I don't care what people say, euthanasia is here to stay, and it will begin with the most helpless victims with the fewest advocates, infanticide, and then extend to geronticide, and then as resources wane in relation to population, or as the burden of supporting an overly number of superannuated folks impacts the standard of living of the productive, the practicof geronticide will be "justified."
It's noteworthy that ethical positions are relative and faddish, and are accommodated to practical imperatives.
It's a cruel world. Many practices deemed odious are still indulged. Backaways, if a newborn were obviously disabled, then the doctor would just strangle it on his own initiative without causing emotional distress to the parents by requiring them to make the decision.
But our society has become focused on record-keeping as a high value, so we create elaborate systems that result in behavioral changes. Years ago, the doctor would strangle the unfit. And the police would bring a misbehaving child home and have him spanked, or belabor a misbehaving minor criminal. Now such discretion has been discouraged and we have a system that needlessly consumes resources, juvenile courts, oversight of doctors, and what have you.
By the way herm, as an old guy, older than McCain, and a supporter of socialization of medicine, they just may not deem it provident to use resources to keep an old guysuch as you alive, when the money could be better spent providing treatment for AIDS in foreign countries, or inoculating youngsters. Third parties will decide your treatment entitlement and worthiness to survive.
But aren't you an ideologue and willing to make the sacrifice? Does that make you a leftist jihadist, a man willing to sacrifice himself for "the cause?"
