Old People Should Hurry Up and Die - says the New Japanese Finance Minister

by fulltimestudent 52 Replies latest social current

• 

  sammielee24

  Was - I accept your experiences as they were - they made you what you are today. That's all good.

  What isn't good is that just because you were capable of making better decisions and choices later in life, doesn't mean that a lot of other people have that same ability. You are right - you were removed from a bad abusive environment and maybe it was that very thing that propelled you forward into making different choices. It doesn't happen for everyone and we have to accept that there are a great many people who lack self awareness - a great many - who simply can't envision things other than what they 'know'. That's why so many young girls who are victims of sexual abuse, end up in relationships where they themselves become victims later in life. I have been around far too many people who are beaten down in life and so for them, if they can just make one change in the life of their child, a change from their own experiences, those parents feel they have been successful. It can generations upon generations for people to acheive some sort of mobility and awareness and so for all those people, the decisions they make are bound in the environment they 'know'.

  I have seen kids that come from alcoholic and abusive families go looking for love. Girls that fall for the first young boy that 'says' he loves them - all because they believe that 'love' will save them or protect them or provide for them. They have babies and when the verbal abuse comes they reason that 'well at least he's not an alcoholic'...and so they believe that they have succeeded in keeping their babies safe from an addict, not fully aware that the verbal abuse is leaving scars. So the next generation doesn't want the abuse so they have their baby and they say 'well at least he isn't abusive'...all the while he is a philanderer, but better to be secure and put up with infidelity than leave.

  Yes there are choices and yes, as we get older we can make choices that will be better - but I accept that not everybody is capable of looking outside that box and seeing what life can be. I accept that some people can - but there are many that can't. These are complex issues...and with more and more education, I like to believe that we can create an awareness in our children of what life can be - that's why sometimes taking a kid outside their environment and letting them experience a different life can work wonders. I also have to accept that there are some people that will never be other than they are comfortable being - for their personal reasons - most often fear and loss. sammieswife
• 

  wasblind

  Yes there are choices and yes, as we get older we can make choices that will be better - but I accept that not everybody is capable of looking outside that box and seeing what life can be. I accept that some people can - but there are many that can't. These are complex issues...and with more and more education, I like to believe that we can create an awareness in our children of what life can be - that's why sometimes taking a kid outside their environment and letting them experience a different life can work wonders. I also have to accept that there are some people that will never be other than they are comfortable being - for their personal reasons - most often fear and loss. sammieswife

  Sammieswife I agree , regaurdless of our differences on some things

  know that I respect your views

  My oldest sisters first marriage wound up like that of my moms

  She chose the wrong man for a husband . But it was not because she

  had'nt learned what better was

  She returned home wit a black eye.

  It was all good though, we had it under control

  When that man came in our yard to come and get her to return

  Me and my sisters beat him to the ground, My sister under me

  was the only one who needed to go to the emergency room

  she sprung her foot kickin' him in the ass while he was on the ground

  Sadly, that's the only thing we learned from our dad.

  but I'm glad the only time we had to put it to use

  Life is tough, but the strong will survive

  anyway BTTT
• 

  Justitia Themis

  If we deem grandma to be too costly to keep alive because she's past her 'due date', how do you justify the expense to the rest of the population in keeping disabled persons or babies alive that in many cases, don't have the potential that even old grandma had? Or still has.

  I have posted before that we can no longer afford million dollar babies (extreme saving measures for premature infants). The pediatric neurologist in my class bemoans not only the money but questions the ethics and morality of 'saving' these kids to live a life of questionable quality. Yet, as I stated earlier, Westerners have come to view extreme measures as their 'right.'

  These issues will need to be dealt with in your lifetime Sammielee24, and you will not like the solutions. It all reverts to the same question of how to spend limited resources. Kidney transplant and dialysis costs (related to US obesity and sequela to diabetes) alone will almost bankrupt us in the very near future.

  You have articulated the tragedy of the situation, but do you have solutions? Who do you suggest should get less care because someone is going to get voted off the island.

  Forgive me if I appear harsh, but I have lived with and studied these bioethical issues for almost three years now. I remember how shocking reality was to me, but I am a little numb to it now. That was driven home when my daughter told me of a conversation she had recently with a software developer who is working with a large medical research facility on software to model the next viral epidemic. The software engineers ran, and re-ran, and re-ran, and re-ran the models, and then cried. My daughter asked me if I could guess why? I said yes. They had to come to terms with the fact that hospitals/government will set up large tent cities, perhaps in stadiums, to which they will transfer people to 'treat' them, but 'treating' them means leaving them there to die. Instead of it being an abstract event, their software allowed them to see the spread and quantify the numbers, and it stilled their hearts. I felt sorry for them, but if they are going to work in the healthcare industry, they need to learn to deal with harsh realities.
• 

  jwfacts

  I checked in late to this thread, but it seems that people are missing the point of what he said, with the sentences in bold detracting from the meaning. His comment was:

  "Heaven forbid if you are forced to live on when you want to die."

  That is a sensible comment. Why should very elderly people be forced to remain alive, if they want to die.
• 

  Sulla

  Conflating abortion with the Minister’s position muddles two separate issues.

  Elderly persons have (hopefully) contributed to society so the question becomes one of how much end-of-life care are they owed in return for their prior contributions. It is not a question of whether they are presently contributing. Instead, it is a resource question with moral underpinnings

  Fetuses/infants have contributed nothing to society, so the question is one of pure ethics. How much respect should they be accorded, and when? This is a moral question, and resources are only tangentially linked.

  I'm gobsmacked. One cannot write this without completely ignoring the concept that any sort of social contract is not merely payment for a lifetime of services (assumed to be) rendered, but a continuing compact of the future with the past. I find this line of reasoning to be quite absurd, I'm afraid.

  I may look like a hard ass, but you look like some one who don't know nothin' about black folk other than what you read or see in the news

  Because you know me so well, wasblind...
• 

  Sulla

  I have posted before that we can no longer afford million dollar babies (extreme saving measures for premature infants). The pediatric neurologist in my class bemoans not only the money but questions the ethics and morality of 'saving' these kids to live a life of questionable quality. Yet, as I stated earlier, Westerners have come to view extreme measures as their 'right.'

  Two issues here. First, the entire line of reasoning around "lives of questionable quality" is disturbing. It is disturbing for reasons that should be obvious.

  Second, this highlights the central problem with the social provision of health care. What you have here is as someone (who is not otherwise known for deep thinking) said, a death panel. Ultimately, you have a bureaucratic process that weighs some social criteria to determine the degree of health care. Please tell me you have at least some trepidation about this. Or are you convinced that good people like you will make the right decisions?
• 

  Justitia Themis

  I'm gobsmacked. One cannot write this without completely ignoring the concept that any sort of social contract is not merely payment for a lifetime of services (assumed to be) rendered, but a continuing compact of the future with the past. I find this line of reasoning to be quite absurd, I'm afraid.

  Apparently, I missed the memo. The last I knew, the precise terms of what was included in the social contract was still being vigorously debated.

  Sulla, would you be so kind as to post the memo that actually defined the "social contract" as you did above?

  "lives of questionable quality" is disturbing. It is disturbing for reasons that should be obvious.

  You can't see where a doctor might question the morality of what their actions that "saved" a premie only to leave it deaf, blind, unable to eat normally, with the maximum cognitive abilities of a infant, never to run, play, love? Back to the "social contract," who contracted to give that child a million dollars of medical care when other parties to the contract do not have basic care?

  Second, this highlights the central problem with the social provision of health care. What you have here is as someone (who is not otherwise known for deep thinking) said, a death panel. Ultimately, you have a bureaucratic process that weighs some social criteria to determine the degree of health care. Please tell me you have at least some trepidation about this. Or are you convinced that good people like you will make the right decisions?

  Very good; you've landed upon a central problem, not necessarily "the" central problem. Do you have solutions? Profound recommendations? You have clearly expressed your displeasure with what we have, but you have presented no options. You don't like the bureaucratic process. What alterantive do you propose? You don't want social criteria to determine the degree health care. What criteria would you use?

  Let's put Sulla in charge, and tell us if you are very happy with that promotion. Explain to the American people your solutions. You have X amount of dollars and XX amount of need. Who loses and why?

  Because right now, to me, you seem like the average American: you want to whine about the reality; you want to attack the positions and decision-making processes of those trying to make extremely difficult decisions, yet you present no alternatives.
• 

  sammielee24

  (You have articulated the tragedy of the situation, but do you have solutions? Who do you suggest should get less care because someone is going to get voted off the island.Forgive me if I appear harsh, but I have lived with and studied these bioethical issues for almost three years now. - JT says)

  My solution? I don't necessarily have all the solutions - nobody does. A few ideas however might include addressing the problem BEFORE it becomes a mandatory starvation issue.

  The more people we pop out, the more resources used. That's appropriate logic. So start with birth control first. Start with abolishing religious doctrine that demands procreation as the reason for their existence. The fewer people, the more resources. Common logic. Fewer people mean more value on the life of a human vs greater population that create less value on life. A population of 2 billion in one country that cannot support itself creates extreme and variable poverty - addressing the need for controlled population and actually doing something about it, reduces the amount of crime and poverty. When the deer population in a specific region exceeds the ability for all the deer in that region to survive, as of now, people go in and shoot the excess numbers to cull the herd. It is recognized that in order to live adequately and survive and flourish as a species, those deer have to be managed. Now humans are supposed to be a step up from just any old animal. Surely we can address the issue of overpopulation and wasting resources before we need to 'cull' the heard like we do animals.

  Until you change a global corporatist run governance of all the people - you won't change anything. The dollar will reign as king and no person, elected or not, will rise above that power. Until you stop referring to people as 'consumers'...and until we stop allowing religion, politics and corporations to proudly claim the people as 'good little consumers'..until we stop waging war to strip others of their resources so we can consume - until we work toward self sustaining countries instead of globalization - we go nowhere. A corporation needs a consumer. They cannot exist otherwise. The more people, the cheaper the life because as one falls, another takes the place of the worker. More people = more profit = cheap labor. Fewer people = less profit = higher wages. The fewer people, the more value the life as people work harder together instead of apart.

  I would start with removing religion from issues like end of life or abortion and allow for more decisions to be made individually - perhaps with guidelines and regulations to minimize abuse - but these should not be political tools used to keep someone in office, paid by the public for interference in the lives of adults. I would start by removing policians and religion from issues around birth control. I would start with ideas on how to remove poverty and ignorance and try to build on a society that moves toward equality and health. Maybe I would even start by really examining the notion that 'free will' actually exists for everyone and work on the reality that is does not and build from that.

  You say you have studied and lived with these issues for 3 years - I've studied and lived with examples of poverty, abuse, social stigma, crime and those more vulnerable in our societies for many years longer than that. There are solutions to everything, there are opinions, there can be change but there will never be change unless people stop getting used by corporations and politicans around the world to keep the machine running for their own profit and not the lives of the people. Funny how this orginiated from Japan - a country that just radiated the world because of their own lax regulation and their own use of nuclear power to fuel their own consumer base. In all liklihood they may in the end, contribute to the deaths of millions of people, plant and animal life, acquatic life - and now one of their own has figured there should be a price tag on the head of the elderly? How ironic. Perhaps there is more we can do and should do, but we won't do it when you have populations that scream they have a 'right' to procreate and kill at will - gun control to abortion - those might be places to start. Just my HO. sammieswife
• 

  Justitia Themis

  Just my HO. sammieswife

  Thank you. While I may disagree with some of your proposed solutions, I appreciate that you put time and effort into trying to define some solutions instead of merely expressing 'shock and dismay' at the solutions and theories put forth by others.
• 

  Sulla

  Apparently, I missed the memo. The last I knew, the precise terms of what was included in the social contract was still being vigorously debated.

  Sulla, would you be so kind as to post the memo that actually defined the "social contract" as you did above?

  The memo. That's funny. But I don't think it is really controversial to observe that a culture and a society are nothing more than a group of people with a memory and a desire to continue their existence as a people. If you mean to define something called a society that is indifferent to its responsibility toward the future, and the people who would presumably make it up, that would be a new one.

  You can't see where a doctor might question the morality of what their actions that "saved" a premie only to leave it deaf, blind, unable to eat normally, with the maximum cognitive abilities of a infant, never to run, play, love? Back to the "social contract," who contracted to give that child a million dollars of medical care when other parties to the contract do not have basic care?

  Everybody trots this out. Of course, as a practical matter, what we do is abort children with Down's Syndrome on the basis that this (usually) mild form of handicap will destroy their "quality of life." Better that they should never breathe than suffer reduced cognitive ability. You are using the crudest possible example to support the crudest possible concept.

  Which is not to say -- and, of course, I have not argued -- that unlimited resources must be spent on hopeless cases.

  Very good; you've landed upon a central problem, not necessarily "the" central problem. Do you have solutions? Profound recommendations? You have clearly expressed your displeasure with what we have, but you have presented no options. You don't like the bureaucratic process. What alterantive do you propose? You don't want social criteria to determine the degree health care. What criteria would you use?

  Not really. The central problem of the social provision of goods is nothing except determining how to manage scarce resources among the competing claims. This is true whether we are talking about schools or roads or hospitals. As for solutions, don't we have an idea of what freely-contracted ex-ante decisions look like? Combine those with a social provision for the poor that covers care beginning with the most basic procedures and advances from there. We have to feed you no matter what or give you dialysis, say, but don't have to give you that surgery where we freeze your brain while a team of surgeons from Japan fix your liver with nano robots.

  For example.

  Because right now, to me, you seem like the average American: you want to whine about the reality; you want to attack the positions and decision-making processes of those trying to make extremely difficult decisions, yet you present no alternatives.

  Well, that's not really fair, is it? I haven't been sitting through bioethics classes for the last three years like some of us. I'm simply pointing out the ethical problems I have with what you are advancing.