Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

gov135 · 06-22-2003, 10:18 AM

http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~mbernste/ethics.dutytodie.html

Former Governor of Colorado Richard Lamm had lit a firestorm of controversy when he suggested that old people have a duty to die. This concept has been elaborated by others. The reasoning is that our society, at least in the Western world, have no good financial plans for long-term care for the aged when they become incapacitated because of illness or mental debility. Often these persons become a financial and emotional burden for family members and may require family members to alter their own lives and goals simply to care for their aged relatives. It has been suggested that these burdens are not acceptable and that the aged should find a duty to terminate their lives before they have reached such a dependent state. This means that an elderly person while mentally competent and not terminally ill should arrange to die. The argument is that their life is almost over naturally and they should not interfere with the lives and careers of others who have yet many years of life ahead. Also implied is that society's monetary costs for caring for the elderly infirm could better be spent on children and younger people.

____________________________________________________

There is alot of information available on the Internet on this subject - but most of what I found was highly opinionated, and I wanted this discussion to form on its own. If you are interested, try a trusty google search on "duty to die."

The arguement, as mentioned above, goes alot like this: The elderly sap the resources of their communities and are unable or unwilling to contribute to strengthing them. The elderly are partly responsible for young people not getting good work - retirement age is pushed back as people are staying in the workforce well into their sixties and later. The elderly lean on society for healthcare, which drains our companies, taxpayers, and families of resources which could be used elsewhere - such as schools, training, etc. Many firms cannot meet the pension demands of their former employees - let alone health care costs. Imagine where else this money could be used?

Research has been done by New York University that shows most Americans feel the elderly contribute little. Respondents cited road safety to financial concerns.

The "duty to die" camp believes that the elderly have a duty to stop becoming a resource drain.

I don't have an opinion on this issue either way. As people continue to live longer, and society's 'obligation' to the elderly is becoming increasing difficult to meet, I feel it is a relevant topic. I
would appreciate if this did not turn into a euthanasia arguement. This is not the intention of this thread. Rather, simply, do the elderly have a duty to die? If so, at what point? If not, why not?

06-22-2003, 10:18 AM	#1 (permalink)
gov135 Junkie Location: Midwest	Do the elderly have a duty to die? http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~mbernste/ethics.dutytodie.html Former Governor of Colorado Richard Lamm had lit a firestorm of controversy when he suggested that old people have a duty to die. This concept has been elaborated by others. The reasoning is that our society, at least in the Western world, have no good financial plans for long-term care for the aged when they become incapacitated because of illness or mental debility. Often these persons become a financial and emotional burden for family members and may require family members to alter their own lives and goals simply to care for their aged relatives. It has been suggested that these burdens are not acceptable and that the aged should find a duty to terminate their lives before they have reached such a dependent state. This means that an elderly person while mentally competent and not terminally ill should arrange to die. The argument is that their life is almost over naturally and they should not interfere with the lives and careers of others who have yet many years of life ahead. Also implied is that society's monetary costs for caring for the elderly infirm could better be spent on children and younger people. ____________________________________________________ There is alot of information available on the Internet on this subject - but most of what I found was highly opinionated, and I wanted this discussion to form on its own. If you are interested, try a trusty google search on "duty to die." The arguement, as mentioned above, goes alot like this: The elderly sap the resources of their communities and are unable or unwilling to contribute to strengthing them. The elderly are partly responsible for young people not getting good work - retirement age is pushed back as people are staying in the workforce well into their sixties and later. The elderly lean on society for healthcare, which drains our companies, taxpayers, and families of resources which could be used elsewhere - such as schools, training, etc. Many firms cannot meet the pension demands of their former employees - let alone health care costs. Imagine where else this money could be used? Research has been done by New York University that shows most Americans feel the elderly contribute little. Respondents cited road safety to financial concerns. The "duty to die" camp believes that the elderly have a duty to stop becoming a resource drain. I don't have an opinion on this issue either way. As people continue to live longer, and society's 'obligation' to the elderly is becoming increasing difficult to meet, I feel it is a relevant topic. I would appreciate if this did not turn into a euthanasia arguement. This is not the intention of this thread. Rather, simply, do the elderly have a duty to die? If so, at what point? If not, why not?