N

NeverGrowUp

Member
Oct 2, 2020
55
I recently had a conversation with my friend that really illustrated to me how much capitalism plays into even end-of-life situations. His grandmother is very elderly and suffering from advanced dementia. She has long since forgotten those around her and lives in a constant state of confusion. Her family pays for her to live in the home and have a home care nurse, hospital bed, etc. He always talks about how horrible it is to see that she is not really present anymore and that they have to witness her progressively getting worse and he wants to leave the house and live on his own to avoid watching her die a slow death in the family home. I brought up Nembutal to him (he knows I am interested in acquiring it, and doesn't object) and I posed the question that wouldn't it be more preferable for her to be able to exit on her own terms, when she still had her wits about her? He agreed that if this wasn't seen as so "taboo" it would be a much better option. Instead of watching her slowly fade away, she could have gathered friends and family for a cheerful celebration of life before passing with her loved ones by her side.

So why does such a sensible option not exist? Because if she was able to have full control during an earlier stage of her illness, there would be no need for the outrageously expensive care, hospital supplies, and other expenses associated with keeping her alive. Now of course, some people would never elect for this option, and should never feel pressured into leaving simply due to costs, but the point is they should have the choice. To deny someone this option under the guise of "morality" or "religion" is just a farce designed to funnel more money into the system and it makes me sick. I wonder if you did a poll of the elderly stuck in nursing homes how many would rather die peacefully with family around, then to go at a random time, possibly in extensive suffering, possibly completely alone.

Nursing homes are a whole other topic entirely. I know many people need round the clock care that can't be provided at home, and it's typically hard for a dual-income family to find the free time to care for someone in advanced stages of illness or death while juggling their own jobs. In most cases; however, I think if there was at least one adult who didn't have to work they could use that time to care for their elder.

In short, our profit driven culture seems to continuously put money above human life and dignity. Somehow we have been deluded into thinking that leaving people to suffer in incurable illness should either have to kill themselves through lonely isolated means and that the elderly should die out of sight and perhaps in pain. It doesn't seem right when we have such peaceful methods that could be applied with loved ones around us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trannydiary, Superdeterminist, not4us and 1 other person
J

JustLosingMyself

Mage
Sep 4, 2018
544
It's the same debate as the abortion one: every life is sacred and only some fairytale god has final agency in when it ends.

There is fear that the elderly will be pressured by family to pop their clogs and pass on the assets before they disappear in the cost of their care. In Germany an elderly person's assets if they have any will be seized and sold to pay for their end of life care, and when exhausted the family will be approached to contribute according to their means. There are variations on this system in other European countries.
This is the main argument against assisted suicide/voluntary euthanasia, along with the fear it may become forced euthanasia or readily available euthanasia for whoever asks it for any reason.
I side on the 'have it available for any reason with reasonable conditions attached' side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trannydiary and NeverGrowUp

Similar threads