He seems to have led a winderful and impactful life but it's a little shocking when so many people in the news, who seemingly led healthy lives, pass away in their 60s . :(
Why is this happening?
Why is this happening?
Sadly, many interpret this to be that they will live to be that magic average number, and either get caught off-guard when time is up sooner (perhaps regretting having neglected family time / travel / personal stuff), or unprepared in the case they live 20 years beyond what their savings had projected to last.
For many years, Chinese elders are recommended to go to senior citizen clubs, play chess games and Mahjong, do TaiChi or something alike, for better physical and mental health. The unfortunate side of the reality is many elders are disabled and have no one to get them where they need to be except getting help from senior assistance. I hope more families can spend more time with their elderly.
I'm less concerned with when I punch out than with how I punch out.
The thing that scares me more than physical infirmity (and I can say this with a degree of certainty since I have a serious spine condition that at one point could have meant a wheelchair) is mental infirmity.
Terry Pratchett (and others) had it right, We should be allowed to choose our end time while we are in sound mind.
That we don't have Euthanasia in most 'modern' societies I think is insane.
An insanely complex and thorny issue, maybe.
I would argue that once preserving life is negotiable, a debate on the utility of the elderly and infirmed soon follows. Ruthless bureaucratic directives will simply roll off the tongue like, "maybe your mother should just take a pain pill", if you recall that ol' chestnut from prez. Obama.
So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people, go ahead and make your case. I'll oppose such self-hating foolishness. If you do get your way, don't be surprised when you're powerless and some bean counter unceremoniously pulls your plug before you're ready to go, just to free up a bed.
> An insanely complex and thorny issue, maybe.
So are most major issues society has to deal with.
> I would argue that once preserving life is negotiable, a debate on the utility of the elderly and infirmed soon follows.
Perhaps but we already have that debate every time the government decides how much money to put into elderly care (hint: In my country (the UK) not as much as they should - Social Care for the elderly is critically underfunded)
> So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people.
Not sure how you got there from my post but for what it is worth, I don't - I want the opinion of the person in sound mind backed up by competent medical professionals to be respected as a matter of body autonomy, We don't get to force surgery on adults of sound mind for example and here in the UK other things are regulated in a similar system - I can choose not to have surgery that will kill me if I don't have it, that's fine but I can't choose the manner of my death, it seems contradictory to me, We put animals that are suffering to sleep because it's humane but we don't extend the same right to humans who are capable of asking for it and yes there are arguments against but nothing is perfect, the question I always ask is "in aggregate does this benefit people" if you wait around for the perfect solution you end up not implementing a 'merely' better one.
> If you do get your way, don't be surprised when you're powerless and some bean counter unceremoniously pulls your plug before you're ready to go, just to free up a bed.
And if we don't, don't be surprised when the secret Martian master race turn up and harvest your essence....
Hm, this is not selling me on your system.
You've already surrendered your freedoms. Take whatever you can get, I guess? Go strike in the streets if you don't get enough care? I am sorry for you; I just hope we (in the US) don't go your way.
> We put animals that are suffering to sleep ...
You are merely an animal, then? You have resigned yourself to the meat grinder. I prefer to take a more enlightened view of what it means to be human and how special human life is.
Ruthless bureaucratic directives will simply
roll off the tongue like, "maybe your mother
should just take a pain pill", if you recall
that ol' chestnut from prez. Obama.
> So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people, go ahead and make your case.
That's the exact opposite of what is being discussed here: Murder is a disgusting violation of personal rights.
My disagreement is with killing people. I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc. This is the institutional murder that I'd like to avoid.
I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than make blanket "right to die" laws. Right to die laws a) expand like all laws do, and b) get misapplied in tragic ways.
The problem of euthanasia is thorny because abstract arguments in-favor are very dangerous. "I don't see any reason that they shouldn't also have the right to decide when to give that right up" is not very specific. I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person.
> I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc.
Me too (and I hope I made that clear in my previous comment).
> I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than make blanket "right to die" laws. Right to die laws a) expand like all laws do, and b) get misapplied in tragic ways.
They seem to work out pretty well in places like Switzerland.
> I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person.
In the context of an informal online discussion, I don't see the point in agonizing over the exact wording; I feel that my intent was clear enough in the context of the thread. If someone is of a sound mind, and wishes to end their life through euthanasia, they have the right to do it.
I don't see the "euthanasia" part itself as the "thorny" bit. The details of determining the individual's mental state (i.e. the method of testing their sanity), documenting that, and preventing abuse of the law. But that's the nature of the law; provide protection for citizen's rights, and preventing abuse of those rights.
> I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person.
I think you're reading too much into a couple sentences typed during my coffee break.
Fair point. I impute a lot of selfish motives when I hear what I consider to be ambiguous pro-euthanasia arguments.
> The details of determining the individual's mental state (i.e. the method of testing their sanity), documenting that, and preventing abuse of the law.
I appreciate you trying to corner this argument with some specifics. I can't convince you, but my contention is that mutable laws and under-manned/inept/corrupt officials can never provide the type of sustained protections for the helpless that I think you're envisioning. Just knowing how loop-holey and unjust so much of American law is, I urge caution.
>Survival increased across the full range of gait speeds, with significant increments per 0.1 m/s. At age 75, predicted 10-year survival across the range of gait speeds ranged from 19% to 87% in men and from 35% to 91% in women. Predicted survival based on age, sex, and gait speed was as accurate as predicted based on age, sex, use of mobility aids, and self-reported function or as age, sex, chronic conditions, smoking history, blood pressure, body mass index, and hospitalization.
Graph of life expectancy vs gait speed: http://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/JAMA/8042/joc05171f2.pn...
Table with confidence intervals: http://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/JAMA/8042/joc05171t2.pn...
Part of it is surely genetic. Her father lived to be nearly 105 and was 100% healthy physically and mentally until 2 weeks before he died when he developed shingles and got sores in his mouth that made it difficult to eat so he stopped eating and died. He was still breaking horses into his late-80s.
I also wonder if it was something to do with how she was raised. She grew up on a ranch and spent a lot of time outdoors tending the cows and sheep We were visiting the old property this summer and she told us we should go on a hike to see a waterfall up a canyon where she once had to retrieve a flock of lost sheep - it was one of the most difficult hikes I've ever been on and I can't believe she did it and brought back the sheep while still a young girl. They made them tougher back in those days I guess.
My dad is 98 and lives a pretty active lifestyle. He jogs 5 miles a day and runs a hobby farm with chickens and sheep and a few acres of vegetables.
But some of it has to be genetic too. His older sister is 106, and my grandmother was 102 when she passed.
It’s kind of amazing to be my age and have a dad who was born in 1919 and a grandma born in 1882.
I’m grateful for having that much knowledge and experience around me.
There are things I’ve allegedly missed out on by having an older dad, but I wouldn’t trade my experience for anything.
And some of us have the notion that money can push your date out further. Then we see CEOs die "early" and realize nobody is an exception.
I have no real proof, but I'll be prodding my father to find a side job or volunteer work or a really deep hobby as he approaches retirement.
Is it not also possible that a driven person retires because, perhaps subconsciously, they recognize symptoms that both impair their continued performance and portend their imminent demise?