of legal abortions
would be a stepping stone to legally killing the old and infirm. I cannot
believe the evil of the world in which we live.
What this article doesn't mention is how strict the rules are before any
minor is granted his request to die. The procedure is so time-consuming and
requires so many check-points that in nearly all cases the incurable,
intolerably suffering child will have died before any action can be taken.
Moreover, the number of requests will be extremely low, if any. The Netherlands
have have had this law (for 16-year olds) for more than 10 years and only 5
minors have made the request over that period. So, comparisons with Nazis and
gas chambers are very inappropriate. This is a complex, deeply humane problem.
Compassion with the one who suffers intolerably should be a guiding principle in
"JoeBlow, I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with
you."Crazy things happen sometimes. :)"But too
often liberals try and guilt these insurance companies by saying there is no
price too high to help someone. And that simply is not true"I
don't disagree but I see both sides as the problem (a totally liberal
idea).The last big discussion about the issue was shut down by the
conservatives."Obama wants to kill Granny!" And
this was all predicated by the concept that doctors should be paid for having a
sit down discussion with the family about end of life options.This
is what inspired the whole "death panel" discussion.Yes,
liberals definitely contribute to the problem. But Conservatives hands are
I know that comparison was a little over-the-top. But when we accept
euthanasia for certain groups (children in this case)... we are headed the
wrong direction (IMO).If you think it will just stop at those with
mental or medical handicaps... read the views of the euthanasia society (goggle
it). Or the views of the Fabian Socialists on euthanasia. Google George
Bernard Shaw and read his views on Eugenics. Watch his video spouting the
philosophy of the Fabian Socialists (that every person should be asked every
year or so.. what are YOU contributing to society... and give the chance to
justify their existence.... and prove they deserve the RIGHT to live).Goggle "Fabian Society"Goggle "The second spring"Google "Eugenics"Learn about the agenda and where it goes.It's a slippery slope after you accept euthanasia . Especially
State sponsored Eugenics.
JoeBlow, I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with you. People
don't want to put a price on someone's life, but we do it everyday and
must continue to do it. People just don't want to admit we do. If we didn't put a price on someones life, insurance companies would be
required to pay for each and every procedure and medicine that could extend the
life of a person by even a minute. We cannot do that. A business
person understands that regardless of who much you can get an obamacare policy
for, the true cost of insurance to taxpayers is at an unsustainable level and
cannot continue to increase. There needs to be a way for logical
people to realize that "No" needs to be said by insurance companies
sometimes if any of us are to survive the health care nightmare we are in.But too often liberals try and guilt these insurance companies by saying
there is no price too high to help someone. And that simply is not true.
Is euthanasia "suitable" for ANY group? Or ANY age?Once we
accept euthanasia as "suitable"... we are no better than the Nazis and
their gas chambers. just on a different scale.
"One of the foremost principles of common law is that minors, or individuals
under the age of 18, are unable to enter into legally binding contracts." -
Is not an accurate statement. The State of Utah grants minors the right to enter
marriage, a civil contract, at the age of 16 with parental consent and at the
age of 15 with judicial and parental consent.
We have some tough issues to face.Medicare is projected to be the
main budget buster going forward. Our costs are increasing and the baby boomers
are retiring.1/4 of medicare outlays occur in the last year of
someones life.If you study this as a business person would, this
number would scream loudly.But it turns into a political flash
point. Remember all the hoopla over death panels?Heck, this was a made
up issue, and yet it took the headlines.But, realistically, this
needs to be addressed. We cant continue to spend huge $$ on someone who is
about to die.That is a cold hard fact.In reality, we DO
need some form of end of life panel. Call it death panels if you want, but it
needs to be discussed in a logical, factual way without over-the-top political
rhetoric which shuts down the discussion.
I'm having dejavu of a Child K circa germany 1939 who was deemed to have no
quality of life as well.
So the Dnews, who has supported the death penalty, advocates that the State can
eliminate your right to life, but a terminally ill patient cannot? Where is the
liberty in that? There is no liberty, and no compassion, in denying a terminally
ill, suffering person a more peaceful way to die.
I don't disagree with this desnews editorial, but I wonder why the
difference with animals? Why do we put animals who we love to death if we deem
their life not worth living and believe what we have done is for the best?