This old chestnut

treliac

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I think you really fail to grasp the scale of the problem. Read post number 8 again and have a think about it.

Your point, post no. 8 et al, is your personal opinion on the subject and not one I agree with.

There is not just one way of sorting out a better economic future for the country, nor of achieving a reasonable social climate for us to inhabit. This govt has grown the population considerably during it's reign... and how much nearer are we now to achieving a successful economy?

Living in increasingly overcrowded conditions is not what most of us want. It may not impact on someone living amongst the 5m population of Scotland. It's a different picture living in the densely populated south-east of England.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

treliac wrote: »

Your point, post no. 8 et al, is your personal opinion on the subject and not one I agree with.
.

The deficits are hard facts, not opinion, and are measured in Trillions of pounds.

Do you have another practical solution?

Or is the "we can do it without immigration" line just wishful thinking.....

treliac

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The deficits are hard facts, not opinion, and are measured in Trillions of pounds.

Do you have another practical solution?

Or is the "we can do it without immigration" line just wishful thinking.....

Whatever your particular dogma, I think you'll find it's not the route we go down.

ETA: In fact, Scotland has plenty of space, plenty of capacity. If there's a place looking to be developed.......

.....

Thrugelmir

treliac wrote: »

Your mum is very lucky to have such health and fitness. I'm sure, of course, that her attitude and lifestyle have helped her. I hope to be blessed with health and strength into my 80's.

Unfortunately, many of us are ailing and dependent to a degree by the time we reach our mid-eighties. We can only do the best we can to maintain our vigour, though illnesses cannot all be controlled. Maybe in time science will facilitate longer life with better health. This is the 'elixir' I'm hoping will help solve the problem of an ageing population in the longer term.

I've heard it said that many of today's children are living such unhealthy lifestyles that they will succumb earlier and younger than today's older generations.


..

Different attitude. War generation. Evacuatuated out of London to Kent to be a land girl.

My grandmother was the same. Born in Limehouse. One of 14 children living in 2 rooms. Lost 3 brothers in Battle of the Somme etc. Gives one a different perspective to life. And the things that really matter.

bouche

avantra wrote: »

UK's aging population is a bigger economic threat than the financial crisis


Dear forum,

We need your help, please advice us how the hell we are going to get out of this never ending mess.

Yours Faithfully


Gordon and Dave

Look after your parents yourself then;)

Mind bending idea, isn't it!!

Degenerate

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Stop insisting that people with terminal illnesses and/or are in intolerable pain and misery have no freedom of choice to end their own life in a civilised and controlled way and must be kept alive, against their wishes, at all costs.

1.) The number of people with "terminal illnesses and/or are in intolerable pain and misery", is far too small to have any impact whatsoever on these demographic issues, so your point is totally out of place here.

2.) There are not, never have been and never will be laws insisting that these people are "kept alive". This is a myth propagated by the pro-euthanasia crowd. There has always been freedom to refuse medical treatment, and none of the anti-euthanasia crowd have ever opposed this in any way. It's just a lie.

3.) Suicide has not been illegal since 1961 and no-one has been seriously proposing to change this either.

4.) It's assisting a suicide that remains illegal, ie providing the subject with the ways and means to commit suicide - although when campaigners talk about "assisted suicide", they're just as often using that as weasel words for outright killing carried out by others at the subject's request.

5.) If you think it should be legal to encourage and assist suicide, ask yourself this: would you still agree if it were someone assisting the suicide of your teenage daughter if she decided her life wasn't worth living after her boyfriend dumped her?

6.) How would you write into a law a qualitative judgement about who is worth trying to save and who should be helped to die? How do you effectively define "terminal illness" (we're all going to die eventually) and especially the weasel words "intolerable pain and misery" (which could be subjectively applied to the teenage girl).

1984ReturnsForReal_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Could you please expand on this?

Start to wipe out the elderly, infirm, disabled or in fact anyone else they thought was a drain on society.

It wasn't just the Jews that were persecuted in their millions.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Desertfox wrote: »

Hamish has run again. I think he's still licking his wounds from his previous defeat to me.

eh?

What defeat was that?

And how does inflation solve a pensions deficit, when pensions have to rise at least partially in line with inflation, otherwise all the oldies starve to death....

[Deleted User]

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Stop insisting that people with terminal illnesses and/or are in intolerable pain and misery have no freedom of choice to end their own life in a civilised and controlled way and must be kept alive, against their wishes, at all costs.

I agree wholeheartedly!!!!

I've recently lost both parents and a mum-in-law. One with cancer, one with a whole host of mental and phyiscal problems, one with dementia. They all died slowly and misserably with zero quality of life for the last couple of years. All would have chosen a nicer, quicker end. And those of us left wouldn't have to live with the horror of it all had we been allowed to choose to end things nicely.

For those I love, for myself I hope and pray that someone has the sense to allow us to make our own choices. Instead of spending a fortune on nursing homes where old people smell of pee and sit staring at walls, or hospices where we're 'kept comfortable' (or as comfortable as possible - which is often very uncomfortable) - perhaps (as in the case of my dad) for months. Why not use a fraction of the money to help people tie up loose ends and choose endings that they want.

We're a nation of dog lovers and most of us would frown upon anyone that allowed an old or sick dog to keep struggling on for too long. Basic decency tells us that it's wrong to let them suffer. Yet due to some misguided, warped .. what is it - religious beliefs? we let parents, children, siblings, spouces, friends etc die in agony - both mental and physical. It's sick. It makes me so angry.

I think (hope) that for financial reasons public opinion will need to change. We can't afford to support an aging population. It's sad that we can't treat humans as well as dogs for compasionate reasons, but hopefully we'll soon be doing it for financial reasons!!!

[Deleted User]

Degenerate wrote: »

1.) The number of people with "terminal illnesses and/or are in intolerable pain and misery", is far too small to have any impact whatsoever on these demographic issues, so your point is totally out of place here.

Well all I can tell you is that I've had the missfortune to regularly visit three nursing homes and there was a fair bit of intolerable pain and misery within those walls. The tax payer was footing the bill for most of that. Multiply that to take account of all nursing homes in the UK and I think you'd find that there is a lot of money being wasted on keeping people alive that would have not wished to live under those circumstances.

I know for a fact that I would want to be 'put to sleep' if it reached the stage where a nursing home was the only option. My husband too. The thought of being in a nursing home getting your nappies changed by someone the job center sent along because they couldn't get any other job is totally and utterly horrific. But that is the reality for countless numbers of old people.

2.) There are not, never have been and never will be laws insisting that these people are "kept alive". This is a myth propagated by the pro-euthanasia crowd. There has always been freedom to refuse medical treatment, and none of the anti-euthanasia crowd have ever opposed this in any way. It's just a lie.

You interpret "kept alive" differently from me.

My mum in law eventually died weighing just 2.5 stone after 'living' like a vegetable in a bed without eating and drinking for weeks on end. I expect anyone doing that to a dog would be prosecuted for cruelty.

My dad spent 3 months of deep depression, fear and misery after being diagnosed with a soft tissue sarcoma and being given at best thee months to live. My mum was too ill to visit him and he too ill to visit her. They'd never spent a day apart prior to his illness. He spent his last 48 hours frantically gasping for breath as the fluid gargled in his lungs. Horrific - I hope you never have to witness a loved one suffering like this.

My mum spent 8 months in a nursing home after my dad died. She was suffering from cancer, bipolar disorder, asthma, heart problems. She couldn't walk, she was incontinent. She was utterly miserable. She always used to say "never let me die in a nursing home - put a pillow over my head before things get to that stage".

Do you have a pet dog that you love dearly? What would you do if it had reached the point where it couldn't be helped and it was clearly suffering? Would you have it put to sleep or would you 'keep it alive' until nature took it's course?

3.) Suicide has not been illegal since 1961 and no-one has been seriously proposing to change this either.

Well you're hardly going to prosecute someone for killing themselves are you?

4.) It's assisting a suicide that remains illegal, ie providing the subject with the ways and means to commit suicide - although when campaigners talk about "assisted suicide", they're just as often using that as weasel words for outright killing carried out by others at the subject's request.

What does it matter what words you use? It's a final act of kindness - an act of love, that you can give to a loved one.

5.) If you think it should be legal to encourage and assist suicide, ask yourself this: would you still agree if it were someone assisting the suicide of your teenage daughter if she decided her life wasn't worth living after her boyfriend dumped her?

But a doctor (or panel of doctors) are hardly likely to say that a teenage girl who'd decided "her life wasn't worth living after her boyfriend dumped her couldn't be cured". They would all without a doubt say that her condition was cureable and that quality of life could be restored.

Contrast that with the conversation with my dad's oncologist. She bluntly stated that nothing could be done for my dad, that his condition would rapidly worsen, that it would be unpleasant (she listed the possible ways in which he would die) and that it may not be pain free. It would take up to three months. At this point he was already suffering horribly and could not live at home.

Or my mum in law or mum who could only go downhill from an intollerable situation.

6.) How would you write into a law a qualitative judgement about who is worth trying to save and who should be helped to die? How do you effectively define "terminal illness" (we're all going to die eventually) and especially the weasel words "intolerable pain and misery" (which could be subjectively applied to the teenage girl).

Those that CAN be cured or given an acceptable quality of life should be saved. Those that can't should be allowed to end their lives as and when they choose - with the help of doctors, friends or loved ones if they wish. Have you heard of living wills?

You seem to be arguing that countless people should suffer to avoid a few 'teenage girls' slipping through the net.

I would argue that a few 'teenage girls' should slip through the net to avoid countless people suffering.

What's more sad - the suicide of a young girl or the intollerable suffering and torture of an old man? I would try and help them both rather than passing laws to TRY (lets face it if the girl wants to kill herself no law will stop her. She is physically capable of suicide) to protect one and penalise the other.