couponstrip wrote:
Perhaps this is where there is a disconnect. You assume that the last year of your life will be the time period when the quality of life will be much less than it was previously.
That will not be the case for many (perhaps most) people, but for the sake of this discussion, I'm assuming that the last year or so of life will be "not worth living". (e.g., So far mentally gone, that there is not enough brain power to enjoy anything, or in such bad physical condition that pain is constant.)
I'm only assuming that for this discussion, because for everyone else then there is not much difference in their living requirements. i.e, Their expenses stay roughly the same. So there's no point in them deciding when to die, because their life never deteriorates to that level.
So to be clear, I'm not bashing old people and assuming they will all be horrible drains on society and all deserve to die. I'm simply saying that for those in really bad condition, it would be nice if the government would allow them a dignified death when they are no longer capable of enjoying life (if the individual chooses it).
Anyone can kill themselves when they're still physically and mentally capable of doing so. The problem is that most don't want to kill themselves in that condition. They want to die when they are well beyond that state. But by then, the government won't let them. In essence, we become prisoners of the state in old age. Locked up, and left in a cell to die.
You also assume, at that point in time, you will feel the same about it as you do now. Generally, deterioration in quality of life is not a sudden change in the second to last year of life. Quality of life deteriorates steadily for many years augmented by distinct events when accelerate the process. However, an elderly citizen can lose significant mobility after an orthopedic problem, yet live for 20 years or more (and often do) and still have many wonderful years of life, although wonderful in a different way than it was defined in their youth.
Yes, but I'm not referring to someone that has many years of happy life left. I'm referring to someone that is mentally "gone". e.g., An Alzheimer's patient that no longer knows who they are and just sits and drools all day. If I ever get to that state, I'd want someone to put an end to it.
Might I change my mind if I get to that point? Well, I doubt it, because I won't have much of a mind left to change. The human part of me will have already checked out; I just want the body to do the same.
Second, it is easy to be smug about health when you are healthy and assume you will just either die or live in poverty when you experience disability.....until you are the disabled one. In my experience, the majority of people get caught between the enormous chasm of meeting requirements for LTC facility and desperately requiring some assisted living/caregiving/driver etc at some point (and often for many years, not just one or two), and the ones who have little or no money are the most bitter.
Okay, that's fine, then they shouldn't choose to die. But who do you want to pay for them? I don't think the taxpayer owes anything to them, and a future generation may just decide to let them starve in the street.
I admit there's a grey zone between my example of a drooling Alzheimer's patient and your example of someone that just has mobility issues. So, how much do you want to sacrifice some your current lifestyle in order to fund a possible medical problem in your old age? IMO, it's worth planning for some disability, but not worth planning for very expensive disabilities. The trade-off just isn't worth it, because I'd never be able to retire. I'd rather throw myself at the mercy of the state, and if they choose to deny me care, THEN I'd like to have an alternative option of painless death (rather than starve in the street).
That doesn't affect any choice you make. So why would you deny me the right to a painless death?