Is it? So you support the utilitarian calculus of "quality of life"?
For your sake, I pray there won't be someone deciding whether or not your life is really worth living in the near future.
> I pray there won't be someone deciding whether or not your life is really worth living in the near future.
With limited resources and yet unlimitted capability, such decisions will *have* to become commonplace. At some point, everyone who doesn't die due to violence or illness will face old age... and as technology proceeds, the ravages of old age will become more and more a long-term thing that people are expected to live with. And unless there is a sudden Socialist shift, there simply will nto eb the resources to keep *all* the uber-elderly alive. Decisions will have to be made. There will come a time when the choice is between a dignified death, or half a century or more of living in a bed with Alzheimers or similar.
In my case, I fervently hope that someone DOES have the balls to make such decisions when I get to the drooling moron stage.
Resources are limited. That's an unavoidable fact. If you don't like it, go complain to God. Given that resources are limited, it's also an unavoidable fact that every time we spend a few hundred thousand to give someone a few extra months of lousy quality life, that's a few hundred thousand not spent on something else -- all while millions of children in the 3rd World are dying before age 5 every year, for lack of a few cents worth of anti-diarrheal medicine, and a few dollars from some low-paid aid worker to dispense it. Why is a few extra months of some elderly Westerner lying in a bed no longer recognizing friends and family, worth so much that it warrants letting a few hundred African children die before their 5th birthdays?