Discussion Would voluntary euthanasia be legalized in the US if it were profitable (for the State)?

[TAW122]

So from an idea from @Forever Sleep (and maybe some other user in the past (don't remember the user) about government's incentives and interests especially regarding policies) that government's mostly care about money, so anything that is no longer viable/profitable, and also the masses (as hypocritical and ignorant as they are), they are still (mostly) a slave to the financial system. I've also written a thread similar to this topic, but was more focused on existing DWD (death with dignity) laws being expanded over time. So this brings up an interesting point for discussion. In our current world we still live in an ever-growing prohibitive and Orwellian world (only becoming more Orwellian as time passes by), perhaps there will be a point where the State (and to an extent, the masses) will accept voluntary euthanasia if it becomes more profitable and/or when too many people take more than they give?

I would think that while it may erode the pro-choice stance of those who wish to live, perhaps we could benefit from such a hypothetical reality since we would be granted the sweet release of death that we are seeking for since forever? I know that for the people who already wish to die, this would be a major relief, with the only caveat being able to fully dictate of the exact terms of one's own CTB. Speaking for myself, even if I wasn't able to fully dictate every single aspect of the process, the fact that I would be able to even get the sweet release of death (assuming reasonable and not drawn-out nor tortured like a (convicted person) ala prisoner – over the course of many years or decades) would be enough to at least bring some solace knowing that I would have an endpoint.

Of course, for having an "endpoint" (meaning a defined end and not just open-ended, moving goalposts), it has to be realistic and not something that is many decades away. If it is many decades away, then it COMPLETELY defeats the very purpose having voluntary euthanasia because that would be impractical. It's like saying "hey we have this right" but the ridiculous amount of hoops and bureaucracy to go through is just very impractical that it may as well (de facto) not exist. Therefore, when I refer to an endpoint, I mean something realistic (again I will use arbitrary numbers just to illustrate my example) such as for non-terminal illnesses, perhaps something like 90 days or 180 days, and for terminal illnesses, could be weeks and no more than maybe a month or so at maximum (especially if one is likely to die within a few months or less). In other words, having such an exit will only work if it is 'reasonably' attainable, feasible, and realistic.

What are your thoughts on this, do you think voluntary euthanasia will be legalized in the US if it was more profitable for the State and for healthcare systems in general? Also, this is presuming there are quite a few checks and balances as well as tight regulations on who can access them (the extra steps, evaluations, and red tape to ensure very little/no abuse of the system comes about)?

 

[Forever Sleep]

Maybe but until public opinion sways from pro-lofe to pro-choice- politicians will still want to attract voters. I doubt many parents would want assisted suicide to be legalised for their children- they probably still consider their 18, 19 and even 20 year old to be their child. I expect politicians care just as much about public opinion as they do money. Without those votes, they lose their power. So- I think an open invitation to adults is unrealistic. Still- I bet they're itching to bump off the elderly portion of our population followed by the sick, perhaps followed by the homeless.

 

[TAW122]

Maybe but until public opinion sways from pro-lofe to pro-choice- politicians will still want to attract voters. I doubt many parents would want assisted suicide to be legalised for their children- they probably still consider their 18, 19 and even 20 year old to be their child. I expect politicians care just as much about public opinion as they do money. Without those votes, they lose their power. So- I think an open invitation to adults is unrealistic. Still- I bet they're itching to bump off the elderly portion of our population followed by the sick, perhaps followed by the homeless.

That's a good point, I guess it would be BOTH the public opinion and the government making a profit, like both conditions must be true in order for such a reality to happen. I would predict that as the Western countries become more and more secular as a whole, collectively (as we see in the UK, the US, and Canada to name a few), we can start to see voluntary euthanasia become legalized but heavily regulated. With regards to bumping off the elderly population to save costs (for the government/the State), I could see that perhaps happening in the US to some level as well as the cultural shift. Then it being expanded to the severely ill (physical and mental) to qualify (will take a long time), and eventually the homeless and groups that society cares little about. I believe there will almost always will be backlash and resistance in general, perhaps due to human nature (being against death and preservation instincts), but opening the doors to voluntary euthanasia will likely happen through the course of time.

 

[conarc]

It will NEVER be profitable for anyone. Humans are cash cows either way. That is the problem.

I strongly doubt that the society will have problems with euthanasia if there is a solid process and people get to understand that most of us live for the rich and not for themselves.

 

[Sapphire]

You list good reasons exactly why most people are against allowing legal euthanasia without strong safeguards. Just because someone is elderly, sick, or disabled doesn't necessarily mean that they want to die. No one wants the government to decide for them that they or one of their relatives has less value than other people and it would be best to kill them off. There is too much potential for abuse.

The government would never try to solve society's problems or help the most vulnerable people if this was the case. They would just cut funding for programs already in place if it was cheaper to let people die and they could legally get away with it.

Most people wouldn't think it was ok to make euthanasia legal just so the government could save money. They would have to place a very low value on life in order to think money was more important.
They wouldn't want to get a chronic health condition ( non terminal) or get in an accident and become disabled and be told they were now useless and be denied proper medical care or services that could help them and steered toward euthanasia because someone else was trying to save money.

 

[Takamagahara]

Relevant Mitchell & Webb skit.



Short answer, yes. Long answer, maybe. Why bother with a state-sponsored euthanasia program when you can just use the environment to kill the poor? I mean, that's basically the whole reason why the opioid epidemic in America is being tacitly endorsed by the government or why American police are encouraged to over-use lethal force--because it's a cost-effective way to kill off the poor without needing to make it humane.

You can't make voluntary euthanasia simply a matter of interest, it also has to be cheap.

 

[Holu]

It might not be in our lifetime, but PAS(physician assisted suicide) is a guarantee in the future. Overpopulation, increased poverty, and decreasing resources will make it so. The sad thing is by then it will be seen as both normal and humane by the vast majority, even though it's seen as a crime against nature in this age.