"This person suffering from hereditary
defects costs the people 60,000
Reichmarks during his lifetime. People,
that is your money. Read 'New People'."
> 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.
Not if but when, socialized medicine is inevitable, likely will happen the very next time we have a democrat in the White House. Quite possibly 2008.
So now lets follow the reasoning
Government controls access to health care - who pays has the power - your argument makes perfect sense to government bureaucrats far removed from the humanity of the decisions. So rationing will take place - if your life is too "expensive" it will only make sense to put an end to it.
Oh they will advance their sophistry as we have already seen - calling it "death with dignity", "peaceful" and other such nonsense.
This just demonstrates the great divide on the issue, you can't imagine why anyone would think the life of a sick, 92 year old woman with late stage alzheimers would be worth living and I can't fanthom the depraved, utilitarian calculus that you use to arrive at that conclusion. We might as well be speaking two different languages