Is it time access to free NHS care was age limited?

Sapphire

BobQ wrote: »

Euthanasia is the answer, but it needs to be done in as failsafe a way as possible.

We all know that we can make a living will but few do this. I think the NHS could save a lot of resources in the future if people were encouraged to make living wills and declare their view on ethanasia.For example when someone over 60 with no life threatening condition visits their GP, why not allow the GP to raise the issue and offer them an appointment with someone who could facilitate them expressing their wishes ?

However, there would be far too much potential for such a system to be abused, e.g. by offspring (of a similar bent to the OP) who wish houses to fall in front of them free of charge, etc. There would also be the potential for enormous pressure to be put on people to (in effect) agree to be murdered.

And what about those who contribute nothing to society, just have big families and take from taxpayers throughout their whole lives, teaching the same 'values' to their offspring (unlike those who have worked for decades, contributed and continue to pay taxes)? Should similar 'solutions' be applied to them, too?

Windofchange

Sapphire wrote: »

However, there would be far too much potential for such a system to be abused, e.g. by offspring (of a similar bent to the OP) who wish houses to fall in front of them free of charge, etc. There would also be the potential for enormous pressure to be put on people to (in effect) agree to be murdered.

And what about those who contribute nothing to society, just have big families and take from taxpayers throughout their whole lives, teaching the same 'values' to their offspring (unlike those who have worked for decades, contributed and continue to pay taxes)? Should similar 'solutions' be applied to them, too?

Rubbish. A person cannot just decide I want to be euthanised, and you can't just dump granny at a clinic and demand she be put down. If you look at Holland where this is legal, the decision has to be signed off by a doctor due to "lasting and unbearable suffering"

http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/hollands-euthanasia-law/

There will be instances where doctors get this wrong, but on the whole it isn't something that can be abused. There were 5,516 people euthanised in 2015 which doesn't fit your picture of a holocaust in waiting so people can get at their inheritances.

chucknorris

Sapphire wrote: »

However, there would be far too much potential for such a system to be abused, e.g. by offspring (of a similar bent to the OP) who wish houses to fall in front of them free of charge, etc. There would also be the potential for enormous pressure to be put on people to (in effect) agree to be murdered.

And what about those who contribute nothing to society, just have big families and take from taxpayers throughout their whole lives, teaching the same 'values' to their offspring (unlike those who have worked for decades, contributed and continue to pay taxes)? Should similar 'solutions' be applied to them, too?

The current system is awful, 3 years ago I had to pick up the telephone and call the vet to come over and put my dog to sleep (goodbye Mills, I think you know that I obviously still love you), it was the hardest thing that I have ever had to do. If I could have sold my sole to the devil, I wouldn't have blinked. But it was the kindest thing to do, but humans have to die a horrible death, why? Stop for a moment and think and try to rationalise, why? Well I can tell you now, if I end up with cancer (like my Mills) I'll go the same way, I can afford to, and I will go to Switzerland, but why should all those that can't afford to do that, have to suffer?

Sapphire

chucknorris wrote: »

The current system is awful, 3 years ago I had to pick up the telephone and call the vet to come over and put my dog to sleep (goodbye Mills, I think you know that I obviously still love you), it was the hardest thing that I have ever had to do. If I could have sold my sole to the devil, I wouldn't have blinked. But it was the kindest thing to do, but humans have to die a horrible death, why? Stop for a moment and think and try to rationalise, why? Well I can tell you now, if I end up with cancer (like my Mills) I'll go the same way, I can afford to, and I will go to Switzerland, but why should all those that can't afford to do that, have to suffer?

Yes, but not every human who is (even very) old dies a 'horrible death'. There are some that simply fade away (and don't suffer), as did the 100-year-old in my family, while the 90-year-old who died recently also really was finished (too weak to do anything, with systems shutting down). I referred to both in an earlier post. Both had dignified deaths and I wouldn't deny them that at all. The latter was, in fact, receiving palliative care in hospital for a couple of weeks, and the decisions that were made regarding the end of his life were made in full consultation with his family (who incidentally had nothing to gain financially from his death).

What you are suggesting is completely different from the blanket 'final solution' type of action the OP is advocating, which reveals no empathy with, or liking of, or consideration of the wisdom and experience of elderly people (I've always found them a great bonus to society, personally, and love talking to them); indeed, it appears to portray a hatred of them.

For information, I have someone in my family who rescues dogs and they are a beloved part of the family, each with its distinctive characteristics. She suffers terribly herself when they end their lives (and sometimes perhaps keeps them alive a bit too long), but she does make the right decision about them in the end. Personally, I don't know how she does it. From experience, I find the grief overwhelming.

teddysmum

The OP's suggestion is stupid and offensive, but many do fear having to suffer a number of years of indignity , pain and frustration at having to heavily depend on others.


There is the Dignitas type option, but it depends on having money, may involve friends and family in legal accusations and , perhaps worst of all, means they have to 'go' too soon because they still need to be able to make the journey.


Anti-euthanasia supporters say that there is always the choice of suicide, anyway. However, this has to be lonely (anyone with the distressed person could be accused of complicity) and dangerous, because the wrong overdose could render you not only still alive, but in a worse condition than before.


There have been numerous media stories of people overdosing as they believe that any drug, in excess, will end your life, whereas it just makes you very ill, needing more care than before. (A neighbour of ours took weedkiller, thus being severely unwell and ruining her kidneys. She spent her remaining years on dialysis and in a mental hospital, as she was at risk. Pure hell for her.)

chucknorris

Sapphire wrote: »

Yes, but not every human who is (even very) old dies a 'horrible death'. There are some that simply fade away (and don't suffer)

Great, they are not going to suffer, but what has that to do with helping those that do suffer?

What you are suggesting is completely different from the blanket 'final solution' type of action the OP is advocating

Totally agree, I wasn't attempting to align my views with his.

For information, I have someone in my family who rescues dogs and they are a beloved part of the family, each with its distinctive characteristics. She suffers terribly herself when they end their lives (and sometimes perhaps keeps them alive a bit too long), but she does make the right decision about them in the end. Personally, I don't know how she does it. From experience, I find the grief overwhelming.

Better a week early, than a day too late.

Sapphire

chucknorris wrote: »

Better a week early, than a day too late.

Talking about dogs, though, it's really hard – you clearly know how hard it is. When my cat died, I was off work for two weeks, and have never felt such grief before or after (I still can't think about it now). My sister has rescued hundreds of dogs, though she now only has, er, several. A massive commitment, particularly given the way she views them…

I seem to have gone OT.

It's similarly hard, however, for people who have beloved relatives (clearly not everyone has, as is obvious from the OP's post, for example), to let them go. I haven't been in that situation with a human being, but it must be very hard to make the decision.

lisyloo

I think it's a great deal less black and white than many people seem to think especially when comparing with animals.


People can these days have a good quality of life without physical ability - I give you Stephen Hawking as an example.


I have elderly relative with dimensia and physical disabilities.
On some (bad) days I do think they'd be better off dead because of pain and unhappiness, however there are then good days when they enjoy being with their family and have a good quality of life.
How do you decide when to "put them to sleep".
10% good days, 5% good days? what about 2% or 1%.
I defy anyone to say this isn't impossible in that situation.

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

How do you decide when to "put them to sleep".

The OP will decide, based on weighing his own sense of entitlement against what he thinks dirty smelly old people should be allowed to have.

So that's all right then.

Kit1

Why should l work for over 50 years now that the pension age has been changed against me yet again only to be told that l will only get NHS treatment until l am 75 but then l think they want us to die whilst in work so we get nothing back. Perhaps l should stop paying national insurance/tax after all l stand to get nothing from all the money l have paid in.