Discussion A theory on why euthanasia will never be a world wide thing

[lostangel]

A theory on why euthanasia will never be a world wide thing or why it won't be available for everyone to use.

Too long didn't read : at bottom

Hello, I was thinking of this last night after reading some posts.

Let me start off saying resources such as money has always and always will be more important than human lives. If we look at slavery. Black people were enslaved because they were easy to exploit. They were used to make more money and their quality of life wasn't a priority for the people who enslaved them. Their priority was taking the resources from Africa.

Let's look at sweatshops they are used today around the world. People in these shops are being exploited they aren't being paid proper wages and are being subjected to bad treatment. They people running these shops don't care about them they just want to use them for cheap labor.

The key thing here is people being exploited for resources.

Now let's look at people with mental illness. They are being exploited financially. According to this 18.5% of people in Ireland are suffering from mental illness. https://www.mentalhealthireland.ie/statistics/ . That equates to 264, 864 people with a mental illness. I think it's safe to say if you have been diagnosed with a mental illness you are probably receiving medication. If you are being charged €50 a month for medication that adds up to €600 a year. Multiply that by 264, 864 and that equals roughly €158 million. That is a lot of money being made per year. Now imagine if 1/5 of the mentally ill population were euthanized that would be a huge loss financially. Personally I think it's about money rather than morals.

Why let them go in peace when you can exploit them?
If you think about it money is the most important thing in the world. It makes the world go around.

But anyways it's a theory. Please leave your opinions below. Maybe you can add something.

Thank you.


TLDR: You can't make money off dead people. You make a lot of money exploiting vulnerable people.

 

[Zappfe lover]

A theory on why euthanasia will never be a world wide thing or why it won't be available for everyone to use.

Too long didn't read : at bottom

Hello, I was thinking of this last night after reading some posts.

Let me start off saying resources such as money has always and always will be more important than human lives. If we look at slavery. Black people were enslaved because they were easy to exploit. They were used to make more money and their quality of life wasn't a priority for the people who enslaved them. Their priority was taking the resources from Africa.

Let's look at sweatshops they are used today around the world. People in these shops are being exploited they aren't being paid proper wages and are being subjected to bad treatment. They people running these shops don't care about them they just want to use them for cheap labor.

The key thing here is people being exploited for resources.

Now let's look at people with mental illness. They are being exploited financially. According to this 18.5% of people in Ireland are suffering from mental illness. https://www.mentalhealthireland.ie/statistics/ . That equates to 264, 864 people with a mental illness. I think it's safe to say if you have been diagnosed with a mental illness you are probably receiving medication. If you are being charged €50 a month for medication that adds up to €600 a year. Multiply that by 264, 864 and that equals roughly €158 million. That is a lot of money being made per year. Now imagine if 1/5 of the mentally ill population were euthanized that would be a huge loss financially. Personally I think it's about money rather than morals.

Why let them go in peace when you can exploit them?
If you think about it money is the most important thing in the world. It makes the world go around.

But anyways it's a theory. Please leave your opinions below. Maybe you can add something.

Thank you.


TLDR: You can't make money off dead people. You make a lot of money exploiting vulnerable people.

It's definetely money.

Think about how much of a waste would be to provide euthanasia to young people. You would be losing 70 years of tax revenue.

 

[CarbonMonoxide]

I picture a situation where my paranoia reaches a record high and I just can't take it anymore. What if euthanasia was commonplace with cheap clinics all over town? What if the only requirement would be adult identification? It's your life, right? I'd be all over the nearest clinic asap ordering my ticket.

If this type of euthanasia ever became possible, you can count on losing hundreds of millions of zombie consumers in months.

 

[TAW122]

I think your theory is spot on and makes sense. Since in the US, even a visit to a doctor (not necessarily for mental health, but just for consultation on illnesses, ailments, problems, or conditions etc.) can easily run in the dozens (even for sliding scale or reduced cost services), mostly over hundreds, nevermind the cost of treatment for specific problems.

I do believe that if money was not a thing, then the attitude towards euthanasia may be more neutral and lax than the current atmosphere that the world holds (anti-euthanasia, anti-choice). I say neutral because humanity still has social forces and culture forces at play, mainly religion, humanism, and just general human nature. While in such a scenario, euthanasia may not be as heavily stigmatized or shunned, it would still not be accepted with open arms like the way we wish for it to happen.

 

[Deleted member 17949]

Not only can you not make money off them, but they aren't going to satisfy people in other ways. Empathy is great but it isn't powerful enough to allow a lot of people to completely overlook their own feelings towards life and conclude that they should be happy for someone that killed themselves to escape suffering. It would be really hard to get people feeling any real accomplishment or satisfaction over other people ending their own lives.

 

[Elbarado]

Well I think the reason are from moral things.
Here in Germany we have a history ( greetz to Hitler you asshole) where beneath jews, political enemies, also gays and disabled people were killed or put in camps. Also there is the point of abusing, like forcing people to get euthanized against their will or being manipulated to do it.

 

[Life sucks]

I think in order to be prochoice, humans must find new scientific and efficient ways instead of traditional ideas of economy and living. The universe doesn't revolve about human-made systems and numbers that has no relation to reality. It operates on numbers that describes physics and other scientific aspects. If humans are unable to go beyond bureaucracy, they won't be prochoice and life would obliterate them (covid and viruses as a big example of a real scientific problem vs humans systems and illusions). Thats why being prochoice and scientific is important because it would help both people who want to live or die. With the current systems and ways of thinking, we suffer because of no option to leave but humans also would suffer and face a dark future (the universe problems doesn't care about the notion of money)

 

[Sinai Silence]

Death only seems acceptable when a power decides it's in there ideological or financial gain, we will never be able to leave on our own accord.

'If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?' - Sue Rodriguez

 

[ebt88]

I'm not sure the concept of euthanasia applies to choosing to ctb freely without terminal illness etc.

You can always ctb somehow. The question is why should it be an over the counter suicide pill (to put an example).

 

[Brick In The Wall]

I think your theory is valid for the time being. However, that could easily change when production and service is fully mechanized.

At that point they won't need the "useless eaters" as they so lovingly refer to us. They'll probably keep a few of us around to serve drinks and dance in cages though.

 

[Aap]

You're theory is probably partially correct, but it neglects a moral aspect. I'm not going to address the overt religious component but will say euthanasia has been abused historically (nazis, referring to use for mentally ill) and currently (China). You may argue these are murders without informed consent, not euthanasia. The fact remains historically "compassionate" euthanasia has been used as a cover for nefarious things.

you mention "life time of revenue collection," but it is a two way street. In fact, the argument of healthcare costs in the sick and elderly has been mentioned as a reason for euthanasia. Hospitals are notorious for (and have to be to some extent) letting financial concerns dictate treatment.

It's not a stretch to imagine a case of an elderly retiree having a condition, say heart disease, that will be expensive to treat and will ultimately be fatal, though perhaps not for years. Should available treatment be withheld, or said another way, should euthanasia be the first line option being pushed? You better believe, even if not in the majority, there are unscrupulous people who WOULD encourage this person to accept euthanasia, rather than being a drain on public resources. To argue against ignores history and human nature.

it's a much more nuanced and complicated question than sometimes is presented.

 

[Meditation guide]

I think it's due to religion number 1, lack of empathy number 2, wanting to tell others what they can and can't do number 3.

The entire world is controlled by a bunch of monsters.

It's not a stretch to imagine a case of an elderly retiree having a condition, say heart disease, that will be expensive to treat and will ultimately be fatal, though perhaps not for years. Should available treatment be withheld,

My elderly mother was denied a pacemaker by a heart doctor who shook his head no at me and looked at me like I was crazy when I said she needed a pacemaker.

It was only when she went to the hospital for something unrelated that she finally got a doctor who saw she needed one and implanted one in her, relieving her weakness and suffering.

Apparently there are plenty of doctors who think they shouldn't treat older women who have heart conditions and other conditions. You can be sure if she were a male she would have immediately gotten a pacemaker from the first heart doctor.