Another UKIP charmer

[suityou01]

My point is that putting an 'arbitrary number' on it is then saying 'over 80' = past their best before date.

Allowing those who are terminally ill or in severe chronic pain to take their lives (at any age) is arguably humane. Restricting it to over-80s it becomes an entirely different motive. Human life should never be about cost vs economic benefit - this is the same argument he put forward for aborting handicapped foetuses.

I never thought of you as naive before.

[Troll]

My point is that putting an 'arbitrary number' on it is then saying 'over 80' = past their best before date.

Allowing those who are terminally ill or in severe chronic pain to take their lives (at any age) is arguably humane. Restricting it to over-80s it becomes an entirely different motive. Human life should never be about cost vs economic benefit - this is the same argument he put forward for aborting handicapped foetuses.

Even the Doctors are agreeing

'Do we really expect that people in their eighties with multiple insoluble health problems should have the same technology brought to bear on their cancer as those in their prime?'

'My view is that age should be taken into account when comparing the potential benefits of expensive treatments,' he said. 'As technology improves, we simply can't do everything for everybody.'

He went on to outline a choice between an 82-year-old patient, who could be treated for a year at a cost of £80,000, and a 38-year-old mother of three who would cost £90,000 for the same period.

Professor Sikora went on to say that the choice was 'clear'.

[mudskipper]

Even the Doctors are agreeing

That's a bit different to saying euthanasia should be available to over 80s.

[doodab]

Even the Doctors are agreeing

But I don't think this is because they are considering the potential for their future economic output. It's more of a moral judgement. If you can only afford to treat one or the other, it seems "fairer" to treat someone with half their life ahead of them over someone who has already lived a full life.

[Troll]

this is the same argument he put forward for aborting handicapped foetuses.

Blimey deep posts in General ... keep it up!

As an aside when would you say a foetus should acquire rights (moral & Legal) as a human?

Fertilisation
Embedded in womb
Birth

[suityou01]

Blimey deep posts in General ... keep it up!

As an aside when would you say a foetus should acquire rights (moral & Legal) as a human?

Fertilisation
Embedded in womb
Birth

And would it depend on the amniocentesis results?

[Troll]

But I don't think this is because they are considering the potential for their future economic output. It's more of a moral judgement. If you can only afford to treat one or the other, it seems "fairer" to treat someone with half their life ahead of them over someone who has already lived a full life.

So is it not "fairer" to focus scarce and expensive resource on those who can enjoy a full life rather than those with a handicap?

[mudskipper]

Blimey deep posts in General ... keep it up!

As an aside when would you say a foetus should acquire rights (moral & Legal) as a human?

Fertilisation
Embedded in womb
Birth

I think that's a very emotive issue. I think as the law currently stands, they don't become a separate person until they are born - you cannot be prosecuted for murder for killing a foetus. Murder in English law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[doodab]

So is it not "fairer" to focus scarce and expensive resource on those who can enjoy a full life rather than those with a handicap?

Many people with a handicap can enjoy a good quality of life, for many years, with suitable treatment or care. If you think of the payoff of spending X pounds in terms of the total difference it makes, i.e. the change in (number of years of life x quality of life) compared to not spending the money, it makes sense both to treat younger people over older people and to provide quality of life enhancing treatment to the disabled.

Arguably the young but incurable with certain fairly rapidly progressing diseases such as myself should be fairly low priority on that basis. I'm glad I'm not, but I can see why I might be.

[xoggoth]

Human life should never be about cost vs economic benefit - this is the same argument he put forward for aborting handicapped foetuses

But there is no such thing as just money. Anything we spend on one person necessarily is less we have to spend on another. Unfortunately, we do have to make judgements and making a link between what people get and what they have contributed or may contribute is part of it. Humans do have empathy but there are limits we need to recognise. Self interest drives incentive and we destroy it at our peril.

My point is that putting an 'arbitrary number' on it is then saying 'over 80' = past their best before date

Agree with that. Should be about (apart from what they have contributed) about what use they can make of the life they may have left. Some people in their 80s are fitter than some in their 30s. A lady of 89 down my road walks up the hill quicker than many of the fat slobs one sees wobbling about in the supermarket. Can't see much point spending a huge sum to prolong life for a few months though.