Thursday, November 23, 2017

What Next? Millennials Want To Euthanize The Elderly!


Euthanasia - a new pathway to Elder Abuse
Published on Oct 6, 2013

The Petition for "Mandatory Euthanasia" for Senior Citizens Under Obama Care!
Mark Dice
Published on Jul 29, 2013
First it starts with little things like voting, then on to bigger things like euthanasia!
Should older people lose the right to vote?
Some have argued that disenfranchising the elderly would allow younger people to make decisions about their future, but is it really that simple?
Daniel Munro
July 4, 2017
REUTERS/Mark Blinch
In Christopher Buckley’s satirical novel, Boomsday, a Generation X blogger and emerging PR star suggests that to deal with the social and economic strain of a large and aging Boomer population, the government should offer people incentives to commit suicide by the age of 70. In addition to being offered perks like free Botox and no estate taxes, those who opt to “voluntarily transition” to death after retirement are to be treated as patriots and heroes on par with veterans. Resistance to the proposal is understandably intense and widespread. But the novel does provoke an important question: What should democracies do when the interests of the elderly appear to be at odds with the interests of younger generations?
One proposal mooted in philosophy circles over the past few decades is to disenfranchise the elderly—that is, eliminate the right to vote at age 70 or some other appropriate upper threshold. The idea is that once citizens reach a certain age, they will be less concerned with our social, political, and economic future than younger generations and much less likely to bear the long-term consequences of political decisions and policies. In that case, their votes ought to be discounted, or eliminated altogether, to ensure that the future is shaped by those who have a real stake in how it turns out. But would disenfranchising older citizens be fair?
Consider two principles of political legitimacy and the way they appear to unravel in the context of intergenerational justice. The affected interests 
principle holds that those whose interests are affected by political decisions ought to have a say in those decisions. One is a free citizen, the argument goes, only to the extent that one has opportunities to shape the laws and policies to which one will be subject. Without those opportunities, we face a democratic deficit. A second principle—political equality—holds that those who participate and are affected ought to have an equal say in the selection of decision-makers and policies. This is the ideal that the notion of one-person-one-vote is intended to meet.
In the context of intergenerational politics, these principles come under pressure. Decisions made by older generations will affect the interests of younger and unborn generations, but those younger generations will themselves have less or no say. Moreover, as some argue, older citizens have greater incentives to deplete natural resources, underinvest in infrastructure, accumulate public debt and ignore the environment. Polls of top political issues show that concern for the environment and education declines with age. Grandma votes against carbon taxes and recycling programs, and Grandpa votes against education spending? So take away their right to vote and let younger people make decisions about the future.
But before disenfranchising older citizens, consider some objections. In the first place, a policy to disenfranchise the elderly rests on some questionable assumptions. Although evidence suggests that seniors sometimes vote in ways that discount the future, younger citizens also vote in self-interested ways that can lead to costs being passed on to future citizens. Support for free university and college tuition, for example, serves younger citizens’ interests but, if financed through debt, effectively passes the costs to future citizens. Similarly, parents who support lower taxes so they can pay for childcare might be as much of a threat to long-term infrastructure investments as seniors voting for more spending on long-term care. For almost every reasonable policy preference, a case can be made that it imposes costs on future generations—even if only an opportunity cost.
Moreover, a proposal to disenfranchise the elderly rests on a rather narrow view of what the right to vote represents. Although voting is a mechanism for expressing policy and leadership preferences, it is also a central means by which democracies recognize the moral and political equality of citizens. Disenfranchising the elderly might eliminate one source of short-term thinking in politics, but would also reduce politicians’ and policy-makers’ incentives to address the legitimate needs and interests of older citizens. So long as older citizens are still living citizens, a fair and legitimate democracy must continue to recognize their political equality and provide them with means to influence decisions that will affect their interests.
Frustration with the policy preferences and omissions of older citizens is a long-standing complaint of younger citizens. Future generations will no doubt continue to shake their heads at many aspects of the world they inherit. The challenge for living, and especially older, generations, is to vote and engage in politics in ways that go beyond self-interest. The challenge is to recognize that although future generations cannot impose costs on past generations, future citizens can and will judge those who lived before them and will have the final say over how we and previous generations will be remembered.
Dan Munro is a Visiting Scholar and Director of Policy Projects in the Innovation Policy Lab at the Munk School for Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. Listen to The Ethics Lab on Ottawa Today with Mark Sutcliffe, Thursdays at 11 EST. @dk_munro
Euthanasia? Bullfeathers. This is MURDER!
Euthanasia doctor 'told family of drugged elderly woman to hold her down as she fought not to be killed'
The woman, 74, had dementia and had earlier expressed a desire for euthanasia when she deemed that "the time was right”, although she added "but not now"
By Koen Berghuis
29 September 2017
Paperwork showed that the only way the doctor could complete the injection was by getting family members to help restrain her (stock photo)
euthanasia doctor allegedly told the family of a drugged elderly woman to hold her down as as she fought desperately not to be killed.
The Dutch public prosecutor's office has decided to investigate the case after a college of prosecutors said there is sufficient suspicion the doctor broke the country's euthanasia laws.
It is the first case to be investigated in the Netherlands since the country introduced the euthanasia law 17 years ago.
Since then more than 5,500 people have ended their lives, arguing they were suffering unbearably.
The case, which was first reported in January, caused widespread outrage in the Netherlands and around the world and started a debate regarding whether pensioners with dementia were able to agree to euthanasia.
The woman, 74, had dementia and had earlier expressed a desire for euthanasia when she deemed that "the time was right", although she added "but not now".
As her situation deteriorated, it became difficult for her husband to care for her, and she was placed in a nursing home.
The woman, 74, had dementia and had earlier expressed a desire for euthanasia (stock photo) (Image: Stone Sub)
Medical paperwork showed she often exhibited signs of fear and anger, and would wander around the building at nights.
The nursing home senior doctor was of the opinion that she was suffering intolerably - but that she was no longer in a position where she could confirm that the time was now right for the euthanasia to go ahead.
However, the doctor was of the opinion that the woman's circumstances made it clear that the time was now right.
The doctor secretly placed a soporific in her coffee to calm her, and then had started to give her a lethal injection.
But while injecting the woman, she woke up, and fought the doctor.
The paperwork showed that the only way the doctor could complete the injection was by getting family members to help restrain her.
It also revealed that the patient said several times "I don't want to die" in the days before she was put to death.
The doctor had not spoken to her about what was planned because she did not want to cause unnecessary distress.
Reportedly, the doctor also did not tell her about what was in her coffee as it was also likely to cause further disruptions to the planned euthanasia process.
The case was first referred to the Regional Review Committee, which checks if every euthanasia performed are conducted in accordance with the law.
They have to check if the patient voluntarily asked for euthanasia, suffered unbearably, is in a medical situation and was properly consulted by a doctor.
The Review Committee also checks if the doctor sought other reasonable alternatives first, if at least one other independent doctor was consulted and if the final euthanasia was done so in a medically thorough and careful way.
Considering these demands according to Dutch law, the committee ruled that the doctor "crossed a border" by administrating the first soporific secretly in her coffee.
It also said that after she fought back, the doctor should have halted the euthanasia even though it might have been a purely physical reaction.
As irregularities were found, they decided earlier this year to forward the case to the public prosecutor's office.
Regional Review Committee Chairman Jacob Kohnstamm said earlier: "I am convinced that the doctor acted in good faith, and we would like to see more clarity on how such cases are handled in the future."
Konhstamm added that he did not mind the case going to court "to get judicial clarity over what powers a doctor has when it comes to the euthanasia of patients suffering from severe dementia."
MP Kees van der Staaij of the Christian-conservative Reformed Party (SGP) said it is "good that the public prosecutor's office is taking action" as the "protection of vulnerable life" is at stake.
His party, together with two other Christian parties as well as the Socialist Party (SP), are currently fighting a proposed extension of Dutch euthanasia laws which would give all over-75s the right to assisted suicide even if they are not ill.
Another elderly person murdered!
Dutch doctor who drugged elderly euthanasia patient and gave her lethal injection as she fought desperately not to be killed did NOT break the law, panel rules
The medic allegedly put the drug in the woman's coffee
By Hannah Crouch
28th January 2017
A FEMALE Dutch doctor who drugged an elderly euthanasia patient and then gave her a lethal injection despite her fighting not to be killed has been cleared.
The medic allegedly put the drug in the woman's coffee in order to calm her but she later awoke as she was being injected.
The unnamed patient, 80, reportedly suffered from dementia and had earlier expressed a desire for euthanasia when she deemed "the time was right".
As her situation deteriorated she was placed in care home with medical paperwork revealing she often exhibited signs of fear and anger.
A senior doctor at the nursing home was of the opinion that the woman was suffering intolerably and was no longer in a position to confirm when the time was right for euthanasia to go ahead.
The doctor was also of the opinion that the woman's circumstances made it clear the time was right now.
She secretly placed a sleeping pill in the patient's coffee and then gave her a a lethal injection.
The patient woke up while the doctor was trying to administer the injection and began fighting back.
Paperwork, which was given to a Regional Review Committee, showed that the only way the doctor could complete the injection was by getting family members to help restrain the patient.
It was also revealed that the patient said "I don't want to die" several times before she was put to death and the doctor did not speak to her about what was planned as she did not want to cause unnecessary distress.
The patient was also unaware that a sleeping pill was placed in her coffee.
Elderly Canadians fear euthanasia
One woman's surprising response to legalisation: get a tattoo.
Christine Nagel
September 15, 2016
In June this year, the Canadian Parliament legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide. Not everyone is happy about this, as Christine Nagel explains below.
For years, I warned my children to steer clear of tattoo parlors, and now at 81 years old, I have had to resort to one myself.
Bill C-14 makes it legal for us to play God and to make decisions over life and death ourselves. Assisted suicide is promoted as the most dignified way to treat an aging population--humanely, painlessly and without the need for suffering. Financially, it will become the salvation to our overburdened health care systems.
Our Government and Supreme Court do not of course mention anything about money, but they do warn us that within a few years, seniors will outnumber the rest of the population and will need an army of caregivers to cope with them. That will be costly. Inevitably, euthanasia will become a more "socially acceptable" way to solve this problem, than for example Hitler's "Final Solution".
Obviously, none of this is acceptable to us Christians. We look to Christ on the cross, stripped of his garments, writhing in agony, and covered in blood--hardly a dignified image of God's son.
Yet the meaning of this is central to our faith. Suffering is vital to life and to our growth. What occurs at the end of my life is between God and me. Let no one else dare to interfere.
So to understand this message clearly, read my shoulder!
Christine Nagel    
Calgary, Alberta
Elderly should be given euthanasia ‘rewards’, say one in 10 Britons
Anti-euthanasia campaigners say poll shows ‘chilling’ attitudes to elderly ahead of Lords assisted dying debate
By John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor
06 Nov 2014
One in 10 British people believe elderly people should be offered a “reward” if they opt for assisted suicide, new polling suggests.
Anti-euthanasia campaigners said the finding was “chilling” evidence of deep-seated prejudice towards older people from a small but significant minority of the population.
They claim that it is proof of the possible dangers of any change in the suicide laws such as the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill which is due to return to Parliament for detailed scrutiny on Friday.
The bill would allow terminally ill patients judged to have no more than six months to live and a “settled intention” to end their lives to be prescribed a lethal dose of drugs if two doctors agree.
Members of the House of Lords are due to consider 175 separate possible amendments to the bill, which was debated by peers in July, aimed at tightening up possible safeguards.
The polling, by ComRes, was commissioned by the disability campaign group “Not Dead Yet” and the anti-assisted suicide alliance, Care Not Killing.
It found that a majority of the public (54 per cent) support assisted dying in principle but that 58 per cent believe it would be impossible to create a system which is be completely safe from abuse by unscrupulous relatives or others which might put pressure on people to end their lives.
Just under half of those polled said they believe hospitals should be allowed to administer fatal drugs to patients considered to have no prospect of recovery.
Respondents were also asked whether they agreed with Martin Amis, the author, that elderly people should be rewarded for ending their lives.
The question was a reference to remarks by Mr Amis in 2010 suggesting that there should be booths on street corners where elderly people could go to end their lives and that they should be given “get a Martini and a medal” for doing so.
Overall 64 per cent disagreed with the idea of rewarding people for ending their lives with 10 per cent in favour and 26 per cent claiming that they did not know.
The poll found that men are more than twice as likely as women to agree with rewarding assisted suicide and support rises to 14 per cent, or in seven, among people aged between their mid-30s and mid-40s.
Seven per cent of the over-65s polled also backed the suggestion.
Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of Care Not Killing, said: “The most chilling findings of this poll, were the one in 10 who said the elderly should be encouraged to end their lives so they did not become a burden.
“This highlights the frightening undercurrent of deep prejudice that some people harbour towards the older members of our community.
“If there was any doubt about why it is absolutely vital the current legal protections that prohibit assisted suicide and euthanasia are maintained, then this one fact should be proof enough.”
The overall findings indicate that public opinion on assisted dying in Britain is more nuanced than headline poll findings suggest.
Andrew Hawkins, chairman of ComRes, said: “The obvious conclusion is that while the public are broadly sympathetic to the rights-based argument in favour of ending lives at the time of a person’s choice, there is widespread concern about the abuse to which any system is likely to be open.
“These concerns are apparent across three areas – by the medical profession, by unscrupulous relatives, and in terms of pressure to end lives prematurely and on diminishing palliative and other health care resources.”

Government Attitude Towards Elderly Leads to Euthanasia
Published on Dec 3, 2012
Also See:

So ... What's With The Millennials?

(Part 1)
10 August 2017

(Part 2)
21 August 2017

(Part 3)
15 October 2017

Older White Generation Voted Trump!

12 November 2017

The Me-Generation is Growing Up!

13 June 2016

The Precarious World of Teenagers!

02 April 2009