[dawn53]

They’re not talking euthanasia. They’re talking survival, and in a situation (a pandemic) when health services, supplies, etc. would be limited, and without those health services a person would die, who do you offer the health services to, the 85 year old who’s lived his life, or the 15 year old who has the potential to grow up be a mother/father, wage earner, tax payer, etc. It sounds harsh, but it’s not euthanasia, it’s just using the services available in the most0 “efficient” way.

And, for me personally, I can’t imagine any 85 year old who would choose to receive treatment, if it meant denying a 15 year old the treatment. The 85 year old has lived his life, give the 15 year old a chance.

Hopefully, we never see that short a supply of services or medicines...but if we do, and I’m getting up there in age (which I am, LOL) I can’t see sentencing a younger person (a teenager, a child, a mother or father who has kids to raise) to death just so I can live a few more years.

[perez24]

You know a different set of 85 year olds than I do. Most of the ones I know would shove the babies out of the line to get their shots.

[CDHart]

I understand the logic. However, it looks like one more step on the road to euthanizing the non-producers in society.

Carolyn

[null and void]

Hopefully, we never see that short a supply of services or medicines.

Shortages and rationing are an inevitable end result of socialized anything.