A Question on the right to life v. obligation of death

tipsycatlover

Registered Member
#1
It was a conversation with a young woman. I just wondered how many share her sentiments.

She has a grandmother who is 99 years old. Grandma lives alone, in a condo in Florida. She takes care of herself. She's a bit confused sometimes and thinks that the people on television are talking to her.

The granddaughter said that Gradma should just let go and pass on. I told her that since Grandma wasn't ill, there is no issue of letting go and passing on. She's in good health and doesn't even take medication of any kind. Grandma even has all her own teeth!

Nevertheless, I was told, Grandma is not mentally all there. But, Grandma doesn't know it. She thinks people are coming to visit her. Then we come to the issue. Since Grandma is not sick, she should be euthanized and given the right to die because she is really old.

Has "right to die" become a euphamisim for "obligation to die"? Should those of advanced age be put to death whether they want to go or not, whether they are sick or healthy because they are deemed by others too old to continue living?
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#3
Euthanasia involves consent. If she doesn't consent, then there's no issue to begin with. If she's unable to give consent due to her mental state and she didn't provide any kind of document detailing what should occur should she become like this, then there's no support for it.

Just because the young girl thinks this doesn't mean anything. I think my grandfather's been leeching off of my grandmother for years and should just give up the ghost. That has no legal bearing, it's just my reaction to it all.
 

tipsycatlover

Registered Member
#4
Are we moving towards one direction or the other? In the Netherlands, the movement is to euthanize without consent when someone's life is deemed below acceptable "quality" as determined by a panel of doctor, family and government representative. Are we slowly moving towards that model? Those who object to being euthanized are legally deemed to lack the capacity to make that decision based on the determination of the panel as to what constitutes quality of life. It is worthwhile to note that persons might be killed over the objections of the family if outvoted on the quality of life issues.

I don't think that the Granddaughter is alone in her views. They are the natural and probable outgrowth of euthanasia advocates.
 
B

bluedog

Guest
#5
Euthanasia involves consent. If she doesn't consent, then there's no issue to begin with. If she's unable to give consent due to her mental state and she didn't provide any kind of document detailing what should occur should she become like this, then there's no support for it.

Just because the young girl thinks this doesn't mean anything. I think my grandfather's been leeching off of my grandmother for years and should just give up the ghost. That has no legal bearing, it's just my reaction to it all.
Ah.....the "trap" has been sprung. So to be Euthanised one must give consent? What about the life that is in a person before it is "physically" able to give conscet with cogantion to reason? What right does the mother have to declare that which rest within her, not worth the gestation effort to bring about a fully developed human baby? And one can not conclude that which is in her gestating, is not alive due to the fact that it is gestating or growing. In fact for something to be growing it must be alive, it may not have the mental capacity to cognation of logical thought yet but by all human logic it must be considered alive. And one can not say that it is not an individual and separate from the mother, because that conculsion would be wrong, due to recent precendent that has been accepted by the courts as evidence to prove the "individuality" of anyone. Of course I speak of the DNA signature of that gestationg human child, A DNA signature that is diffierent from that of the Mother. In fact a DNA signature which contains proof of who the father is, by carrying samples of his DNA also. So one must conclude that which rests withing a pregant woman is not part of her body, but a separate living gestating human child.....AN INDIVIDUAL WITH 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO LIFE.....LIBERTY, a concept that his hard to achieve, if the one that has these right is to be Euthanized without the proper consent. Think Not? BD
 
#6
I figure... if a person is in good physical health, and is not harming others with their mental illness, they can go on living. If it gets to the point where they rely completely on others to survive, or if their illness causes them to act in such a manner that they are interfering negatively with the lives of others, then at the very least, they should be moved into a facility that can deal with the person rather than letting them live on their own... then I suppose if the person or their family no longer is able/wants to support that facility, the person can be allowed to die on their own or be euthanized if such a method of death would be more humane.
 
B

bluedog

Guest
#8
I figure... if a person is in good physical health, and is not harming others with their mental illness, they can go on living. If it gets to the point where they rely completely on others to survive, or if their illness causes them to act in such a manner that they are interfering negatively with the lives of others, then at the very least, they should be moved into a facility that can deal with the person rather than letting them live on their own... then I suppose if the person or their family no longer is able/wants to support that facility, the person can be allowed to die on their own or be euthanized if such a method of death would be more humane.
The same conslusion that Mr. Hitler came to when he attempted to "dehumanize" the Jews. They were not destorying life they were destroying a "worthless" waste of space and expense upon the "STATE". First our children, then the old and ill, what next......the hadi-capped? Or others not being of some particualr lineage, IE. White European? BD
 
#9
The same conslusion that Mr. Hitler came to when he attempted to "dehumanize" the Jews. They were not destorying life they were destroying a "worthless" waste of space and expense upon the "STATE". First our children, then the old and ill, what next......the hadi-capped? Or others not being of some particualr lineage, IE. White European? BD
That's not what I said at all. I said that someone (particularly someone very old, who would be unlikely to recover from bad health or mental illness, unlike a young person) in good physical health who is not harming others through a mental illness should be allowed to live. Hitler discriminated against and tried to eradicate the Jews because he believed them to be racially inferior, and his goal was to purify the world purging it of all but what he believed to be the master race; not because he believed they suffered from an ailment. He was not moving people into facilities where their ailment could be treated, he was moving them into facilities where they would be killed. Aging, unlike a religion, is a process which every person on earth goes through, and is entirely non-discriminatory.

First our children, then the old and ill, what next......the hadi-capped?
You seem to have misunderstood the thread... it's not first the children, then the old and ill... it's just talking about the old. As much as you may want to assume that a conclusion reached specifically about old people (who are nearly dead after having lived a long life) can also be applied to children and other religions, you are incorrect.
 

Iris

rainbow 11!
#10
I thought that doing that is illegal here in the U.S.?

I don't think that the grandmother should be told to move on just because she is a little mentally unstable. She doesn't seem to be hurting anyone or herself and she isn't in constant physical pain. If they are really worried, they could just hire something like a stay at home nurse. Or move her to a facility like Sen said.