Crosswords0 min ago
With regard to below.
11 Answers
Looking at MWB's question, is there a difference in the reasoning as to the quality of one's life with regard to it being deemed worthwhile living when were old as opposed to when we're young?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
'Old' is a strange thing - the longer you live, the further away 'old' is.
And of course 'old' doesn't mean incapacitated, useless or miserable. My 93 year old neighbour cares for his disabled wife full time, with only the nurse twice a week - one hour each time. He looks after the house and garden, does all the shopping and most of the housework. He is not 'old' in the sense you mean.
When I were young, 30 was old. When I was 30, I was young and 55 was old. I'm well past 55 and still not old.
His disabled wife is in her 80s and frankly isn't very able bodied. She lives life to the full and sucks every ounce of enjoyment out of every day that she can.
This couple have an enviable zest for life and are a good example that people should be labelled 'old' or 'disabled' as objects of pity,
And of course 'old' doesn't mean incapacitated, useless or miserable. My 93 year old neighbour cares for his disabled wife full time, with only the nurse twice a week - one hour each time. He looks after the house and garden, does all the shopping and most of the housework. He is not 'old' in the sense you mean.
When I were young, 30 was old. When I was 30, I was young and 55 was old. I'm well past 55 and still not old.
His disabled wife is in her 80s and frankly isn't very able bodied. She lives life to the full and sucks every ounce of enjoyment out of every day that she can.
This couple have an enviable zest for life and are a good example that people should be labelled 'old' or 'disabled' as objects of pity,
Very true indeed Ethel.
But I'm wondering why (for some) it is deemed acceptable to end life when they reach a certain age or disability?
We view it as wrong if that age is very young 5, 10 and so on.
Why?
I'm pretty much against euthanasia, is there an age whereby you cease to be useful?
People often recount their experiences in hospital where they are denied certain treatments because the expense does'nt warrant it because they are old.
Why is that so?
But I'm wondering why (for some) it is deemed acceptable to end life when they reach a certain age or disability?
We view it as wrong if that age is very young 5, 10 and so on.
Why?
I'm pretty much against euthanasia, is there an age whereby you cease to be useful?
People often recount their experiences in hospital where they are denied certain treatments because the expense does'nt warrant it because they are old.
Why is that so?
It's a moral dilemma - there is only so much cash in the NHS pot and hard decisions have to be made.
Some people who are in constant pain or have a permanent debilitating illness really do come to a time when they truly believe 'no more'. I have seen it several times, when the will to live has gone and every minute of every day is a test of endurance. I still don't know if euthanasia is acceptable in those circumstances/
Some people who are in constant pain or have a permanent debilitating illness really do come to a time when they truly believe 'no more'. I have seen it several times, when the will to live has gone and every minute of every day is a test of endurance. I still don't know if euthanasia is acceptable in those circumstances/
To andy-hughes
Just because many people do not agree with the post started by MWB does not mean it should have been pulled, especially one that seems to have got so many people hot under the collar and jumping up and down on their little "right to life" crizzo bandwagons to have their say.
This issue will not go away. It seems to me that the problem arrises from the fact that the people who strive to preserve life at any cost are NOT the ones expected to pay for it. And until some of you people try to move on from the "it takes a whole village to raise a child" mentality then we are forever destines to expect society to fix all manner of social and medical ills on our behalf and remove personal responsibility and rationality from us as swiftly as a losec moving in next door lowers the value of your property.
Just because many people do not agree with the post started by MWB does not mean it should have been pulled, especially one that seems to have got so many people hot under the collar and jumping up and down on their little "right to life" crizzo bandwagons to have their say.
This issue will not go away. It seems to me that the problem arrises from the fact that the people who strive to preserve life at any cost are NOT the ones expected to pay for it. And until some of you people try to move on from the "it takes a whole village to raise a child" mentality then we are forever destines to expect society to fix all manner of social and medical ills on our behalf and remove personal responsibility and rationality from us as swiftly as a losec moving in next door lowers the value of your property.
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Film, Media & TV29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles51 mins ago
Jobs & Education74 mins ago
