The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Medical Ethicist Ezekiel Emanuel Concocts Grand Kantian Principle About How You Shouldn't Try to Live Past 75 Out of How Much He Wishes His Dad, the Old Irgun Terrorist, Would Just Hurry Up and Die Already
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Technology Review:

A doctor and medical ethicist argues life after 75 is not worth living

Ezekiel Emanuel questions “whether our consumption is worth our contribution” in old age.
by Stephen S. Hall
Aug 21, 2019

In October 2014, Ezekiel Emanuel published an essay in the Atlantic called “Why I Hope to Die at 75.”

When he had just turned 57.

Because Emanuel is a medical doctor and chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s department of medical ethics and health policy, as well as a chief architect of Obamacare, the article stirred enormous controversy.

Emanuel vowed to refuse not only heroic medical interventions once he turned 75, but also antibiotics and vaccinations.

Headline in 2032: “Famed Medical Ethicist Identified as Patient Zero in New Epidemic Because He Refused to Get Vaccinated.”

His argument: older Americans live too long in a diminished state, raising the question of, as he put it, “whether our consumption is worth our contribution.”

Emanuel was born into a combative clan. One brother, Rahm, recently completed two terms as the controversial mayor of Chicago; another brother, Ari, is a high-profile Hollywood agent.

Also, his dad Benjamin, who is now 92 was a member of Jabotinsky’s rightwing Irgun terrorist group that blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, and caused some embarrassment in 2008 when he proclaimed to an Israeli newspaper about his son Rahm: “Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”

You can sympathize with poor Ezekiel sitting around the ancestral dinner table listening to his father boasting for the hundredth time about how Rahm ethnically cleansed the Cabrini-Green housing project just like Irgun ethnically cleansed the Deir Yassin Arab village back in 1948.

Update: Since this interview in August, I have now learned. Dr. Benjamin Emanuel has passed away. To Rahm and Ari Emanuel, condolences. To Ezekiel, congratulations.

But even given his DNA, Emanuel’s death wish was a provocative argument from a medical ethicist and health-care expert.

Emanuel, now 62, talked with me about the social implications of longevity research and why he isn’t a fan of extending life spans. I was particularly curious to get his reaction to several promising new anti-aging drugs.

EE: “I often get, from the people who want to dismiss me, “You know, my Aunt Nellie, she was clear as a bell at 94, and blah-blah-blah …” But as I said in the article, there are outliers. There are not that many people who continue to be active and engaged and actually creative past 75. It’s a very small number. … And even more important, for most people, is the biological decline in cognitive function. If you look at really smart people, there aren’t that many writing brand-new books after 75, and really developing new areas where they are leading thinkers. They tend to be re-tilling familiar areas that they’ve worked on for a long time.”

Indeed, but how many people develop new areas where they are leading thinkers at any age? It really doesn’t seem like a sensible hurdle that if you aren’t a leading thinker you don’t have any reason to live?

Q: What’s wrong with simply enjoying an extended life?
A: These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life.

Or maybe they are relaxing after working hard for most of their lives?

I saw Ari Emanuel at Riviera Golf club on a weekday afternoon in August. After an eventful career, he’s seems to be spending more time with his golf game. Has he not earned some relaxation?

For example, singer Tina Turner worked really hard for a really long career to entertain us:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzQnPz6TpGc

But she retired 10 years ago at age 69 to a chateau in Switzerland:

Turner is 79 years old. She has been retired for 10 years, and she is still basking in all of the nothing she has to do. “I don’t sing. I don’t dance. I don’t dress up,” she told me.

That will do, Tina, that’ll do.

 
Hide 207 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Well of course,this is the guy that invented Obama’s death panel …..one could argue for a social need for bloody -minded old bastards.

  2. Umm. Steve, I think you should have stopped posting after the last cocktail. Tina Turner and a clip from Babe is a juxtaposition that, how can one put this? – isn’t your finest work.

    • Disagree: Steve in Greensboro
    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Old Prude

    Oh come on, it’s funny!

    , @Anon
    @Old Prude


    Umm. Steve, I think you should have stopped posting after the last cocktail. Tina Turner and a clip from Babe is a juxtaposition that, how can one put this? – isn’t your finest work.
     
    Submitting shallow, foppish critiques about a professional writer's essay, when you have nothing to show for yourself, is considered lowbrow, and perhaps your worst anonymous internet submission to date.

    Perhaps you’re getting too old for this. I’m not suggesting that you consider killing yourself.

    Or AM I?!
    ⚰️⚰️⚰️

    Replies: @Old Prude

  3. “whether our consumption is worth our contribution.”

    Didn’t Hitler also said something about “useless eaters”?

    This argument about “contributing” is something that I hear a lot, even in the alt-right or HDB-sphere, as if only those who contribute to something beyond their immediate survival are somehow valuable. But contribute to what? What if such contributions are negative? Mr. Ezekiel’s work as “medical ethicist” has been useful to whom, exactly? Except for his own pockets and the insurance companies which he helped by creating Obamacare?

    You’d have to eliminate 99% of mankind if you would only keep those who do “meaningful, creative work”.

    • Replies: @notsaying
    @Dumbo


    You’d have to eliminate 99% of mankind if you would only keep those who do “meaningful, creative work”.
     
    I agree with you. What this guy says is terrible. I have to wonder how someone who dislikes people so much got to be put in charge of "medical ethics and health policy." I feel duped. I have seen his name quoted for years. I had no idea he felt this way about people. His belief about what you have to be doing to have a life worth living clearly don't just apply to people 75 and older but to all mankind.

    He thinks most of us are just worthless consumers of resources.
    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Dumbo

    Zeke's "ethics" seem like an atavistic throwback to hunter-gatherer times, when infanticide was SOP and the old folks were put on an ice flow and pushed out to sea when they could no longer "contribute."

    What's the point of having a rich industrial society if you can't afford anything or anyone that doesn't immediately "contribute" to the collective.

    Replies: @Carol

  4. Isn’t Noam Chomsky still publishing books at 90? Didn’t Studs Turkey publish his memoir at 95? If they’re still publishing, why insist they perish? In general, the elderly are our living link to the past. We can actually query them about history. And we feel diminished by their deaths.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @JimB

    Jacques Barzun - 93 From Dawn to Decadence

    , @Autochthon
    @JimB


    Didn’t Studs Turkey publish his memoir at 95?
     
    A shining example of nanogenerian productivity, was Mr. Turkey....

    http://bestanimations.com/Holidays/Thanksgiving/happy-thanksgiving-animated-gif-18.gif

    You know who else was productive after the age of seventy-five? This pimp:

    http://www.astro.com/imwiki/adb/thumb/5/53/Tonyrandall.jpg/180px-Tonyrandall.jpg

    (What kind of selfish bastard does that, knowing his children will, with near statistical certainty, be orphans before they reach ten years of age?)

    Replies: @Bugg, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Father O'Hara
    @JimB

    Wouldn't mind if those two particular guys were sent down early.
    PS:Did anyone point out that Rahm's dad died recently. Gates of Hell may need some oil with this guy and Ignatiev swinging them open.

  5. It’s the Judeo-German mind, going full out to terminal conclusions.

    Wasn’t there an old SciFi movie about people getting terminated at 30 (I don’t know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it’s SciFi).

    From the New Green Deal to the New Soylent Green Deal.

    Meanwhile in OffTopic:

    Fashion brand Loewe called out for outfit resembling concentration camp uniform

    Spanish fashion brand Loewe is under fire for a recent capsule collection with one outfit that bears a striking resemblance to a concentration camp uniform.

    It’s a striped shirt, you f*cking a**holes.

    (Unless it comes with an assortment of stickers in various shapes and colors, but apparently not)

    • Replies: @Cortes
    @El Dato

    You may have “Logan’s Run” in mind.

    If elderly people are mentally alert they can convey part of their wisdom. And as they decline physically and mentally we can learn a little humility.

    When someone is no longer feeding or managing toilet needs then there’s a case for “Carousel Time.”

    , @Lurker
    @El Dato


    Wasn’t there an old SciFi movie about people getting terminated at 30 (I don’t know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it’s SciFi).
     
    Logan's Run.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run_(film)

    The source book was even more problematic, the age of termination being 21.

    Replies: @Alexander Turok

    , @AndrewR
    @El Dato

    30 is barely into the prime of most people's lives.

    "Terminating" everyone at 65, OTOH, would undoubtedly be of net benefit to society, but this isn't polite to point out.

    , @ChrisZ
    @El Dato

    Soylent Green New Deal is pretty good, Dato. It has the makings of a vivid meme, although I wonder whether it’s only recognizable to children of the 1970s.

    , @Autochthon
    @El Dato


    I don’t know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it’s SciFi.
     
    Okay, Boomer.

    Since the average person died at about thirty years of age in most of the ancient world, how in the Hell did those "dumb kids" manage all those aquaducts, triremes, pyramids, and such?

    I expect you reckon it was all account of the lucky people who made it fifty, sixty, or seventy years coordinating it all, but that's bullshit, when we examine representative "dumb kids," but that is demonstrable bullshit, since the leaders were often "dumb kids," too:

    Here's one who essentially conquered the world by age thirty-two:

    https://www.history.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_faces:center%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_768/MTU3ODc5MDgzMjEwMTg4NTEx/alexander_the_great_by_tamarie-d57sirl.jpg


    Some other jackass established the Roman Empire and initiated the Pax Romana before dying aged forty. Still another know-nothing whipper-snapper established the bases for the world's most popular religion (and the most salubrious, to gauge by the scientific and cultural achievements engendered by the adherents of and in the name of a religion) before he died aged about thirty-five.

    The trend continued and continues. Thomas Jefferson was all of thirty-three when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. One could go on and on.

    The idea people in the first three decades or so of their lives, or a people whose lives lasted only about three decades, couldn't possibly "survive" or manage a civilisation outside the contrived premises of mediocre science fiction because such people are "dumb kids" is deminstrably ri-goddam-diculous.

    Replies: @Lot, @Global Citizen, @S. Anonyia, @Templar

  6. I remember during the 2016 election, it was said that Ari Emanuel was secretly Trump-sympathetic.

  7. If you look at really smart people, there aren’t that many writing brand-new books after 75, and really developing new areas where they are leading thinkers.

    Well, most academic books are written to to secure promotion, so it is not all that surprising that the monographs drop off after retirement. Even after tenure, the last really crucial hurdle, productivity across great swaths of the professoriate declines harshly.

    As for “developing new areas,” what has happened in many cases is that as Sailer says either a) 75 year-olds were like the vast majority of everybody and never managed to become leading thinkers in any area; or b) the 75 year-olds, having already at much younger ages established themselves as the leader of this or that field, are content to continue to lead their field rather than break out as a novice elsewhere. Why should they? Likewise relatively few 75 year-olds, compared to younger demographics, will take up a new sport or buy a new house our found a new journal or whatever, having already done all of that to their satisfaction years ago.

    • Replies: @nobodyofnowhere
    @eugyppius

    "Likewise relatively few 75 year-olds, compared to younger demographics, will take up a new sport"
    And there's no reason to deny those few who do the opportunity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauja_Singh

    , @flyingtiger
    @eugyppius

    Frederic Pohl and Jack Williamson were still writing books in their 90s.

    Replies: @SFG

  8. I know it’s fun to psychoanalyze this, but the fact is he’s right. People are living too long, and it’s cruel for them and for the younger generations who have to take care of them. I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already. Most of then are, privately, talking in the same way about how they want to die quickly before they ruin their own daughters’ lives.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jesse

    About 40% of each cohort requires a stay in a some sort of long-term care facility. That's just life. Most people in them aren't there more than a year or so. The distribution of reasons people are in long-term care have changed over the last two generations, but the dimensions of the social burden aren't all that different. You have more people suffering senile dementia and the infirmaties of age, fewer people suffering from insanity. There are probably better ways to structure the finance of long-term care and adaptive changes you could make to the system to better handle Alzheimer's patients (who can linger for a decade and a half if it hits them comparatively early).

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @bomag
    @Jesse


    I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.
     
    There is value in caring for others.

    I'm not sure we should be in a hurry to apply a utility function here if it just enhances hedonistic pursuits.

    Replies: @Jesse

    , @SFG
    @Jesse

    It's kind of like freedom of speech, but even more so: you can make an argument against its negative effects, but I'm more afraid of giving someone the power to regulate it.

    I mean, the government tosses people in jail for saying racist stuff in England. You want to give them the right to decide how long you get to live?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    , @Lot
    @Jesse

    Jesse, 100% agree.

    Steve, easy to parody this guy, but he’s powerless.

    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    Health care is 18% of the US economy and rapidly growing. Subsidies and taxes for extreme end of life care are crushing US based businesses and hurting the fertility of young working Americans.

    Dr. E going a little too far in the other direction? I’m cool with that.

    “ I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.”

    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.

    Replies: @Global Citizen, @Jesse, @nebulafox, @Dave Pinsen, @Art Deco, @Harry Baldwin, @AnotherDad, @Dacian Julien Soros

    , @Alexander Turok
    @Jesse

    One thing I've wondered is so many people take care of elderly parents themselves rather than just try to get them into some home on the taxpayer's dime. You don't see childless elderly people dying on the street, so there must be something out there.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Stan d Mute

    , @Anonymousse
    @Jesse

    Women’s happiness seems contingent on killing lots of inconvenient people nowadays... unborn children, elderly parents.

    Got to leave plenty of time and money for franzia, netflicks, and botox and cut loose all those downer filial human feelings of non transactional love and responsibility.

  9. Anon[334] • Disclaimer says:

    Interesting idea. Honestly, do you want to live long enough that your generation is cancelled and retroactively metoo’d and otherwise made subject to whatever punishments and fines and struggle sessions the new culture applies to you? Would Thomas Jefferson want to be alive today?

    How about a couple of test projects to work the kinks out first:

    — Kill the retired Jews in South Florida.

    — Kill blacks in Baltimore who “haven’t written any brand new books” recently to “develop new areas where they are leading thinkers.”

    If these go smoothly we can then roll it out nationwide. Also, nominate Emanuel for the Darwin Award.

    • Agree: Father O'Hara
    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    @Anon


    Kill blacks in Baltimore who “haven’t written any brand new books” recently to “develop new areas where they are leading thinkers.”
     
    Bad idea, I don't think the world can handle so many 'brand new books' on hustling and jive.
    , @njguy73
    @Anon

    Would Thomas Jefferson want to be alive today?

    If only to binge-watch "Scandal," yes.

  10. Isn’t this more a tragical case: A man who defines himself so much by his intellectual efforts that he cannot see that a life without intellectual effort may have its value?
    But of course he is wrong about the value of novelty – we indeed need those old professors who summarize and synthesize past detections for new students!

  11. I think your surmise that his stated reasons aren’t his actual reasons is correct. Either that, or he just has no clue about how ordinary people live and what they value.

    (The reason to be chary of antibiotics is that they’ve been overused, are commonly ineffective, and can generate iatrogenic illnesses).

  12. Jacques Barzun wrote From Dawn to Decadence in his early 90’s.

  13. “Life not worthy of life” makes its return.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @B36

    Roe v Wade was almost fifty years ago.

  14. @eugyppius

    If you look at really smart people, there aren’t that many writing brand-new books after 75, and really developing new areas where they are leading thinkers.
     
    Well, most academic books are written to to secure promotion, so it is not all that surprising that the monographs drop off after retirement. Even after tenure, the last really crucial hurdle, productivity across great swaths of the professoriate declines harshly.

    As for "developing new areas," what has happened in many cases is that as Sailer says either a) 75 year-olds were like the vast majority of everybody and never managed to become leading thinkers in any area; or b) the 75 year-olds, having already at much younger ages established themselves as the leader of this or that field, are content to continue to lead their field rather than break out as a novice elsewhere. Why should they? Likewise relatively few 75 year-olds, compared to younger demographics, will take up a new sport or buy a new house our found a new journal or whatever, having already done all of that to their satisfaction years ago.

    Replies: @nobodyofnowhere, @flyingtiger

    “Likewise relatively few 75 year-olds, compared to younger demographics, will take up a new sport”
    And there’s no reason to deny those few who do the opportunity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauja_Singh

  15. I would agree with him that most white old people are worthless in that they ovetconsume bote for fascists and are bigoted.

    However it is well settled that Elders of Color provide much to the vibrancy of the community so his thesis is somewhat flawed

  16. Or as Confucius (may have) said, “He who grows old and does not die is just being a pest.”

  17. To Dr. Emanuel: Ok, Boomer.

    Now I see why the kids say that.

    Sounds like Dr. Boomer just wants to thin the herd. Is there disparate impact?

  18. I wish they’d take some of the magic elixir (child blood?) they are using to kept Ruth Badger alive and give it to Derb. He’s a real ‘leading thinker’ we would be lucky to have around for a long time.

  19. • Replies: @JMcG
    @PiltdownMan

    Shame he didn’t die before his kids were born.

    , @Steve Sailer
    @PiltdownMan

    Thanks.

    Replies: @Lot

    , @istevereader
    @PiltdownMan

    Wish come true!

  20. There’s a very legitimate point however that you gloss over, the question of “who pays?”

    As long as my mother-in-law is paying for her own upkeep and six figure annual medical expenses while doing the incredibly important things like crapping in her diapers and abusing her caregivers, it’s fine and well (to hell with what her grandchildren might have otherwise benefitted from a debt free education). But how about a destitute doppelgänger consuming six figures (or more) of public funds extracted by force from the contributions sent to you which otherwise might allow you some meat protein once a week along with your ramen noodles?

    I was literally raised in hospitals and nursing homes accompanying Dr Mom on her rounds. Other kids had babysitters, I had the doctor’s lounge or nurse’s station and the sights and smells of decrepit octogenarians drooling in wheelchairs as the sat stewing in their own waste in a corridor. One never forgets the smell.

    Who pays? Like most boomers, you Steve seem oblivious to the fact that real money doesn’t magically appear but requires enforced labor of future generations.

    • Agree: follyofwar, Herbert West
    • Replies: @follyofwar
    @Stan d Mute

    In 1984, Colorado governor Richard Lamm said that old folks had a "duty to die," and he supported physician-assisted suicide. Naturally, he was pilloried for it. Now that he remains alive at 84, I wonder if he still feels the same.

    Still his point remains more valid today than ever. It's been said that 50% of overall medical costs are amassed during a person's last 6 months of life. That is intolerable and unsustainable.

    On a "60 Minutes" segment about this subject a few years back, a disgruntled doctor complained that sick, old people and their families were often insistent that every single high tech medical treatment, no matter the cost (paid by Medicare anyway), be utilized to keep grandpa alive, even when all quality of life is long gone.

    Emanuel is right that at some point medical treatment must be withheld and the plug pulled. "Death panels" are a prejorative phrase, but something like them is necessary.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    , @Anonymousse
    @Stan d Mute

    This topic seems exceptionally useful for getting sociopaths to publicly self identify.

    Replies: @Alexander Turok, @MikeatMikedotMike

  21. From my observation 75 for an Ashkenazi Jewish guy is equivalent to 45 in Goyim years.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Anonymous

    And for all that, the Ashkenazi lifespans are quite long. 5-6 years longer in UK.

    https://forward.com/culture/140894/may-you-live-until-120-dna-uncovers-secrets-to-je/

  22. If your baseline at life’s peak at 30-40 years of age, is 100 personal cognitive points, with good management such as living reasonably healthy and keeping the mind active, you’ll be down by no more than 5 cognitive points a decade, barring some catastrophe.

    95 points at 50, 90 points at 60, 85 points at 70, 80 points at 80, 75 points at 90, and so on.
    That’s not counting tech and med progress. Plus, as processing speed and capacity goes down (as do the body’s reserves), *experience* piles up, which includes also self-management, as in using dwindling resources so efficiently the result is not worse than back when you had more resources but squandered them, so it evens out all the way to deep old age. If you’re not a wreck, and if you know into which spheres to not venture anymore.

    However, daddy issues, and “hope I die before I get old” is also one way to go about things.

  23. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    To Britons of a certain age, Ezekiel Emanuel is better known simply as ‘Zeke’.

    Around year 1981, or thereabouts, Zeke starred in the pioneering BBC TV reality show ‘Now Get Out Of That, hosted by veteran Beeb man Bernard Falk, in which an assorted team of ‘civilians’ had to survive alone in the British countryside, being forced to endure a series of cryptic challenges in order to gain sustenance. It was, I remember, compulsive viewing.

    Zeke was infamous for being a voluble, excitable somewhat irritating Yank with a strong ‘Kermit’ accent, who was being forever urged to calm down by the more cool headed staid Englishmen on the team.

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    @Anonymous

    Those staid Englishmen have changed. Now these English are brawling with machetes!

  24. No time spent riding motorcycles is wasted time.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  25. If you want to entertain a utilitarian argument against old age, the obvious cutoff is the day your youngest kid turns 18. Graduation parties would conclude with Mom and Dad signing over their Fidelity account and taking a toaster bath.

    • LOL: Old Prude
  26. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life.

    LOL

    He’s trolling.

  27. Headline in 2032:

    “Famed Medical Ethicist Identified as Patient Zero in New Epidemic Because He Refused to Get Vaccinated.”

    Bi-lines:

    Fellow nursing home residents evacuated. Patient Zero smothered to death with pillow… story still breaking… Floor nurse describes Nigerian tech hired for under $200 as “hit-lady” … Last words out of famous Medical Ethicist recalled: “Wait! I’ve got one more good paper in me!”

  28. E.E. is delusional. We’d all be better off if a huge percentage of college professors would trade in their professional contribution for a set of golf clubs. But perhaps if Ezekiel recognized that the system of higher education itself may generate results that are good, indifferent or even harmful, he’d have a sartorial Being There/Unbearable Lightness of Being moment and go off to a monastery to commune with God rather than creeping us out in his role as a Neo Nazi ethicist. For perspective, we can turn to the history of the medical profession itself. How many patients have been tortured and murdered by doctors during so-called treatment? Though the elderly may be currently benefitting from life-extending medical intervention, how many generations wasted good money and endured much suffering at the hands of misguided medical professionals to achieve the modern benefits of all those mistakes? For that matter, how much of medical expertise has been developed because elderly patients had the money to seek treatment for things like cancer and heart disease.

    I bet 85yo Ezekiel has a change of heart and tries to live past 100.

  29. Emanuel vowed to refuse not only heroic medical interventions once he turned 75, but also antibiotics and vaccinations.

    For a guy who doesn’t want to live past 75, it doesn’t sound like he plans on being very proactive about it. I don’t think his heart’s in it.

  30. Did Steve overlook recent death of Dr.Emanuel? Not religious apparently. An outstanding pater familias.

    About the subject of useless existence in old age. I am an unwilling investigator of that condition being 85. Compared to decades of unfocused existence in 2003 I re-engaged in my earlier intellectual interest and took to writing scholarly papers. Two were published in 2008 and 2011 respectively. I have written 4 more which have been rejected by the many refereed journals I have submitted them to. They seem to me to be genuine contributions to knowledge but I would say that having authored them. The world must be the judge of that.

    Judge for yourself: “The grammatical puzzles of Socrates’ Last Words”.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Anonymouse

    Hans Bethe was writing scientific papers well into his 90s.

    I don't want the government putting old people down: nor do I want the government artificially prolonging their lives against their will. I want the government (and everybody else) to stay the hell out of it and let the old people make their own decisions.

    , @Anonymouse
    @Anonymouse

    The counter on that page recorded 21 hits, 1 each from Norway and Poland.

  31. We need more ideas like this. Yes, it’s a terrible idea, but this is a social proposal that isn’t obsessed with reducing iniquities” or a conversation about race etc.

    We need more discussion about totally different ideas. Real societal innovation can come from thinking outside of the box.

  32. He was being restrained.

    There are millions of people in this country in their 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond, who sit drooling in soiled diapers with glassy, uncomprehending eyes in nursing homes in front of TVs blasting brain-dead shows they cannot comprehend. They exist merely in order to serve as cash cows for doctors, nurses, therapists and nurse aides.

    I told The Boss that if she ever tries to put me in one of those places, the cops will have to kill me, to get me out of here.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Nicholas Stix

    There are millions of people in this country in their 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond, who sit drooling in soiled diapers with glassy,

    The nursing home census is about 1.3 million, and, no, that's not a description of them. Some of them are in locked wards because their memory is gone, but most are not. They're in nursing homes l/t because they meet certain criteria for physical infirmity or cognitive loss and do not have the resources for an assisted living center. Others are there on s/t rehabilitation programs.


    They exist merely in order to serve as cash cows for doctors, nurses, therapists and nurse aides.

    No, they don't. They continue to exist because a decent society doesn't kill it's old people and ordinary people don't kill themselves. However, they do require care, which is why those professionals and aides are there. They receive the same sort of compensation comparable people receive outside of nursing home settings, so it's bizarre to accuse them of being any more mercenary than an ordinary person who is just earning a living.

    Replies: @Jesse

    , @Anonymous
    @Nicholas Stix

    Why confine this rant to the elderly? There are plenty of younger people totally reliant on others for their care with no hope of recovery - traumatic brain injury, stroke, severe cerebral palsy, anoxic encephalopathy, etc. What would you do about them? Many people would agree that extraordinary life-extending measures are not warranted in this setting (depending on how you define “extraordinary”), but most of these unfortunates are just receiving basic nursing care and nutritional support.

  33. I guess a point could be made from the fact that well over half lifetime medical costs accrue in the last six months … sooner or later medical ethics WILL include insurance maff (though it makes little sense to fix a calendar age).

    But I´ve got a hunch this applies only to goyim whose lives are, after all, qualitatively different 😛

  34. “Whether our consumption is worth our contribution,” is an interesting concept.

    As a thought experiment, imagine that a novel, highly contagious, and deadly disease has begun to spread. Vaccines are developed but can only be produced and distributed at a limited rate. You are dictator and must decide priorities, i.e. who gets the vaccine and in what order.

    I’m 73 and don’t really need to worry about this, but you young people might.

  35. Indeed, but how many people develop new areas where they are leading thinkers at any age?

    Exactly damn few…many develop dumbass ideas…but few of value.

  36. Think it should be a case-by-case thing. But who does that evaluation? Dr. EE wants to Government to do it, but the elderly are the highest-voting age group. They are not giving their votes to some “Logan’s Run” program to kill them.

    If you’re still sharp and active at 75, see no reason not to take a z-pack when you have a bad cold. But personally one thing that has made me a bit nuts with the elderly in my family is they do in fact keep the medical profession in business with marginal utility of care. An orthopedist will tell a 55 year old you are looking at arthritis in your future, a cardiologist will tell the same patient to lose weight and exercise. But a 75 year old, they pretend they can do something for them and really what they can offer them is either marginal or worthless. And that is the bulk of their patients. Go into any waiting room of a GP, or a cardiologist or an orthopedist, and almost EVERYONE is over 75. Appears to fill their days rather than accomplish any real medical benefit.

    But for those who are drooling messes kept alive by extraordinary means, we treat dogs better by putting them down. Don’t know if they’ll do it, but should the day come my sons have been instructed to OD me on oxy or put a pillow over my face, without any guilt.

  37. If you look at really smart people, there aren’t that many writing brand-new books after 75.

    Publish or perish.

    • LOL: Hibernian
  38. @eugyppius

    If you look at really smart people, there aren’t that many writing brand-new books after 75, and really developing new areas where they are leading thinkers.
     
    Well, most academic books are written to to secure promotion, so it is not all that surprising that the monographs drop off after retirement. Even after tenure, the last really crucial hurdle, productivity across great swaths of the professoriate declines harshly.

    As for "developing new areas," what has happened in many cases is that as Sailer says either a) 75 year-olds were like the vast majority of everybody and never managed to become leading thinkers in any area; or b) the 75 year-olds, having already at much younger ages established themselves as the leader of this or that field, are content to continue to lead their field rather than break out as a novice elsewhere. Why should they? Likewise relatively few 75 year-olds, compared to younger demographics, will take up a new sport or buy a new house our found a new journal or whatever, having already done all of that to their satisfaction years ago.

    Replies: @nobodyofnowhere, @flyingtiger

    Frederic Pohl and Jack Williamson were still writing books in their 90s.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @flyingtiger

    Oh, there's an even more extreme example, sure to annoy lots of people here: Herman Wouk died a little while ago:


    https://www.amazon.com/Sailor-Fiddler-Reflections-100-Year-Old-Author/dp/1501128558/

    Replies: @flyingtiger

  39. Sometimes Steve’s sense of morality baffles me. I have no love or interest for the heritably psychopathic Emanuel family, but artificially continuing an individual’s life with modern medicine – an individual with no chance of recovery or return to a minimal standard of quality of life – isn’t morally justifiable, it’s just selfish.

    • Replies: @Clive Beaconsfield
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Sure, but that’s not what Emanuel is saying here. He seems to think even the relatively modest normal decline of activity and achievement in old age makes life not worth living.

  40. Anon[279] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    White Christian professor posts “bigoted views” on Twitter, university trashes him in a statement, but doesn’t fire him, enraging mob.

    Bigoted Views vs. Bigoted Teaching

    Indiana University condemns professor’s racist and misogynistic tweets in strongest terms but won’t fire him over views alone.

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/11/22/indiana-university-condemns-professors-racist-and-misogynistic-tweets-strongest

    Indiana University at Bloomington will not terminate Eric Rasmusen, professor of business economics and public policy, for the “stunningly ignorant” views he expressed on social media. So said Provost Lauren Robel this week amid calls that Rasmusen be fired.

    Rasmusen “has, for many years, used his private social media accounts to disseminate his racist, sexist and homophobic views,” Robel wrote in a statement. “When I label his views in this way, let me note that the labels are not a close call, nor do his posts require careful parsing to reach these conclusions.”

    From years of material that is stunningly bigoted and not a close call, the single example in the article is this link to a recent Unz writer on the topic of male/female IQ and relative right-tail “geniusness”:

    The article in question is maybe taboo, but it’s hardly “stunningly ignorant, hardly a close call, doesn’t require careful parsing bigoted and misogynistic.” It’s garden-variety psychometrics and evolutionary psychology, with which people are welcome to disagree with.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    @Anon

    If he had made the same comment, but with race, his employers would've fired him and then destroyed his life. The mob is entitled to be riled at the bog standard Christian cowardice.

    , @Houston 1992
    @Anon

    As a novice student in evolutionary psychology, I would have thought an innovator requires very high conscientiousness to the point of OCD. The innovator cannot let go of something until he resolves it or solves it. His job sessions impels him.
    Pls correct me. Sincerely Thanks

    , @Father O'Hara
    @Anon

    I saw an AP article in the Chicago Sun-Times today about this. They mentioned the Unz Review. I've never heard of Unz outside the net.

  41. You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.

    George Bernard Shaw

    This is on goodreads, not wikiquote. I was trying to find the context in which he said it because I hoped it was a good joke and he wasn’t serious, and I found this blog post which had a comprehensive set of Shaw’s eugenic propositions.

    https://www.sagaciousnewsnetwork.com/george-bernard-shaw-in-his-own-words/

    (I think I will poke around on the sagacious news network which I have not before known of.)

  42. @Nicholas Stix
    He was being restrained.

    There are millions of people in this country in their 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond, who sit drooling in soiled diapers with glassy, uncomprehending eyes in nursing homes in front of TVs blasting brain-dead shows they cannot comprehend. They exist merely in order to serve as cash cows for doctors, nurses, therapists and nurse aides.

    I told The Boss that if she ever tries to put me in one of those places, the cops will have to kill me, to get me out of here.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Anonymous

    There are millions of people in this country in their 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond, who sit drooling in soiled diapers with glassy,

    The nursing home census is about 1.3 million, and, no, that’s not a description of them. Some of them are in locked wards because their memory is gone, but most are not. They’re in nursing homes l/t because they meet certain criteria for physical infirmity or cognitive loss and do not have the resources for an assisted living center. Others are there on s/t rehabilitation programs.

    They exist merely in order to serve as cash cows for doctors, nurses, therapists and nurse aides.

    No, they don’t. They continue to exist because a decent society doesn’t kill it’s old people and ordinary people don’t kill themselves. However, they do require care, which is why those professionals and aides are there. They receive the same sort of compensation comparable people receive outside of nursing home settings, so it’s bizarre to accuse them of being any more mercenary than an ordinary person who is just earning a living.

    • Agree: TWS, Carol
    • Replies: @Jesse
    @Art Deco

    Holy strawman, dude. No one's saying that we should kill the elderly. We're questioning the utility of spending hundreds of thousands on, say, chemo that will cause huge pain and *might* keep them alive an extra 18 months. Or the kindness of saving them from a quick death from the flu so they can spend a decade plus dying of dementia.

    It might actually be better to pack them off to homes. What we have right now is millions of people slowly sucking the life out of their adult kids. You can always tell if someone is of A Certain Age and has no experience of the special hell that is caring for the elderly, because they get remarkably angry at the idea that the people they full intend on being a burden to, might not love every moment.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @Art Deco

  43. Any vision of age-triggered life termination not involving a young (or current) Jenny Agutter isn’t worth having.

  44. This is the leading edge of kill most White people because their lives are non vibrant and thus worthless. See gay marriage, trannies, civil rights.

    Political judo … Amplify and agree on Blacks and Hispanics. No health care for them as they science contributions are nil.

  45. Reflect on the fact that this man is a medical ethicist.

    And these are his arguments.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @candid_observer

    Peter Singer is also an "ethicist".

    One clue as to whom to avoid taking ethical advice from?

    Anyone who calls himself an "ethicist".

  46. What – like this is hard?

  47. @Art Deco
    @Nicholas Stix

    There are millions of people in this country in their 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond, who sit drooling in soiled diapers with glassy,

    The nursing home census is about 1.3 million, and, no, that's not a description of them. Some of them are in locked wards because their memory is gone, but most are not. They're in nursing homes l/t because they meet certain criteria for physical infirmity or cognitive loss and do not have the resources for an assisted living center. Others are there on s/t rehabilitation programs.


    They exist merely in order to serve as cash cows for doctors, nurses, therapists and nurse aides.

    No, they don't. They continue to exist because a decent society doesn't kill it's old people and ordinary people don't kill themselves. However, they do require care, which is why those professionals and aides are there. They receive the same sort of compensation comparable people receive outside of nursing home settings, so it's bizarre to accuse them of being any more mercenary than an ordinary person who is just earning a living.

    Replies: @Jesse

    Holy strawman, dude. No one’s saying that we should kill the elderly. We’re questioning the utility of spending hundreds of thousands on, say, chemo that will cause huge pain and *might* keep them alive an extra 18 months. Or the kindness of saving them from a quick death from the flu so they can spend a decade plus dying of dementia.

    It might actually be better to pack them off to homes. What we have right now is millions of people slowly sucking the life out of their adult kids. You can always tell if someone is of A Certain Age and has no experience of the special hell that is caring for the elderly, because they get remarkably angry at the idea that the people they full intend on being a burden to, might not love every moment.

    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    @Jesse

    My grandparents all lived to 85-95 and never lived in hospices. Always by themselves (or my grandmother and great Aunt lived together when my grandfather died). My dad was in and out in his 80s, but all paid with insurance. My mom or us kids visited every day. I know not always the case, but 75 seems bizarrely arbitrator. I’ll only be 8 years retired by then. I’m gonna hey all the juice out of the rind and live in through if I can. If I can’t take it I’ll deal with it then. I’d rather watch reruns of Have Gun Will Travel than not exist.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    , @Art Deco
    @Jesse

    Holy strawman, dude. No one’s saying that we should kill the elderly.

    You need to re-read some of the contributions to this thread. Start with 'JackD'.


    We’re questioning the utility of spending hundreds of thousands on, say, chemo that will cause huge pain and *might* keep them alive an extra 18 months.

    Did you just accuse me of setting up a straw man?



    Or the kindness of saving them from a quick death from the flu so they can spend a decade plus dying of dementia.

    What are you planning to do to this 'flu' patient to cause his death? Dehydrate him? There are laws against criminally negligent homicide. For a reason.



    It might actually be better to pack them off to homes. What we have right now is millions of people slowly sucking the life out of their adult kids. You can always tell if someone is of A Certain Age and has no experience of the special hell that is caring for the elderly, because they get remarkably angry at the idea that the people they full intend on being a burden to, might not love every moment.


    There are 47 million elderly in this country. There are 5.7 million people living in the homes of their adult children. It's not exactly a modal living arrangement for the old. Some of these geezers are high-maintenance, some aren't. About 3 million dementia patients live with family, about 1.3 million continue to live alone, and about 1 million are in assisted living and nursing homes. Your complaint is what, that we don't move them into nursing homes quickly enough?

    Replies: @Jack D

  48. @Anon
    OT

    White Christian professor posts "bigoted views" on Twitter, university trashes him in a statement, but doesn't fire him, enraging mob.


    Bigoted Views vs. Bigoted Teaching

    Indiana University condemns professor's racist and misogynistic tweets in strongest terms but won't fire him over views alone.

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/11/22/indiana-university-condemns-professors-racist-and-misogynistic-tweets-strongest

    Indiana University at Bloomington will not terminate Eric Rasmusen, professor of business economics and public policy, for the “stunningly ignorant” views he expressed on social media. So said Provost Lauren Robel this week amid calls that Rasmusen be fired.

    Rasmusen “has, for many years, used his private social media accounts to disseminate his racist, sexist and homophobic views,” Robel wrote in a statement. “When I label his views in this way, let me note that the labels are not a close call, nor do his posts require careful parsing to reach these conclusions.”
     
    From years of material that is stunningly bigoted and not a close call, the single example in the article is this link to a recent Unz writer on the topic of male/female IQ and relative right-tail "geniusness":

    https://twitter.com/erasmuse/status/1192591814567563266

    The article in question is maybe taboo, but it's hardly "stunningly ignorant, hardly a close call, doesn't require careful parsing bigoted and misogynistic." It's garden-variety psychometrics and evolutionary psychology, with which people are welcome to disagree with.

    Replies: @Jesse, @Houston 1992, @Father O'Hara

    If he had made the same comment, but with race, his employers would’ve fired him and then destroyed his life. The mob is entitled to be riled at the bog standard Christian cowardice.

  49. Medical Ethicist Ezekiel Emanuel Concocts Grand Kantian Principle

    The only thing reminiscent of Kant in this piece is the last name of the author. This was no categorical imperative a la Kantian ethics, it was a basic utilitarian argument.

    And he’s right. There is a disproportionate amount of resources flowing to the aged. The Silent and the Boomers are consuming everything, spending everything, wearing everything out, and giving no thought to the future.

    Life extension is a very bad bargain for society as a whole. The reason why birth rates are so low is because there are old people lingering on in a state of decrepitude for 20-odd years, refusing to allow their worn out existence to be replaced by another.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Intelligent Dasein

    You go first.

  50. @Jesse
    I know it's fun to psychoanalyze this, but the fact is he's right. People are living too long, and it's cruel for them and for the younger generations who have to take care of them. I've seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won't just die already. Most of then are, privately, talking in the same way about how they want to die quickly before they ruin their own daughters' lives.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @bomag, @SFG, @Lot, @Alexander Turok, @Anonymousse

    About 40% of each cohort requires a stay in a some sort of long-term care facility. That’s just life. Most people in them aren’t there more than a year or so. The distribution of reasons people are in long-term care have changed over the last two generations, but the dimensions of the social burden aren’t all that different. You have more people suffering senile dementia and the infirmaties of age, fewer people suffering from insanity. There are probably better ways to structure the finance of long-term care and adaptive changes you could make to the system to better handle Alzheimer’s patients (who can linger for a decade and a half if it hits them comparatively early).

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco


    Most people in them aren’t there more than a year or so.
     
    What is accomplished, other than wasting a lot of money, during that year? The person, if he has any awareness left, is not happy. His family is not happy. The West Indian ladies changing his diapers are not happy. What is the point? Can't we give these folks a little extra morphine and let them slip away?

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Stan d Mute

  51. I think this is reasonable. We have decided you can kill a baby if they are not outside the womb. If someone over 75 shows any signs of needing care at all from another human why don’t we allow abortions of over 75’s?

  52. And even more important, for most people, is the biological decline in cognitive function. If you look at really smart people, there aren’t that many writing brand-new books after 75, and really developing new areas where they are leading thinkers. They tend to be re-tilling familiar areas that they’ve worked on for a long time.

    One unfortunate reality is that most people won’t become great at completely new crafts late in life. But many older people can continue being excellent in a career that they were already excellent in.

    Consider Martin Scorcese at 77, just finished The Irishman, which looks like a great movie. The musician, Leonard Cohen, released awesome new albums in the last few years of his life. You’d think he might get lazy and sloppy towards the end, but not at all, they were excellent works.

    I’m not sure about STEM and engineering types. Bill Gates retired from tech. Will people like Elon Musk still be a leading figure after 70?

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Massimo Heitor

    Don’t forget Clint Eastwood making the great film about Richard Jewel at 90.

    Some patients in nursing homes are there for a few days after surgery for therapy and then go home.

  53. Rofl…

    and we wonder why our humble country journalist doesnt get wider circulation.

    its a crime really.

  54. @El Dato
    It's the Judeo-German mind, going full out to terminal conclusions.

    Wasn't there an old SciFi movie about people getting terminated at 30 (I don't know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it's SciFi).

    From the New Green Deal to the New Soylent Green Deal.

    Meanwhile in OffTopic:

    Fashion brand Loewe called out for outfit resembling concentration camp uniform

    Spanish fashion brand Loewe is under fire for a recent capsule collection with one outfit that bears a striking resemblance to a concentration camp uniform.
     
    It's a striped shirt, you f*cking a**holes.

    (Unless it comes with an assortment of stickers in various shapes and colors, but apparently not)

    Replies: @Cortes, @Lurker, @AndrewR, @ChrisZ, @Autochthon

    You may have “Logan’s Run” in mind.

    If elderly people are mentally alert they can convey part of their wisdom. And as they decline physically and mentally we can learn a little humility.

    When someone is no longer feeding or managing toilet needs then there’s a case for “Carousel Time.”

  55. Emanuel vowed to refuse not only heroic medical interventions once he turned 75, but also antibiotics and vaccinations.

    I think he’ll back out of that vow pretty quickly once he contracts a painful infection.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @black sea

    I'm sure we will see a headline in 14 years: "76-year-old celebrity Ph.D. voluntarily dies of an ear infection."

  56. @Art Deco
    @Jesse

    About 40% of each cohort requires a stay in a some sort of long-term care facility. That's just life. Most people in them aren't there more than a year or so. The distribution of reasons people are in long-term care have changed over the last two generations, but the dimensions of the social burden aren't all that different. You have more people suffering senile dementia and the infirmaties of age, fewer people suffering from insanity. There are probably better ways to structure the finance of long-term care and adaptive changes you could make to the system to better handle Alzheimer's patients (who can linger for a decade and a half if it hits them comparatively early).

    Replies: @Jack D

    Most people in them aren’t there more than a year or so.

    What is accomplished, other than wasting a lot of money, during that year? The person, if he has any awareness left, is not happy. His family is not happy. The West Indian ladies changing his diapers are not happy. What is the point? Can’t we give these folks a little extra morphine and let them slip away?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    What is accomplished, other than wasting a lot of money, during that year? T

    You know, we could improve the quality of life in your town by dispatching you while you're still being obnoxious and making trouble for others, but we don't. You have certain immunities, no matter how destructive and unpleasant you are.

    The infirm have a variety of dispositions toward their situation. You live life, you suffer, and people suffer with you. You institute the regime that Jack D wants, people will be dispatched for the convenience of the caucus of those with their middle-finger upraised. It has nothing to do with pleasing anyone else.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    , @Stan d Mute
    @Jack D


    What is the point? Can’t we give these folks a little extra morphine and let them slip away?
     
    I've commented often about Dr Mom who was a strong proponent of euthanasia and felt that the only real contribution any of us could make is the reduction of human suffering. In the end, she was (I am certain) euthanized by her colleagues when it became clear that there was no prospect for improvement in her disease (metastasized cancer) nor reduction in pain. They could have kept her alive another six months, but from professional courtesy gave her a ride on the morphine express. I was then and will remain forever grateful for the kindness and wish that it was afforded to everyone.

    I’ve also commented on my own health issues as a middle aged white guy who’s endured chemo, radiation, a major STEMI, and has inoperable spinal injuries, condemned to suffer constant unremitting pain until my own exit. Unable to find any doctors willing to jack me up enough to work productively, told I’m not disabled enough for social security, my life is pain and parasitism - nothing more. When I had my STEMI, I was able to tell the EMTs (I didn’t call them) to take me to a hospital that has had my DNR for nearly two decades. They ignored my DNR and resuscitated me anyway, why not, how else could they bill my insurance over $100,000? When I demanded to be released twelve hours after my heart attack, they called shrinks and cops on me. Both determined that I was sane and law-abiding, but I could just see the disappointment in revenue losses from the doctors.

    Doctors today aren’t the doctors of the 1970’s and earlier, they care FAR more about practicing defensive medicine and maximizing their insurance billing than they care about minimizing pain and suffering. The only silver lining is that the narcissists who insist on prolonging their crappy lives at society’s cost will get what they ask for - good and hard. I hope they are kept alive for a decade stewing in their own filth while negroid caregivers slap them around and laugh at them..
  57. @Jesse
    I know it's fun to psychoanalyze this, but the fact is he's right. People are living too long, and it's cruel for them and for the younger generations who have to take care of them. I've seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won't just die already. Most of then are, privately, talking in the same way about how they want to die quickly before they ruin their own daughters' lives.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @bomag, @SFG, @Lot, @Alexander Turok, @Anonymousse

    I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.

    There is value in caring for others.

    I’m not sure we should be in a hurry to apply a utility function here if it just enhances hedonistic pursuits.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    @bomag

    And this is why women hate the right. Not wanting your life ruined by caring for someone kept alive with massive, pointless effort is now "hedonistic". Do you think, prior to the medical revolution, women were universally caring for children *and* desperately keeping the elderly existing (I won't say 'living")?

    Replies: @bomag

  58. Faraday’s Bobcat wins this and all threads in perpetuity.

  59. You have to be borderline insane to think of giving the government the power to invade your family and pick an arbitrary age where they start to dictate treatments and actively conspire to dispatch you or your family member to a “government” approved death protocol.

  60. @JimB
    Isn’t Noam Chomsky still publishing books at 90? Didn’t Studs Turkey publish his memoir at 95? If they’re still publishing, why insist they perish? In general, the elderly are our living link to the past. We can actually query them about history. And we feel diminished by their deaths.

    Replies: @obwandiyag, @Autochthon, @Father O'Hara

    Jacques Barzun – 93 From Dawn to Decadence

  61. @B36
    "Life not worthy of life" makes its return.

    Replies: @JMcG

    Roe v Wade was almost fifty years ago.

  62. @PiltdownMan
    Benjamin Emanuel died early last month.

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/10/3/20895790/benjamin-emanuel-rahm-ari-ezekiel-israel-obituary

    Replies: @JMcG, @Steve Sailer, @istevereader

    Shame he didn’t die before his kids were born.

  63. If you’re going to hire a medical ethicist, shouldn’t you engage someone with a little more perspective, balance, and sobriety?

    You know, like Nietzsche maybe?

  64. @Stan d Mute
    There’s a very legitimate point however that you gloss over, the question of “who pays?”

    As long as my mother-in-law is paying for her own upkeep and six figure annual medical expenses while doing the incredibly important things like crapping in her diapers and abusing her caregivers, it’s fine and well (to hell with what her grandchildren might have otherwise benefitted from a debt free education). But how about a destitute doppelgänger consuming six figures (or more) of public funds extracted by force from the contributions sent to you which otherwise might allow you some meat protein once a week along with your ramen noodles?

    I was literally raised in hospitals and nursing homes accompanying Dr Mom on her rounds. Other kids had babysitters, I had the doctor’s lounge or nurse's station and the sights and smells of decrepit octogenarians drooling in wheelchairs as the sat stewing in their own waste in a corridor. One never forgets the smell.

    Who pays? Like most boomers, you Steve seem oblivious to the fact that real money doesn’t magically appear but requires enforced labor of future generations.

    Replies: @follyofwar, @Anonymousse

    In 1984, Colorado governor Richard Lamm said that old folks had a “duty to die,” and he supported physician-assisted suicide. Naturally, he was pilloried for it. Now that he remains alive at 84, I wonder if he still feels the same.

    Still his point remains more valid today than ever. It’s been said that 50% of overall medical costs are amassed during a person’s last 6 months of life. That is intolerable and unsustainable.

    On a “60 Minutes” segment about this subject a few years back, a disgruntled doctor complained that sick, old people and their families were often insistent that every single high tech medical treatment, no matter the cost (paid by Medicare anyway), be utilized to keep grandpa alive, even when all quality of life is long gone.

    Emanuel is right that at some point medical treatment must be withheld and the plug pulled. “Death panels” are a prejorative phrase, but something like them is necessary.

    • Agree: prosa123
    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @follyofwar

    Head of a local hospice spoke to a group I belonged to. He emphasized telling people what is in your living will. Because multiple times they had a patient who wanted taken off life support, but they didn't do it. A family member they'd never seen before came in screaming they were going to murder mom or dad. Showing them the living will had no effect.

    Replies: @AndrewR

  65. @El Dato
    It's the Judeo-German mind, going full out to terminal conclusions.

    Wasn't there an old SciFi movie about people getting terminated at 30 (I don't know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it's SciFi).

    From the New Green Deal to the New Soylent Green Deal.

    Meanwhile in OffTopic:

    Fashion brand Loewe called out for outfit resembling concentration camp uniform

    Spanish fashion brand Loewe is under fire for a recent capsule collection with one outfit that bears a striking resemblance to a concentration camp uniform.
     
    It's a striped shirt, you f*cking a**holes.

    (Unless it comes with an assortment of stickers in various shapes and colors, but apparently not)

    Replies: @Cortes, @Lurker, @AndrewR, @ChrisZ, @Autochthon

    Wasn’t there an old SciFi movie about people getting terminated at 30 (I don’t know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it’s SciFi).

    Logan’s Run.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run_(film)

    The source book was even more problematic, the age of termination being 21.

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
    @Lurker

    It's interesting that the movie was quite prescient except for the terminating oldsters part:

    https://halfsigma.typepad.com/half_sigma/2011/09/how-logans-run-predicted-the-future-now-the-present.html

  66. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Sometimes Steve's sense of morality baffles me. I have no love or interest for the heritably psychopathic Emanuel family, but artificially continuing an individual's life with modern medicine - an individual with no chance of recovery or return to a minimal standard of quality of life - isn't morally justifiable, it's just selfish.

    Replies: @Clive Beaconsfield

    Sure, but that’s not what Emanuel is saying here. He seems to think even the relatively modest normal decline of activity and achievement in old age makes life not worth living.

  67. Some people are past their “sell by” date at 55. Others are still running on all cylinders at 90. Instead of picking some arbitrary age like 75, it’s better to get each person to recognize their own “DNR” age.

    I told my ex that I would kill myself very shortly after being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s if I ever get diagnosed (which admittedly I probably will never get, based on my family history). She found the idea shocking and bad. I asked her if she wants to take care of my sister’s father-in-law who has severe Alzheimer’s. She said “no, I don’t know him.” I said “well I do, and his existence is a drain on his sons who shouldn’t have to sacrifice so much of their time for their shell of a father.”

  68. @Anon
    OT

    White Christian professor posts "bigoted views" on Twitter, university trashes him in a statement, but doesn't fire him, enraging mob.


    Bigoted Views vs. Bigoted Teaching

    Indiana University condemns professor's racist and misogynistic tweets in strongest terms but won't fire him over views alone.

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/11/22/indiana-university-condemns-professors-racist-and-misogynistic-tweets-strongest

    Indiana University at Bloomington will not terminate Eric Rasmusen, professor of business economics and public policy, for the “stunningly ignorant” views he expressed on social media. So said Provost Lauren Robel this week amid calls that Rasmusen be fired.

    Rasmusen “has, for many years, used his private social media accounts to disseminate his racist, sexist and homophobic views,” Robel wrote in a statement. “When I label his views in this way, let me note that the labels are not a close call, nor do his posts require careful parsing to reach these conclusions.”
     
    From years of material that is stunningly bigoted and not a close call, the single example in the article is this link to a recent Unz writer on the topic of male/female IQ and relative right-tail "geniusness":

    https://twitter.com/erasmuse/status/1192591814567563266

    The article in question is maybe taboo, but it's hardly "stunningly ignorant, hardly a close call, doesn't require careful parsing bigoted and misogynistic." It's garden-variety psychometrics and evolutionary psychology, with which people are welcome to disagree with.

    Replies: @Jesse, @Houston 1992, @Father O'Hara

    As a novice student in evolutionary psychology, I would have thought an innovator requires very high conscientiousness to the point of OCD. The innovator cannot let go of something until he resolves it or solves it. His job sessions impels him.
    Pls correct me. Sincerely Thanks

  69. @El Dato
    It's the Judeo-German mind, going full out to terminal conclusions.

    Wasn't there an old SciFi movie about people getting terminated at 30 (I don't know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it's SciFi).

    From the New Green Deal to the New Soylent Green Deal.

    Meanwhile in OffTopic:

    Fashion brand Loewe called out for outfit resembling concentration camp uniform

    Spanish fashion brand Loewe is under fire for a recent capsule collection with one outfit that bears a striking resemblance to a concentration camp uniform.
     
    It's a striped shirt, you f*cking a**holes.

    (Unless it comes with an assortment of stickers in various shapes and colors, but apparently not)

    Replies: @Cortes, @Lurker, @AndrewR, @ChrisZ, @Autochthon

    30 is barely into the prime of most people’s lives.

    “Terminating” everyone at 65, OTOH, would undoubtedly be of net benefit to society, but this isn’t polite to point out.

  70. A perfect application for Nonbiased AI algorithm.

    Old Boomers form single file line.
    They shuffle through Nonbiased AI decision arch.
    Some go left to their workstation.
    Rest go right to “old folks retirement home”

    Optimizes human capital wrt productivity. Nonbiased AI could sort via Hollireth cards, maximizing systems reuse, just like in old days.

    What could go wrong as long as the Nonbiased AI functions the way it is intended. Special data patches can be applied to properly cull the herd. Why wait until they are 75?

    No complaints from you, Mr. Boomer. Train your replacement and then get in line.

  71. I honestly think a case could be made that all the Emanuels’ consumption far exceeds any meaningful contributions to life on Earth.

  72. @Jesse
    I know it's fun to psychoanalyze this, but the fact is he's right. People are living too long, and it's cruel for them and for the younger generations who have to take care of them. I've seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won't just die already. Most of then are, privately, talking in the same way about how they want to die quickly before they ruin their own daughters' lives.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @bomag, @SFG, @Lot, @Alexander Turok, @Anonymousse

    It’s kind of like freedom of speech, but even more so: you can make an argument against its negative effects, but I’m more afraid of giving someone the power to regulate it.

    I mean, the government tosses people in jail for saying racist stuff in England. You want to give them the right to decide how long you get to live?

    • Agree: dfordoom, Mr. Anon
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @SFG


    I mean, the government tosses people in jail for saying racist stuff in England. You want to give them the right to decide how long you get to live?
     
    If you'd actually bother reading the article, God damn it, you would see that nobody was even proposing, let alone arguing for, government regulation.

    And by the way, in England, the NHS already decides how long you get to live.

    Replies: @Templar

  73. @flyingtiger
    @eugyppius

    Frederic Pohl and Jack Williamson were still writing books in their 90s.

    Replies: @SFG

    Oh, there’s an even more extreme example, sure to annoy lots of people here: Herman Wouk died a little while ago:

    • Replies: @flyingtiger
    @SFG

    Good Find!
    William made it to 98. Pohl was trying to beat him but fell one year short.

  74. What is the actual hell is wrong with Boomers? Kill your parents. The most narcissistic generation ever. Kill your kids with abortion, kill your parents. Anyone else you can’t wait to kill? Selfish?

    I can see why these idiots are triggered by ‘Ok, Boomer,” snowflakes? They are the original snowflakes, the ‘Me Generation’ that lived off their parents’ and grandparents achievements. They are the worst role models ever. I’m glad I was raised by people born before WWI, because my parents stink out loud as parents, grandparents and role models. My nearly 100 year old grandmothers spent more time and love on my kids than my parents who had nothing but time on their hands. They’d rather go to China or Ireland.

  75. Tbh I agree, and would push the line even further down – not due to any contribution or whatever excuse, but because after a certain point your dignity drops like a rock – spending days going from doctor to doctor, taking truckloads of medications to function, growing more weak and frail… Sorry, but I see that as a curse.

    God willing we soon find a solution to aging, even if isn’t immortality – keep being vital and healthy like you’re 25 and drop dead instantly at some age would be fine by me.

    But not like I would bring back the lapot or anything. I myself wouldn’t wish to live through that bullshit. Maybe im gonna become a 21st century Gavrilo Princip if it gets to that.

  76. @Anonymous
    From my observation 75 for an Ashkenazi Jewish guy is equivalent to 45 in Goyim years.

    Replies: @SFG

    And for all that, the Ashkenazi lifespans are quite long. 5-6 years longer in UK.

    https://forward.com/culture/140894/may-you-live-until-120-dna-uncovers-secrets-to-je/

  77. @Anon
    Interesting idea. Honestly, do you want to live long enough that your generation is cancelled and retroactively metoo'd and otherwise made subject to whatever punishments and fines and struggle sessions the new culture applies to you? Would Thomas Jefferson want to be alive today?

    How about a couple of test projects to work the kinks out first:

    -- Kill the retired Jews in South Florida.

    -- Kill blacks in Baltimore who "haven't written any brand new books" recently to "develop new areas where they are leading thinkers."

    If these go smoothly we can then roll it out nationwide. Also, nominate Emanuel for the Darwin Award.

    Replies: @anonymous coward, @njguy73

    Kill blacks in Baltimore who “haven’t written any brand new books” recently to “develop new areas where they are leading thinkers.”

    Bad idea, I don’t think the world can handle so many ‘brand new books’ on hustling and jive.

  78. Anonymous[150] • Disclaimer says:

    Emmanuel’s idea of a “meaningful life” is obviously sitting around and strategizing how to get the masses to accept shorter lifespans.

    He’s a satanist.

    Easy to understand their hatred of Christianity which roadblocks all of their psychotic plans.

    Today he feels it’s crucial to publicly vocalize these evil ideas. First you talk about the subject until it’s boring, old hat. Talk now then action can come later. But first they must de-Christianize society much much further in order to pull off these satanic schemes.

    Emmanuel must strongly approve of all the deaths happening in Venezuela due to medical shortages of every kind. Read this missive from a guy in Caracas (part of a series… Breitbart is defying the blackout on another commie collapse in Latin America):

    https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/11/24/my-socialist-hell-mourning-the-victims-of-venezuelas-healthcare-miracle/

    THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES A TERRIFYING GLIMPSE INTO AMERICA’S LIKELY FUTURE AS A THIRD WORLD SOCIALIST HISPANIC SHITHOLE.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    @Anonymous


    Easy to understand their hatred of Christianity which roadblocks all of their psychotic plans.
     
    So does Judaism, actually. Don't confuse Cult-Marx/ WOKEism/ SJWism/Neoconism, Zionism, etc. with Judaism.
  79. @Jesse
    I know it's fun to psychoanalyze this, but the fact is he's right. People are living too long, and it's cruel for them and for the younger generations who have to take care of them. I've seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won't just die already. Most of then are, privately, talking in the same way about how they want to die quickly before they ruin their own daughters' lives.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @bomag, @SFG, @Lot, @Alexander Turok, @Anonymousse

    Jesse, 100% agree.

    Steve, easy to parody this guy, but he’s powerless.

    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    Health care is 18% of the US economy and rapidly growing. Subsidies and taxes for extreme end of life care are crushing US based businesses and hurting the fertility of young working Americans.

    Dr. E going a little too far in the other direction? I’m cool with that.

    “ I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.”

    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.

    • Replies: @Global Citizen
    @Lot

    When the mind dies, the person is dead. The system needs to change to allow/assist the body in dying as well. This is one more of the terrible issues facing all of us. There is no fair or right answer possible. As far as medical ethics, it is what we have, but why would anyone trust that crock of crap.

    , @Jesse
    @Lot

    A few years back, I was listening to stories of carers on the radio. It was harrowing, especially the middle aged lady who was working taking care of kids and her ailing father (the Great Unspoken is that the strain had cost her her marriage.) Part of that was - wait for it - doing the catheter for her own father.

    Now, the lesson we were meant to learn was MOAR GOVERNMENT. The lessen that solidified in my head is that all that effort to keep the old man alive was pointless, and cruel to all involved. This isn't euthanasia or death panels. It's deciding how many resources, and how many lives, we are willing to throw at an elderly person to keep them alive for - maybe - a few years more, at great pain to themselves and to their carers.

    , @nebulafox
    @Lot

    Agreed. I think Steve is overly harsh on this dude. It's easy to make memes about "killing granny", but what about the wishes of the old people themselves? By the time you hit your mid-80s, you've had plenty of time to think about and come to terms with the fact that your life is mostly over. They might not wish to be put down like a pet, but I've found from admittedly personal experience that old people tend to be at peace with their life stage and prepared for nature's inevitable call, when it comes.

    Aside from all the political and economic arguments to be made, this is a personal issue for me: I've had multiple grandparents kept alive against their will while dealing with dementia or being strapped to a machine: they were absolutely miserable and when they were lucid enough to comment on their situation, more than a little bit peeved that people were treating them as not competent to make their own decisions for their own lives, as if they were five year olds who were terrified at the idea of the lights going out. While not necessarily wishing to be euthanized like a pet, they were ready for nature to take its course. They would not object to, say, unhoooking themselves and inevitably dying a few days or a few weeks later, while getting to eat and drink whatever they wanted, rather than buying 10 years as an invalid and being spoon-fed vitamins.

    It was rage-inducing to see their own children treat them like children. I'm not going to tolerate that: if I get to my 80s, I'm going to skydive Bush Senior style, eat red meat, read, get my face slapped when I hit on that very comely senior lady next door, whatever I feel like doing. I'm going to be dead soon, which gives me the liberating consequence of not having to care about the long-term all that much. I'm going to take care of my body and save up enough money over the next half-century so that, with a bit of luck, I'll be able to. And when my body inevitably can't handle it, I'm ready to accept the consequences of my activities. I'm not going to tolerate living like a premature, ventilated baby just to extract a few years. I'm going to die one way or another not too far in the future, so I'll do it on my terms. As long as I'm not violating the rights of anybody else, isn't this the essence of what being an American citizen is about? Making your own choices?

    Of course, by the time I reach that age well over half a century from now, there's no way in hell the current system wouldn't have fiscally collapsed by then, but you get the point.

    Live life as you find worthwhile until you can't live it anymore: and then go out living life. Others are welcome to their own approaches, but that's mine. Pimply healthcare bureaucrats miss out on a few checks, tough break, and if I have kids, I brought 'em into the world, they've got no veto power on how I exit.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Anonymous

    , @Dave Pinsen
    @Lot


    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.
     
    This gets repeated a lot, but in my experience, it’s not true at all. Hospitals are actually pretty aggressive in pushing palliative care or - not neglect, exactly - but not treating elderly or terminally ill patients very aggressively. E.g., not transferring them to intensive care when it’s indicated. IRL, if you’re elderly and don’t have a loved one advocating for you, you’re probably not going to do to well in an American hospital.
    , @Art Deco
    @Lot

    should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    The propensity to consume medical services peaks around age 72. That aside, very few people receive that quantum of medical care at any age, let alone year after year. The average person in this country receives roughly $7,000 worth of medical services per annum. The average elderly person receives about $20,000 per annum. The sum of medical and long-term care services received by the 1% patients with highest propensity to consume (in any given year) would be around $150,000 per year on average, and that's predominantly long-term care services, not medical services per se. The life expectancy of a person of 85 is about 6.5 years, btw.

    Replies: @Lot

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @Lot

    In 2013 there was a national news story about an 87-year-old woman, Lorraine Bayless, who died in a nursing home while no one on staff provided CPR. It was treated as an outrage, virtually murder. Those who reacted that way were ignoring several salient facts. Only 5 - 8 percent of people who undergo CPR for a cardiac arrest outside of the hospital survive, and the odds are lower for the old and frail. CPR on an elderly person inevitably results in broken ribs, which are painful, slow to heal, and often lead to pneumonia. Even if the CPR is successful, there is a high likelihood of brain damage. Finally, the woman is frail and 87 years old, for God's sake! What's the point?

    Bayless's daughter, herself a nurse, said she was satisfied with how the facility's decision. This is not an uncommon attitude among medical professionals. There was an interesting program on Radiolab in which medical professionals were asked whether they want extraordinary measures applied to them when they are elderly. Ninety-percent said they didn't want CPR, ventilation, dialysis, and 80 percent wouldn't want invasive testing, surgery, or a feeding tube. One nurse said that after the first major health setback, such as a heart attack, she doesn't want any further treatment because in her experience it's just one thing after another at that point.

    My parents are both dead, my father dying at 95 and my mother at 100. My father was a doctor and retained his mental acuity to the end. He was not depressed, but after he reached 90 he frequently said that he was "ready to go." After a few procedures that he subsequently regretted, wishing he had let the problems take their course, he told me he never wanted to wake up in a hospital again. Fortunately, he did not have to suffer that as he died in his sleep from a stroke. It was his wish and I am grateful it was granted.

    My mother spent her last 11 years in a memory care facility. Early on, when she could still converse a bit, I asked her if there was anything as she needed me to bring her on my next visit. She told me that the best thing I could bring her would be a pill that would allow her to go to sleep and never wake up. That was her wish and an entirely understandable one, I thought. However, I couldn't provide that and she spent another nine years in a twilight existence, as Nicholas Stix says, serving as a cash cow for doctors, nurses, therapists and nurse aides.

    How does this make sense? Who would want that for themselves?

    Here's the Radiolab show.
    https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/262588-bitter-end

    , @AnotherDad
    @Lot


    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.
     
    Lot--from your writing you seem like a good guy. Be the man in your family and intervene with her to the maximum reasonable extent.

    I've collected some specific "lessons learned" dealing with my dad's issues and stroke this summer/fall that i've bulleted and am going to write up for my kids. (My dad did some stupid stubborn stuff and i wasn't as proactive as i should have been.) But i'm ending the missive with the overarching point that their fundamental responsibility is not to me or AnotherMom but to their children. That dealing with us, they should do nothing that actually sacrifices from the proper raising of their own children and most especially don't let it keep you from having more kids. Put me on the ice flow if it's what your family needs.

    Never sacrifice the future for the past.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Alden, @Anonymous

    , @Dacian Julien Soros
    @Lot

    The Emmanuels are probably concerned you could have sent more to Israel.

  80. @candid_observer
    Reflect on the fact that this man is a medical ethicist.

    And these are his arguments.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Peter Singer is also an “ethicist”.

    One clue as to whom to avoid taking ethical advice from?

    Anyone who calls himself an “ethicist”.

    • Agree: kaganovitch
  81. @SFG
    @Jesse

    It's kind of like freedom of speech, but even more so: you can make an argument against its negative effects, but I'm more afraid of giving someone the power to regulate it.

    I mean, the government tosses people in jail for saying racist stuff in England. You want to give them the right to decide how long you get to live?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    I mean, the government tosses people in jail for saying racist stuff in England. You want to give them the right to decide how long you get to live?

    If you’d actually bother reading the article, God damn it, you would see that nobody was even proposing, let alone arguing for, government regulation.

    And by the way, in England, the NHS already decides how long you get to live.

    • Agree: Jesse
    • Replies: @Templar
    @Intelligent Dasein

    If the NHS does indeed 'decide how long you get to live' then perhaps you should mention that the NHS death panels have decided that English men and women should get to live 18 months longer than their American counterparts?

  82. @Old Prude
    Umm. Steve, I think you should have stopped posting after the last cocktail. Tina Turner and a clip from Babe is a juxtaposition that, how can one put this? - isn't your finest work.

    Replies: @Kronos, @Anon

    Oh come on, it’s funny!

  83. Global Citizen [AKA "Old Person"] says:
    @Lot
    @Jesse

    Jesse, 100% agree.

    Steve, easy to parody this guy, but he’s powerless.

    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    Health care is 18% of the US economy and rapidly growing. Subsidies and taxes for extreme end of life care are crushing US based businesses and hurting the fertility of young working Americans.

    Dr. E going a little too far in the other direction? I’m cool with that.

    “ I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.”

    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.

    Replies: @Global Citizen, @Jesse, @nebulafox, @Dave Pinsen, @Art Deco, @Harry Baldwin, @AnotherDad, @Dacian Julien Soros

    When the mind dies, the person is dead. The system needs to change to allow/assist the body in dying as well. This is one more of the terrible issues facing all of us. There is no fair or right answer possible. As far as medical ethics, it is what we have, but why would anyone trust that crock of crap.

  84. anon[121] • Disclaimer says:

    Emanuel vowed to refuse not only heroic medical interventions once he turned 75, but also antibiotics and vaccinations.

    Old Emanuel is being a bit tricky here, as well as shilling for Big Pharma.
    I’ve refused all Antibiotics and Vaccines for 45 years now, so am unlikely to adopt these should I make it to 75.

  85. @Lot
    @Jesse

    Jesse, 100% agree.

    Steve, easy to parody this guy, but he’s powerless.

    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    Health care is 18% of the US economy and rapidly growing. Subsidies and taxes for extreme end of life care are crushing US based businesses and hurting the fertility of young working Americans.

    Dr. E going a little too far in the other direction? I’m cool with that.

    “ I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.”

    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.

    Replies: @Global Citizen, @Jesse, @nebulafox, @Dave Pinsen, @Art Deco, @Harry Baldwin, @AnotherDad, @Dacian Julien Soros

    A few years back, I was listening to stories of carers on the radio. It was harrowing, especially the middle aged lady who was working taking care of kids and her ailing father (the Great Unspoken is that the strain had cost her her marriage.) Part of that was – wait for it – doing the catheter for her own father.

    Now, the lesson we were meant to learn was MOAR GOVERNMENT. The lessen that solidified in my head is that all that effort to keep the old man alive was pointless, and cruel to all involved. This isn’t euthanasia or death panels. It’s deciding how many resources, and how many lives, we are willing to throw at an elderly person to keep them alive for – maybe – a few years more, at great pain to themselves and to their carers.

  86. Anon[710] • Disclaimer says:
    @Old Prude
    Umm. Steve, I think you should have stopped posting after the last cocktail. Tina Turner and a clip from Babe is a juxtaposition that, how can one put this? - isn't your finest work.

    Replies: @Kronos, @Anon

    Umm. Steve, I think you should have stopped posting after the last cocktail. Tina Turner and a clip from Babe is a juxtaposition that, how can one put this? – isn’t your finest work.

    Submitting shallow, foppish critiques about a professional writer’s essay, when you have nothing to show for yourself, is considered lowbrow, and perhaps your worst anonymous internet submission to date.

    Perhaps you’re getting too old for this. I’m not suggesting that you consider killing yourself.

    Or AM I?!
    ⚰️⚰️⚰️

    • Replies: @Old Prude
    @Anon

    That's a good one😍

  87. A doctor and medical ethicist argues life after 75 is not worth living

    Ezekiel Emanuel questions “whether our consumption is worth our contribution” in old age.

    Have you noticed that it’s medical ethicists and “professors of bioethics” who seem to be at the forefront of the hey, individual-you-are-merely-a-cog-in-the-machine movement? Not all, or even most of them, of course, but the most disturbing ideas seem to come from this discipline. Interwoven into their nastiness are words like “compassionate” and “humane” in the hopes that people will be fooled. Peter Singer says (from wiki):

    “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living”.[55] Singer has clarified that his “view of when life begins isn’t very different from that of opponents of abortion.” He deems it not “unreasonable to hold that an individual human life begins at conception. If it doesn’t, then it begins about 14 days later, when it is no longer possible for the embryo to divide into twins or other multiples.” Singer disagrees with abortion rights opponents in that he does not “think that the fact that an embryo is a living human being is sufficient to show that it is wrong to kill it.”

    Singer is a Marxist, but it seems that it’s really the principles of animal husbandry that he’s guided by; the most efficient way to deal with humanity is to turn them into something akin to livestock. Then you reverse engineer moral arguments to justify that end result. Emmanuel, too.

    • Replies: @Global Citizen
    @J1234


    the most efficient way to deal with humanity is to turn them into something akin to livestock.
     
    What kind of people would believe that?

    Replies: @J1234

  88. @El Dato
    It's the Judeo-German mind, going full out to terminal conclusions.

    Wasn't there an old SciFi movie about people getting terminated at 30 (I don't know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it's SciFi).

    From the New Green Deal to the New Soylent Green Deal.

    Meanwhile in OffTopic:

    Fashion brand Loewe called out for outfit resembling concentration camp uniform

    Spanish fashion brand Loewe is under fire for a recent capsule collection with one outfit that bears a striking resemblance to a concentration camp uniform.
     
    It's a striped shirt, you f*cking a**holes.

    (Unless it comes with an assortment of stickers in various shapes and colors, but apparently not)

    Replies: @Cortes, @Lurker, @AndrewR, @ChrisZ, @Autochthon

    Soylent Green New Deal is pretty good, Dato. It has the makings of a vivid meme, although I wonder whether it’s only recognizable to children of the 1970s.

  89. @JimB
    Isn’t Noam Chomsky still publishing books at 90? Didn’t Studs Turkey publish his memoir at 95? If they’re still publishing, why insist they perish? In general, the elderly are our living link to the past. We can actually query them about history. And we feel diminished by their deaths.

    Replies: @obwandiyag, @Autochthon, @Father O'Hara

    Didn’t Studs Turkey publish his memoir at 95?

    A shining example of nanogenerian productivity, was Mr. Turkey….

    You know who else was productive after the age of seventy-five? This pimp:

    (What kind of selfish bastard does that, knowing his children will, with near statistical certainty, be orphans before they reach ten years of age?)

    • Replies: @Bugg
    @Autochthon

    Never understood these types of guys who have children way later in life. It's selfish in the extreme. They will be lucky to be the guy with the oxygen tank at little league or high school graduation. Most won't be there for their kids at all.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Autochthon


    What kind of selfish bastard does that, knowing his children will, with near statistical certainty, be orphans before they reach ten years of age?
     
    As with the Brimelows (and, to a less extreme extent, the Cæsars), a couple quite apart in age just happened to hit it off, married, and, as happens in marriage, bore children. (That's the whole point of marriage, regardless of Anthony Kennedy's fantasies.)

    You want them to use contraception? Few men need it at 75. Men don't face the same cliff women do, but we do have a continental shelf of our own.


    Anyway, your math is off. Orphans are missing two parents, not one. Only half of 75-year-old men will be dead by 85. Randall was still active on stage at 83. I was sure he would live another decade beyond that, and was surprised at his early exit.

    All marriages are crapshoots in that regard-- my father was born a few weeks before Randall, buried two of his five children, and didn't live to see a grandchild. His sisters are now in their nineties.

    Also, note that Randall was married to his first wife for 54 years and had no children. If he was going to follow the Biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply", he had little choice.

    But I'll let Mrs Randall speak for herself:


    https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/advice/a1123/tony-randall-wife/

    Here's the happy couple at their wedding:


    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jGYy3cLaDRg/WOPBOOHnenI/AAAAAAAAATE/nS6RjbxDBsEovaBWSzOJYuM2uHrv1KzmQCLcB/s1600/Jefferson-Salvini-Randall-Net-Worth-Bio-Wiki-2018-2017-Celebrity.jpg
  90. There was a gerontologist who passed away a few years ago who found that a lot of putatively age-related decline wasn’t inevitable but the result of social isolation, lack of exercise, etc. Which makes sense if you consider that younger people passed over by the economy are suffering similar debilities today. A healthier society would want to “compress morbidity”, as physician and Starting Strength coach John Sullivan puts it, and would want to help more of its people of all ages live meaningful lives. Having them die earlier is a cop-out, and cheapens life in general.

    • Replies: @notsaying
    @Dave Pinsen

    Thank you for this very thoughtful comment. You are sharp to make the connection between isolated old people and jobless younger people not doing well experiencing similar problems and results.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    , @Daniel H
    @Dave Pinsen

    https://twitter.com/Mangan150?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

  91. @Lot
    @Jesse

    Jesse, 100% agree.

    Steve, easy to parody this guy, but he’s powerless.

    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    Health care is 18% of the US economy and rapidly growing. Subsidies and taxes for extreme end of life care are crushing US based businesses and hurting the fertility of young working Americans.

    Dr. E going a little too far in the other direction? I’m cool with that.

    “ I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.”

    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.

    Replies: @Global Citizen, @Jesse, @nebulafox, @Dave Pinsen, @Art Deco, @Harry Baldwin, @AnotherDad, @Dacian Julien Soros

    Agreed. I think Steve is overly harsh on this dude. It’s easy to make memes about “killing granny”, but what about the wishes of the old people themselves? By the time you hit your mid-80s, you’ve had plenty of time to think about and come to terms with the fact that your life is mostly over. They might not wish to be put down like a pet, but I’ve found from admittedly personal experience that old people tend to be at peace with their life stage and prepared for nature’s inevitable call, when it comes.

    Aside from all the political and economic arguments to be made, this is a personal issue for me: I’ve had multiple grandparents kept alive against their will while dealing with dementia or being strapped to a machine: they were absolutely miserable and when they were lucid enough to comment on their situation, more than a little bit peeved that people were treating them as not competent to make their own decisions for their own lives, as if they were five year olds who were terrified at the idea of the lights going out. While not necessarily wishing to be euthanized like a pet, they were ready for nature to take its course. They would not object to, say, unhoooking themselves and inevitably dying a few days or a few weeks later, while getting to eat and drink whatever they wanted, rather than buying 10 years as an invalid and being spoon-fed vitamins.

    It was rage-inducing to see their own children treat them like children. I’m not going to tolerate that: if I get to my 80s, I’m going to skydive Bush Senior style, eat red meat, read, get my face slapped when I hit on that very comely senior lady next door, whatever I feel like doing. I’m going to be dead soon, which gives me the liberating consequence of not having to care about the long-term all that much. I’m going to take care of my body and save up enough money over the next half-century so that, with a bit of luck, I’ll be able to. And when my body inevitably can’t handle it, I’m ready to accept the consequences of my activities. I’m not going to tolerate living like a premature, ventilated baby just to extract a few years. I’m going to die one way or another not too far in the future, so I’ll do it on my terms. As long as I’m not violating the rights of anybody else, isn’t this the essence of what being an American citizen is about? Making your own choices?

    Of course, by the time I reach that age well over half a century from now, there’s no way in hell the current system wouldn’t have fiscally collapsed by then, but you get the point.

    Live life as you find worthwhile until you can’t live it anymore: and then go out living life. Others are welcome to their own approaches, but that’s mine. Pimply healthcare bureaucrats miss out on a few checks, tough break, and if I have kids, I brought ’em into the world, they’ve got no veto power on how I exit.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @nebulafox

    "I’m not going to tolerate that: if I get to my 80s, I’m going to skydive Bush Senior style, eat red meat, read, get my face slapped when I hit on that very comely senior lady next door, whatever I feel like doing. I’m going to be dead soon, which gives me the liberating consequence of not having to care about the long-term all that much. "

    https://www.amazon.com/Eat-Drink-Be-Merry-Americas/dp/0061096970

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @Anonymous
    @nebulafox

    My elderly grandfather (90s) won't shut up about how his life is 'shit' and how he wishes he was dead. Everybody just rolls their eyes at this and tells him to not say such things. He clearly means it though as his mind is still sharp.

    It's not just the physical pain and disabilities that get to you at that age, but also that all your friends are dead or senile. Everybody who remembers you is gone.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  92. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nicholas Stix
    He was being restrained.

    There are millions of people in this country in their 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond, who sit drooling in soiled diapers with glassy, uncomprehending eyes in nursing homes in front of TVs blasting brain-dead shows they cannot comprehend. They exist merely in order to serve as cash cows for doctors, nurses, therapists and nurse aides.

    I told The Boss that if she ever tries to put me in one of those places, the cops will have to kill me, to get me out of here.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Anonymous

    Why confine this rant to the elderly? There are plenty of younger people totally reliant on others for their care with no hope of recovery – traumatic brain injury, stroke, severe cerebral palsy, anoxic encephalopathy, etc. What would you do about them? Many people would agree that extraordinary life-extending measures are not warranted in this setting (depending on how you define “extraordinary”), but most of these unfortunates are just receiving basic nursing care and nutritional support.

  93. @Anonymouse
    Did Steve overlook recent death of Dr.Emanuel? Not religious apparently. An outstanding pater familias.

    About the subject of useless existence in old age. I am an unwilling investigator of that condition being 85. Compared to decades of unfocused existence in 2003 I re-engaged in my earlier intellectual interest and took to writing scholarly papers. Two were published in 2008 and 2011 respectively. I have written 4 more which have been rejected by the many refereed journals I have submitted them to. They seem to me to be genuine contributions to knowledge but I would say that having authored them. The world must be the judge of that.

    Judge for yourself: "The grammatical puzzles of Socrates' Last Words".

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Anonymouse

    Hans Bethe was writing scientific papers well into his 90s.

    I don’t want the government putting old people down: nor do I want the government artificially prolonging their lives against their will. I want the government (and everybody else) to stay the hell out of it and let the old people make their own decisions.

    • Agree: PiltdownMan
  94. @Lot
    @Jesse

    Jesse, 100% agree.

    Steve, easy to parody this guy, but he’s powerless.

    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    Health care is 18% of the US economy and rapidly growing. Subsidies and taxes for extreme end of life care are crushing US based businesses and hurting the fertility of young working Americans.

    Dr. E going a little too far in the other direction? I’m cool with that.

    “ I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.”

    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.

    Replies: @Global Citizen, @Jesse, @nebulafox, @Dave Pinsen, @Art Deco, @Harry Baldwin, @AnotherDad, @Dacian Julien Soros

    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    This gets repeated a lot, but in my experience, it’s not true at all. Hospitals are actually pretty aggressive in pushing palliative care or – not neglect, exactly – but not treating elderly or terminally ill patients very aggressively. E.g., not transferring them to intensive care when it’s indicated. IRL, if you’re elderly and don’t have a loved one advocating for you, you’re probably not going to do to well in an American hospital.

  95. @Jack D
    @Art Deco


    Most people in them aren’t there more than a year or so.
     
    What is accomplished, other than wasting a lot of money, during that year? The person, if he has any awareness left, is not happy. His family is not happy. The West Indian ladies changing his diapers are not happy. What is the point? Can't we give these folks a little extra morphine and let them slip away?

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Stan d Mute

    What is accomplished, other than wasting a lot of money, during that year? T

    You know, we could improve the quality of life in your town by dispatching you while you’re still being obnoxious and making trouble for others, but we don’t. You have certain immunities, no matter how destructive and unpleasant you are.

    The infirm have a variety of dispositions toward their situation. You live life, you suffer, and people suffer with you. You institute the regime that Jack D wants, people will be dispatched for the convenience of the caucus of those with their middle-finger upraised. It has nothing to do with pleasing anyone else.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @Art Deco

    The mention of diapers makes me wonder if people deciding not to have kids are making a similar assessment. The Catholics may have this right with their advocacy for the sanctity for everyone from the unborn to the elderly.

  96. I would ask Ezekiel Emanuel if his logic should be applied equally in other cases. How about denying expensive treatment to the morbidly obese, chain smokers, and drug addicts? They obviously don’t care about their own health, so why should the system have to take extraordinary measures for their preservation? Furthermore, how about those gang-bangers who show up in the ER all shot up and requiring a fortune in treatment? What likelihood is there that they will do anything but spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair or recover enough to go back out on the street and shoot their assailant, who will then require another fortune in medical care? Isn’t the healthcare of people like this a more pointless expense for society than care for the elderly?

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Harry Baldwin

    I remember reading an editorial in Newsweek around 30-35 years ago from an "ethicist" or perhaps a "patient advocate " calling for the euthanization of mildly retarded people on the grounds of being annoying and low quality of life. Considering the cadre who have made the long march through the institutions of our civilization, it is sheer suicidal recklessness to hand them life and death decisions. Trawling your social media accounts for hate crimes as grounds for euthanization is not out of the realm of possibility. These people hate you and want to burn you at the stake.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

  97. @Lurker
    @El Dato


    Wasn’t there an old SciFi movie about people getting terminated at 30 (I don’t know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it’s SciFi).
     
    Logan's Run.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run_(film)

    The source book was even more problematic, the age of termination being 21.

    Replies: @Alexander Turok

    It’s interesting that the movie was quite prescient except for the terminating oldsters part:

    https://halfsigma.typepad.com/half_sigma/2011/09/how-logans-run-predicted-the-future-now-the-present.html

  98. @Lot
    @Jesse

    Jesse, 100% agree.

    Steve, easy to parody this guy, but he’s powerless.

    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    Health care is 18% of the US economy and rapidly growing. Subsidies and taxes for extreme end of life care are crushing US based businesses and hurting the fertility of young working Americans.

    Dr. E going a little too far in the other direction? I’m cool with that.

    “ I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.”

    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.

    Replies: @Global Citizen, @Jesse, @nebulafox, @Dave Pinsen, @Art Deco, @Harry Baldwin, @AnotherDad, @Dacian Julien Soros

    should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    The propensity to consume medical services peaks around age 72. That aside, very few people receive that quantum of medical care at any age, let alone year after year. The average person in this country receives roughly $7,000 worth of medical services per annum. The average elderly person receives about $20,000 per annum. The sum of medical and long-term care services received by the 1% patients with highest propensity to consume (in any given year) would be around $150,000 per year on average, and that’s predominantly long-term care services, not medical services per se. The life expectancy of a person of 85 is about 6.5 years, btw.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Art Deco

    “ The sum of medical and long-term care services received by the 1% patients with highest propensity to consume (in any given year) would be around $150,000 per year on average”

    How many median middle class families’ entire tax burden is required to pay that? Ten?

    There’s heavy costs associated with so much of our economy devoted to this beyond the dollar figure. I mentioned decreased fertility as one. The immigration costs of these migrant-heavy sectors is another. Yet another is lack of positive externalities associated with such spending.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  99. @Anon
    Interesting idea. Honestly, do you want to live long enough that your generation is cancelled and retroactively metoo'd and otherwise made subject to whatever punishments and fines and struggle sessions the new culture applies to you? Would Thomas Jefferson want to be alive today?

    How about a couple of test projects to work the kinks out first:

    -- Kill the retired Jews in South Florida.

    -- Kill blacks in Baltimore who "haven't written any brand new books" recently to "develop new areas where they are leading thinkers."

    If these go smoothly we can then roll it out nationwide. Also, nominate Emanuel for the Darwin Award.

    Replies: @anonymous coward, @njguy73

    Would Thomas Jefferson want to be alive today?

    If only to binge-watch “Scandal,” yes.

  100. @SFG
    @flyingtiger

    Oh, there's an even more extreme example, sure to annoy lots of people here: Herman Wouk died a little while ago:


    https://www.amazon.com/Sailor-Fiddler-Reflections-100-Year-Old-Author/dp/1501128558/

    Replies: @flyingtiger

    Good Find!
    William made it to 98. Pohl was trying to beat him but fell one year short.

  101. anon[710] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t want the government putting old people down: nor do I want the government artificially prolonging their lives against their will. I want the government (and everybody else) to stay the hell out of it and let the old people make their own decisions.

    How do you make your own decision when, because of your stroke, you can’t remember what Wednesday is, and you never wrote a manifest of what you’d like to have happen to you, if you have a stroke that gives you the reasoning of a 2 year old with no short-term memory?

    Your emotionally overburdened family? The cold state? Really?

    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    @anon

    This is what advanced directives are for, also medical powers of attorney. The latter is not leakproof, but if you have made your values clear enough to those to whom you have assigned medical power of attorney, and additionally you have chosen wisely in your designee, chances are enhanced that your wishes and values will be respected.

    My wife and I just had these documents drawn up, signed, and notarized along with our wills and power of attorney designations. They cost a bit of money to have them drawn up by my family's established eldercare attorney, but in our judgment, this expenditure was far and away justified by having registered our values and wishes, and even more importantly, by lessening the future anxiety of those into whose hands we have entrusted these charged decisions. Next up is to pre-pay our expenses for cremation.

    Our state of residence, New Jersey, has moved on establishing the right to die. My father wanted that choice, but we could not honor that wish; the best we could do was hospice care. At the end, my wife & I gave him explicit permission to go, and not long after, he went to his rest, dignity intact. We miss that old man all the time, but this was entirely right and proper.

    If you don't push for and exercise rights such as these, others make decisions for you. To those reading this, get off of your duffs and do all that you can to convey your wishes, and to make it possible that they will be respected comes the time.

  102. @Dumbo

    “whether our consumption is worth our contribution.”
     
    Didn't Hitler also said something about "useless eaters"?

    This argument about "contributing" is something that I hear a lot, even in the alt-right or HDB-sphere, as if only those who contribute to something beyond their immediate survival are somehow valuable. But contribute to what? What if such contributions are negative? Mr. Ezekiel's work as "medical ethicist" has been useful to whom, exactly? Except for his own pockets and the insurance companies which he helped by creating Obamacare?

    You'd have to eliminate 99% of mankind if you would only keep those who do "meaningful, creative work".

    Replies: @notsaying, @Hypnotoad666

    You’d have to eliminate 99% of mankind if you would only keep those who do “meaningful, creative work”.

    I agree with you. What this guy says is terrible. I have to wonder how someone who dislikes people so much got to be put in charge of “medical ethics and health policy.” I feel duped. I have seen his name quoted for years. I had no idea he felt this way about people. His belief about what you have to be doing to have a life worth living clearly don’t just apply to people 75 and older but to all mankind.

    He thinks most of us are just worthless consumers of resources.

  103. @nebulafox
    @Lot

    Agreed. I think Steve is overly harsh on this dude. It's easy to make memes about "killing granny", but what about the wishes of the old people themselves? By the time you hit your mid-80s, you've had plenty of time to think about and come to terms with the fact that your life is mostly over. They might not wish to be put down like a pet, but I've found from admittedly personal experience that old people tend to be at peace with their life stage and prepared for nature's inevitable call, when it comes.

    Aside from all the political and economic arguments to be made, this is a personal issue for me: I've had multiple grandparents kept alive against their will while dealing with dementia or being strapped to a machine: they were absolutely miserable and when they were lucid enough to comment on their situation, more than a little bit peeved that people were treating them as not competent to make their own decisions for their own lives, as if they were five year olds who were terrified at the idea of the lights going out. While not necessarily wishing to be euthanized like a pet, they were ready for nature to take its course. They would not object to, say, unhoooking themselves and inevitably dying a few days or a few weeks later, while getting to eat and drink whatever they wanted, rather than buying 10 years as an invalid and being spoon-fed vitamins.

    It was rage-inducing to see their own children treat them like children. I'm not going to tolerate that: if I get to my 80s, I'm going to skydive Bush Senior style, eat red meat, read, get my face slapped when I hit on that very comely senior lady next door, whatever I feel like doing. I'm going to be dead soon, which gives me the liberating consequence of not having to care about the long-term all that much. I'm going to take care of my body and save up enough money over the next half-century so that, with a bit of luck, I'll be able to. And when my body inevitably can't handle it, I'm ready to accept the consequences of my activities. I'm not going to tolerate living like a premature, ventilated baby just to extract a few years. I'm going to die one way or another not too far in the future, so I'll do it on my terms. As long as I'm not violating the rights of anybody else, isn't this the essence of what being an American citizen is about? Making your own choices?

    Of course, by the time I reach that age well over half a century from now, there's no way in hell the current system wouldn't have fiscally collapsed by then, but you get the point.

    Live life as you find worthwhile until you can't live it anymore: and then go out living life. Others are welcome to their own approaches, but that's mine. Pimply healthcare bureaucrats miss out on a few checks, tough break, and if I have kids, I brought 'em into the world, they've got no veto power on how I exit.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Anonymous

    “I’m not going to tolerate that: if I get to my 80s, I’m going to skydive Bush Senior style, eat red meat, read, get my face slapped when I hit on that very comely senior lady next door, whatever I feel like doing. I’m going to be dead soon, which gives me the liberating consequence of not having to care about the long-term all that much. ”

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Joe Stalin

    我死なば
    酒屋の瓶の下にいけよ
    もしや雫の
    もりやせんなん

    I hope one doesn't get hangovers in the afterlife. :)

  104. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    What is accomplished, other than wasting a lot of money, during that year? T

    You know, we could improve the quality of life in your town by dispatching you while you're still being obnoxious and making trouble for others, but we don't. You have certain immunities, no matter how destructive and unpleasant you are.

    The infirm have a variety of dispositions toward their situation. You live life, you suffer, and people suffer with you. You institute the regime that Jack D wants, people will be dispatched for the convenience of the caucus of those with their middle-finger upraised. It has nothing to do with pleasing anyone else.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    The mention of diapers makes me wonder if people deciding not to have kids are making a similar assessment. The Catholics may have this right with their advocacy for the sanctity for everyone from the unborn to the elderly.

  105. @Art Deco
    @Lot

    should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    The propensity to consume medical services peaks around age 72. That aside, very few people receive that quantum of medical care at any age, let alone year after year. The average person in this country receives roughly $7,000 worth of medical services per annum. The average elderly person receives about $20,000 per annum. The sum of medical and long-term care services received by the 1% patients with highest propensity to consume (in any given year) would be around $150,000 per year on average, and that's predominantly long-term care services, not medical services per se. The life expectancy of a person of 85 is about 6.5 years, btw.

    Replies: @Lot

    “ The sum of medical and long-term care services received by the 1% patients with highest propensity to consume (in any given year) would be around $150,000 per year on average”

    How many median middle class families’ entire tax burden is required to pay that? Ten?

    There’s heavy costs associated with so much of our economy devoted to this beyond the dollar figure. I mentioned decreased fertility as one. The immigration costs of these migrant-heavy sectors is another. Yet another is lack of positive externalities associated with such spending.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Lot

    How many median middle class families’ entire tax burden is required to pay that? Ten?

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis has it that nursing homes and 'social assistance' programs have budgets which sum to $480 bn, which amounts to 1.3% of gross output and 2.6% of personal income.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  106. @Dave Pinsen
    There was a gerontologist who passed away a few years ago who found that a lot of putatively age-related decline wasn’t inevitable but the result of social isolation, lack of exercise, etc. Which makes sense if you consider that younger people passed over by the economy are suffering similar debilities today. A healthier society would want to “compress morbidity”, as physician and Starting Strength coach John Sullivan puts it, and would want to help more of its people of all ages live meaningful lives. Having them die earlier is a cop-out, and cheapens life in general.

    Replies: @notsaying, @Daniel H

    Thank you for this very thoughtful comment. You are sharp to make the connection between isolated old people and jobless younger people not doing well experiencing similar problems and results.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @notsaying

    Thanks. I wish I remembered the name of the late gerontologist.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  107. @Lot
    @Jesse

    Jesse, 100% agree.

    Steve, easy to parody this guy, but he’s powerless.

    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    Health care is 18% of the US economy and rapidly growing. Subsidies and taxes for extreme end of life care are crushing US based businesses and hurting the fertility of young working Americans.

    Dr. E going a little too far in the other direction? I’m cool with that.

    “ I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.”

    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.

    Replies: @Global Citizen, @Jesse, @nebulafox, @Dave Pinsen, @Art Deco, @Harry Baldwin, @AnotherDad, @Dacian Julien Soros

    In 2013 there was a national news story about an 87-year-old woman, Lorraine Bayless, who died in a nursing home while no one on staff provided CPR. It was treated as an outrage, virtually murder. Those who reacted that way were ignoring several salient facts. Only 5 – 8 percent of people who undergo CPR for a cardiac arrest outside of the hospital survive, and the odds are lower for the old and frail. CPR on an elderly person inevitably results in broken ribs, which are painful, slow to heal, and often lead to pneumonia. Even if the CPR is successful, there is a high likelihood of brain damage. Finally, the woman is frail and 87 years old, for God’s sake! What’s the point?

    Bayless’s daughter, herself a nurse, said she was satisfied with how the facility’s decision. This is not an uncommon attitude among medical professionals. There was an interesting program on Radiolab in which medical professionals were asked whether they want extraordinary measures applied to them when they are elderly. Ninety-percent said they didn’t want CPR, ventilation, dialysis, and 80 percent wouldn’t want invasive testing, surgery, or a feeding tube. One nurse said that after the first major health setback, such as a heart attack, she doesn’t want any further treatment because in her experience it’s just one thing after another at that point.

    My parents are both dead, my father dying at 95 and my mother at 100. My father was a doctor and retained his mental acuity to the end. He was not depressed, but after he reached 90 he frequently said that he was “ready to go.” After a few procedures that he subsequently regretted, wishing he had let the problems take their course, he told me he never wanted to wake up in a hospital again. Fortunately, he did not have to suffer that as he died in his sleep from a stroke. It was his wish and I am grateful it was granted.

    My mother spent her last 11 years in a memory care facility. Early on, when she could still converse a bit, I asked her if there was anything as she needed me to bring her on my next visit. She told me that the best thing I could bring her would be a pill that would allow her to go to sleep and never wake up. That was her wish and an entirely understandable one, I thought. However, I couldn’t provide that and she spent another nine years in a twilight existence, as Nicholas Stix says, serving as a cash cow for doctors, nurses, therapists and nurse aides.

    How does this make sense? Who would want that for themselves?

    Here’s the Radiolab show.
    https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/262588-bitter-end

    • Agree: Old Prude
  108. @Anon
    OT

    White Christian professor posts "bigoted views" on Twitter, university trashes him in a statement, but doesn't fire him, enraging mob.


    Bigoted Views vs. Bigoted Teaching

    Indiana University condemns professor's racist and misogynistic tweets in strongest terms but won't fire him over views alone.

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/11/22/indiana-university-condemns-professors-racist-and-misogynistic-tweets-strongest

    Indiana University at Bloomington will not terminate Eric Rasmusen, professor of business economics and public policy, for the “stunningly ignorant” views he expressed on social media. So said Provost Lauren Robel this week amid calls that Rasmusen be fired.

    Rasmusen “has, for many years, used his private social media accounts to disseminate his racist, sexist and homophobic views,” Robel wrote in a statement. “When I label his views in this way, let me note that the labels are not a close call, nor do his posts require careful parsing to reach these conclusions.”
     
    From years of material that is stunningly bigoted and not a close call, the single example in the article is this link to a recent Unz writer on the topic of male/female IQ and relative right-tail "geniusness":

    https://twitter.com/erasmuse/status/1192591814567563266

    The article in question is maybe taboo, but it's hardly "stunningly ignorant, hardly a close call, doesn't require careful parsing bigoted and misogynistic." It's garden-variety psychometrics and evolutionary psychology, with which people are welcome to disagree with.

    Replies: @Jesse, @Houston 1992, @Father O'Hara

    I saw an AP article in the Chicago Sun-Times today about this. They mentioned the Unz Review. I’ve never heard of Unz outside the net.

  109. @JimB
    Isn’t Noam Chomsky still publishing books at 90? Didn’t Studs Turkey publish his memoir at 95? If they’re still publishing, why insist they perish? In general, the elderly are our living link to the past. We can actually query them about history. And we feel diminished by their deaths.

    Replies: @obwandiyag, @Autochthon, @Father O'Hara

    Wouldn’t mind if those two particular guys were sent down early.
    PS:Did anyone point out that Rahm’s dad died recently. Gates of Hell may need some oil with this guy and Ignatiev swinging them open.

  110. @Harry Baldwin
    I would ask Ezekiel Emanuel if his logic should be applied equally in other cases. How about denying expensive treatment to the morbidly obese, chain smokers, and drug addicts? They obviously don't care about their own health, so why should the system have to take extraordinary measures for their preservation? Furthermore, how about those gang-bangers who show up in the ER all shot up and requiring a fortune in treatment? What likelihood is there that they will do anything but spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair or recover enough to go back out on the street and shoot their assailant, who will then require another fortune in medical care? Isn't the healthcare of people like this a more pointless expense for society than care for the elderly?

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    I remember reading an editorial in Newsweek around 30-35 years ago from an “ethicist” or perhaps a “patient advocate ” calling for the euthanization of mildly retarded people on the grounds of being annoying and low quality of life. Considering the cadre who have made the long march through the institutions of our civilization, it is sheer suicidal recklessness to hand them life and death decisions. Trawling your social media accounts for hate crimes as grounds for euthanization is not out of the realm of possibility. These people hate you and want to burn you at the stake.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    @kaganovitch


    These people hate you and want to burn you at the stake.
     
    What they really want is to dispossess you and your children of every last dime you’ve ever earned, only after that do they want you to perish (painfully).
  111. @Anonymous
    To Britons of a certain age, Ezekiel Emanuel is better known simply as 'Zeke'.

    Around year 1981, or thereabouts, Zeke starred in the pioneering BBC TV reality show 'Now Get Out Of That, hosted by veteran Beeb man Bernard Falk, in which an assorted team of 'civilians' had to survive alone in the British countryside, being forced to endure a series of cryptic challenges in order to gain sustenance. It was, I remember, compulsive viewing.

    Zeke was infamous for being a voluble, excitable somewhat irritating Yank with a strong 'Kermit' accent, who was being forever urged to calm down by the more cool headed staid Englishmen on the team.

    Replies: @Father O'Hara

    Those staid Englishmen have changed. Now these English are brawling with machetes!

  112. All the agitprop necessary — and, conveniently enough, it’s effectively censorship-proof — is this monster taking medical care away from ordinary Americans and then prattling at his leisure about the philosophical play of embracing death. This is like a nineteenth century cartoon of a rentier igniting a bank note in front of an evicted family, except that this is totally real.

  113. One often-overlooked issue is that family members of dying old people all too frequently demand that the physicians and others “Do everything!” even when the chances of anything but very short-term survival are zero and the quality of life is nonexistent. Even if the patients have living wills or other advance directives health care providers ignore them for fear of angering the “Do everything!” family members. The *only* solution is to remove family members from the equation and replace them with government Death Panels, which sound horrible but are the best idea possible.
    Of course, this will never happen.

  114. @Joe Stalin
    @nebulafox

    "I’m not going to tolerate that: if I get to my 80s, I’m going to skydive Bush Senior style, eat red meat, read, get my face slapped when I hit on that very comely senior lady next door, whatever I feel like doing. I’m going to be dead soon, which gives me the liberating consequence of not having to care about the long-term all that much. "

    https://www.amazon.com/Eat-Drink-Be-Merry-Americas/dp/0061096970

    Replies: @nebulafox

    我死なば
    酒屋の瓶の下にいけよ
    もしや雫の
    もりやせんなん

    I hope one doesn’t get hangovers in the afterlife. 🙂

  115. @bomag
    @Jesse


    I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.
     
    There is value in caring for others.

    I'm not sure we should be in a hurry to apply a utility function here if it just enhances hedonistic pursuits.

    Replies: @Jesse

    And this is why women hate the right. Not wanting your life ruined by caring for someone kept alive with massive, pointless effort is now “hedonistic”. Do you think, prior to the medical revolution, women were universally caring for children *and* desperately keeping the elderly existing (I won’t say ‘living”)?

    • Agree: Autochthon, AndrewR
    • Replies: @bomag
    @Jesse


    Not wanting your life ruined by caring for someone kept alive with massive, pointless effort is now “hedonistic”
     
    I'm leery of heading down the road where "getting rid of burdens" is a guiding philosophy.


    I'd like to think we can arrange care without ruining lives; and there is value in caring for others.
  116. Global Citizen [AKA "Globalist Citizen"] says:
    @J1234

    A doctor and medical ethicist argues life after 75 is not worth living

    Ezekiel Emanuel questions “whether our consumption is worth our contribution” in old age.
     

    Have you noticed that it's medical ethicists and "professors of bioethics" who seem to be at the forefront of the hey, individual-you-are-merely-a-cog-in-the-machine movement? Not all, or even most of them, of course, but the most disturbing ideas seem to come from this discipline. Interwoven into their nastiness are words like "compassionate" and "humane" in the hopes that people will be fooled. Peter Singer says (from wiki):

    "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".[55] Singer has clarified that his "view of when life begins isn't very different from that of opponents of abortion." He deems it not "unreasonable to hold that an individual human life begins at conception. If it doesn't, then it begins about 14 days later, when it is no longer possible for the embryo to divide into twins or other multiples." Singer disagrees with abortion rights opponents in that he does not "think that the fact that an embryo is a living human being is sufficient to show that it is wrong to kill it."
     
    Singer is a Marxist, but it seems that it's really the principles of animal husbandry that he's guided by; the most efficient way to deal with humanity is to turn them into something akin to livestock. Then you reverse engineer moral arguments to justify that end result. Emmanuel, too.

    Replies: @Global Citizen

    the most efficient way to deal with humanity is to turn them into something akin to livestock.

    What kind of people would believe that?

    • Replies: @J1234
    @Global Citizen

    Good question

  117. @Dave Pinsen
    There was a gerontologist who passed away a few years ago who found that a lot of putatively age-related decline wasn’t inevitable but the result of social isolation, lack of exercise, etc. Which makes sense if you consider that younger people passed over by the economy are suffering similar debilities today. A healthier society would want to “compress morbidity”, as physician and Starting Strength coach John Sullivan puts it, and would want to help more of its people of all ages live meaningful lives. Having them die earlier is a cop-out, and cheapens life in general.

    Replies: @notsaying, @Daniel H

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @Daniel H

    To the extent Mangan has encouraged people to lift he’s done some good work, but I would be judicious about which of his suggestions to follow.

    https://twitter.com/bronzeagemantis/status/1117107344268308490?s=21

  118. @El Dato
    It's the Judeo-German mind, going full out to terminal conclusions.

    Wasn't there an old SciFi movie about people getting terminated at 30 (I don't know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it's SciFi).

    From the New Green Deal to the New Soylent Green Deal.

    Meanwhile in OffTopic:

    Fashion brand Loewe called out for outfit resembling concentration camp uniform

    Spanish fashion brand Loewe is under fire for a recent capsule collection with one outfit that bears a striking resemblance to a concentration camp uniform.
     
    It's a striped shirt, you f*cking a**holes.

    (Unless it comes with an assortment of stickers in various shapes and colors, but apparently not)

    Replies: @Cortes, @Lurker, @AndrewR, @ChrisZ, @Autochthon

    I don’t know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it’s SciFi.

    Okay, Boomer.

    Since the average person died at about thirty years of age in most of the ancient world, how in the Hell did those “dumb kids” manage all those aquaducts, triremes, pyramids, and such?

    I expect you reckon it was all account of the lucky people who made it fifty, sixty, or seventy years coordinating it all, but that’s bullshit, when we examine representative “dumb kids,” but that is demonstrable bullshit, since the leaders were often “dumb kids,” too:

    Here’s one who essentially conquered the world by age thirty-two:

    Some other jackass established the Roman Empire and initiated the Pax Romana before dying aged forty. Still another know-nothing whipper-snapper established the bases for the world’s most popular religion (and the most salubrious, to gauge by the scientific and cultural achievements engendered by the adherents of and in the name of a religion) before he died aged about thirty-five.

    The trend continued and continues. Thomas Jefferson was all of thirty-three when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. One could go on and on.

    The idea people in the first three decades or so of their lives, or a people whose lives lasted only about three decades, couldn’t possibly “survive” or manage a civilisation outside the contrived premises of mediocre science fiction because such people are “dumb kids” is deminstrably ri-goddam-diculous.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Autochthon

    “ Since the average person died at about thirty years of age in most of the ancient world”

    That might have been life expectancy at birth, but ancients who made it past 16 tended to die 55+. Mortality just wasn’t high around 20-45.

    Replies: @res, @Herzog

    , @Global Citizen
    @Autochthon

    Get a job, you little whippersnapper. You watch too many cartoons, just like all your generation.

    Why are you even on this site. You have real work to do, like making me a sandwich.

    , @S. Anonyia
    @Autochthon

    The average person did not “die at 30” in the ancient world. More like 55-70. There were 3 big hazards that made lifespans seem lower than they really were: infant mortality, war, and childbirth. If you made it past all that you were generally ok. By the way even childbirth wasn’t as dangerous as presumed...only killed around 1 in 20 women over their lifetime. And we are talking people having on average 5-12 children. So the risk per pregnancy was actually quite low.

    Also there is a world of difference between one’s 30s and 18-25. I’m not 30 yet but intellectually/professionally it seems that’s when many people “peak.” 23 on the other hand ...you are still young and dumb with an unfinished brain. So yeah, the sci-fi premise of everyone dying at 30 is ridiculous.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Templar
    @Autochthon

    "Some other jackass established the Roman Empire and initiated the Pax Romana before dying aged forty." ????
    Who is this mysterious figure?
    The first Roman emperor was Augustus who was 75 years old when he died.
    He schemed his way to power by leveraging his connection to his great uncle Julius Caesar whom I suspect is who you are referencing.
    Caesar was born in 100BC and was assassinated in 44BC making him 56 years old.

  119. @Jesse
    @Art Deco

    Holy strawman, dude. No one's saying that we should kill the elderly. We're questioning the utility of spending hundreds of thousands on, say, chemo that will cause huge pain and *might* keep them alive an extra 18 months. Or the kindness of saving them from a quick death from the flu so they can spend a decade plus dying of dementia.

    It might actually be better to pack them off to homes. What we have right now is millions of people slowly sucking the life out of their adult kids. You can always tell if someone is of A Certain Age and has no experience of the special hell that is caring for the elderly, because they get remarkably angry at the idea that the people they full intend on being a burden to, might not love every moment.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @Art Deco

    My grandparents all lived to 85-95 and never lived in hospices. Always by themselves (or my grandmother and great Aunt lived together when my grandfather died). My dad was in and out in his 80s, but all paid with insurance. My mom or us kids visited every day. I know not always the case, but 75 seems bizarrely arbitrator. I’ll only be 8 years retired by then. I’m gonna hey all the juice out of the rind and live in through if I can. If I can’t take it I’ll deal with it then. I’d rather watch reruns of Have Gun Will Travel than not exist.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @Hhsiii

    75 is when things tend to start failing, no matter what you do.

  120. @Jesse
    I know it's fun to psychoanalyze this, but the fact is he's right. People are living too long, and it's cruel for them and for the younger generations who have to take care of them. I've seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won't just die already. Most of then are, privately, talking in the same way about how they want to die quickly before they ruin their own daughters' lives.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @bomag, @SFG, @Lot, @Alexander Turok, @Anonymousse

    One thing I’ve wondered is so many people take care of elderly parents themselves rather than just try to get them into some home on the taxpayer’s dime. You don’t see childless elderly people dying on the street, so there must be something out there.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Alexander Turok

    You need to meet certain criteria for nursing home admissions in New York. Not everyone meets those criteria. And, of course, there is family preference at work.

    , @Stan d Mute
    @Alexander Turok


    One thing I’ve wondered is so many people take care of elderly parents themselves rather than just try to get them into some home on the taxpayer’s dime. You don’t see childless elderly people dying on the street, so there must be something out there.
     
    The taxpayer will only pick up the tab after all the geezer’s assets are depleted. In many cases, families keep granny at home to conserve her estate. The medical profession has become like leeches determined to suck out every dime possible and destroy the now abandoned ethic of leaving a beneficial sum to one’s posterity.

    It’s hard not to wonder if the prevalence of third world immigrant doctors isn’t a proximate cause. In just the past five years I have watched half a dozen close friends and family kept alive artificially for years when they could no longer recognize their own children. Cui bono?

    Replies: @Alden

  121. @Jesse
    @Art Deco

    Holy strawman, dude. No one's saying that we should kill the elderly. We're questioning the utility of spending hundreds of thousands on, say, chemo that will cause huge pain and *might* keep them alive an extra 18 months. Or the kindness of saving them from a quick death from the flu so they can spend a decade plus dying of dementia.

    It might actually be better to pack them off to homes. What we have right now is millions of people slowly sucking the life out of their adult kids. You can always tell if someone is of A Certain Age and has no experience of the special hell that is caring for the elderly, because they get remarkably angry at the idea that the people they full intend on being a burden to, might not love every moment.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @Art Deco

    Holy strawman, dude. No one’s saying that we should kill the elderly.

    You need to re-read some of the contributions to this thread. Start with ‘JackD’.

    We’re questioning the utility of spending hundreds of thousands on, say, chemo that will cause huge pain and *might* keep them alive an extra 18 months.

    Did you just accuse me of setting up a straw man?

    Or the kindness of saving them from a quick death from the flu so they can spend a decade plus dying of dementia.

    What are you planning to do to this ‘flu’ patient to cause his death? Dehydrate him? There are laws against criminally negligent homicide. For a reason.

    It might actually be better to pack them off to homes. What we have right now is millions of people slowly sucking the life out of their adult kids. You can always tell if someone is of A Certain Age and has no experience of the special hell that is caring for the elderly, because they get remarkably angry at the idea that the people they full intend on being a burden to, might not love every moment.

    There are 47 million elderly in this country. There are 5.7 million people living in the homes of their adult children. It’s not exactly a modal living arrangement for the old. Some of these geezers are high-maintenance, some aren’t. About 3 million dementia patients live with family, about 1.3 million continue to live alone, and about 1 million are in assisted living and nursing homes. Your complaint is what, that we don’t move them into nursing homes quickly enough?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    You're completely twisting my words. A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life. Many times people don't even want this much treatment - they just want to die a natural death. But the system insists on overtreating them because it's a moneymaker for all concerned. Their kids are guilted into allowing this overtreatment. If someone has lived a full life and are now in their sunset period, just leave them alone and give them a dignified death - the kind that old people used to get. Being all hooked up to tubes and wires like some lab rat is cruel.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Art Deco, @Johann Ricke

  122. @Alexander Turok
    @Jesse

    One thing I've wondered is so many people take care of elderly parents themselves rather than just try to get them into some home on the taxpayer's dime. You don't see childless elderly people dying on the street, so there must be something out there.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Stan d Mute

    You need to meet certain criteria for nursing home admissions in New York. Not everyone meets those criteria. And, of course, there is family preference at work.

  123. Was this bragging rights by the Tribe that they won? Fight Club before Fight Club.

  124. @Lot
    @Art Deco

    “ The sum of medical and long-term care services received by the 1% patients with highest propensity to consume (in any given year) would be around $150,000 per year on average”

    How many median middle class families’ entire tax burden is required to pay that? Ten?

    There’s heavy costs associated with so much of our economy devoted to this beyond the dollar figure. I mentioned decreased fertility as one. The immigration costs of these migrant-heavy sectors is another. Yet another is lack of positive externalities associated with such spending.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    How many median middle class families’ entire tax burden is required to pay that? Ten?

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis has it that nursing homes and ‘social assistance’ programs have budgets which sum to $480 bn, which amounts to 1.3% of gross output and 2.6% of personal income.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    That's the argument every net consumer makes: for a mere rounding error in the federal budget, you get National Public Radio! Eventually, you're $21.9T in debt.

    $150K a year is serious money. If Uncle Sugar weren't making those transfer payments, that care would simply not be administered.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  125. @black sea

    Emanuel vowed to refuse not only heroic medical interventions once he turned 75, but also antibiotics and vaccinations.
     
    I think he'll back out of that vow pretty quickly once he contracts a painful infection.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    I’m sure we will see a headline in 14 years: “76-year-old celebrity Ph.D. voluntarily dies of an ear infection.”

  126. @PiltdownMan
    Benjamin Emanuel died early last month.

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/10/3/20895790/benjamin-emanuel-rahm-ari-ezekiel-israel-obituary

    Replies: @JMcG, @Steve Sailer, @istevereader

    Thanks.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Steve Sailer

    “ Condolences to Rahm and Ari Emanuel. Congratulations to Ezekiel.”

    Ouch!

  127. @Jack D
    @Art Deco


    Most people in them aren’t there more than a year or so.
     
    What is accomplished, other than wasting a lot of money, during that year? The person, if he has any awareness left, is not happy. His family is not happy. The West Indian ladies changing his diapers are not happy. What is the point? Can't we give these folks a little extra morphine and let them slip away?

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Stan d Mute

    What is the point? Can’t we give these folks a little extra morphine and let them slip away?

    I’ve commented often about Dr Mom who was a strong proponent of euthanasia and felt that the only real contribution any of us could make is the reduction of human suffering. In the end, she was (I am certain) euthanized by her colleagues when it became clear that there was no prospect for improvement in her disease (metastasized cancer) nor reduction in pain. They could have kept her alive another six months, but from professional courtesy gave her a ride on the morphine express. I was then and will remain forever grateful for the kindness and wish that it was afforded to everyone.

    I’ve also commented on my own health issues as a middle aged white guy who’s endured chemo, radiation, a major STEMI, and has inoperable spinal injuries, condemned to suffer constant unremitting pain until my own exit. Unable to find any doctors willing to jack me up enough to work productively, told I’m not disabled enough for social security, my life is pain and parasitism – nothing more. When I had my STEMI, I was able to tell the EMTs (I didn’t call them) to take me to a hospital that has had my DNR for nearly two decades. They ignored my DNR and resuscitated me anyway, why not, how else could they bill my insurance over $100,000? When I demanded to be released twelve hours after my heart attack, they called shrinks and cops on me. Both determined that I was sane and law-abiding, but I could just see the disappointment in revenue losses from the doctors.

    Doctors today aren’t the doctors of the 1970’s and earlier, they care FAR more about practicing defensive medicine and maximizing their insurance billing than they care about minimizing pain and suffering. The only silver lining is that the narcissists who insist on prolonging their crappy lives at society’s cost will get what they ask for – good and hard. I hope they are kept alive for a decade stewing in their own filth while negroid caregivers slap them around and laugh at them..

    • Agree: Jack D
  128. @Autochthon
    @El Dato


    I don’t know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it’s SciFi.
     
    Okay, Boomer.

    Since the average person died at about thirty years of age in most of the ancient world, how in the Hell did those "dumb kids" manage all those aquaducts, triremes, pyramids, and such?

    I expect you reckon it was all account of the lucky people who made it fifty, sixty, or seventy years coordinating it all, but that's bullshit, when we examine representative "dumb kids," but that is demonstrable bullshit, since the leaders were often "dumb kids," too:

    Here's one who essentially conquered the world by age thirty-two:

    https://www.history.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_faces:center%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_768/MTU3ODc5MDgzMjEwMTg4NTEx/alexander_the_great_by_tamarie-d57sirl.jpg


    Some other jackass established the Roman Empire and initiated the Pax Romana before dying aged forty. Still another know-nothing whipper-snapper established the bases for the world's most popular religion (and the most salubrious, to gauge by the scientific and cultural achievements engendered by the adherents of and in the name of a religion) before he died aged about thirty-five.

    The trend continued and continues. Thomas Jefferson was all of thirty-three when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. One could go on and on.

    The idea people in the first three decades or so of their lives, or a people whose lives lasted only about three decades, couldn't possibly "survive" or manage a civilisation outside the contrived premises of mediocre science fiction because such people are "dumb kids" is deminstrably ri-goddam-diculous.

    Replies: @Lot, @Global Citizen, @S. Anonyia, @Templar

    “ Since the average person died at about thirty years of age in most of the ancient world”

    That might have been life expectancy at birth, but ancients who made it past 16 tended to die 55+. Mortality just wasn’t high around 20-45.

    • Replies: @res
    @Lot

    I was tempted to give the same kind of response you did, but double checked and was amazed how short lives were in ancient Egypt.
    https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/researchers-in-museums/2015/03/02/old-age-in-ancient-egypt/


    Very high infant death rates due to high risks of infections resulted in an average age at death of 19 years. However those who survived childhood had a life expectancy of 30 years for women* and 34 years for men. Most ancient Egyptians were unlikely to live beyond 40 years of age
     

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    , @Herzog
    @Lot

    Somewhere in Psalms (or was it Proverbs? Too lazy to google it) there is a verse to the effect of "A human life lasts seventy years, or eighty if you get old."

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  129. @Steve Sailer
    @PiltdownMan

    Thanks.

    Replies: @Lot

    “ Condolences to Rahm and Ari Emanuel. Congratulations to Ezekiel.”

    Ouch!

  130. Global Citizen [AKA "Globalist Citizen"] says:
    @Autochthon
    @El Dato


    I don’t know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it’s SciFi.
     
    Okay, Boomer.

    Since the average person died at about thirty years of age in most of the ancient world, how in the Hell did those "dumb kids" manage all those aquaducts, triremes, pyramids, and such?

    I expect you reckon it was all account of the lucky people who made it fifty, sixty, or seventy years coordinating it all, but that's bullshit, when we examine representative "dumb kids," but that is demonstrable bullshit, since the leaders were often "dumb kids," too:

    Here's one who essentially conquered the world by age thirty-two:

    https://www.history.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_faces:center%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_768/MTU3ODc5MDgzMjEwMTg4NTEx/alexander_the_great_by_tamarie-d57sirl.jpg


    Some other jackass established the Roman Empire and initiated the Pax Romana before dying aged forty. Still another know-nothing whipper-snapper established the bases for the world's most popular religion (and the most salubrious, to gauge by the scientific and cultural achievements engendered by the adherents of and in the name of a religion) before he died aged about thirty-five.

    The trend continued and continues. Thomas Jefferson was all of thirty-three when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. One could go on and on.

    The idea people in the first three decades or so of their lives, or a people whose lives lasted only about three decades, couldn't possibly "survive" or manage a civilisation outside the contrived premises of mediocre science fiction because such people are "dumb kids" is deminstrably ri-goddam-diculous.

    Replies: @Lot, @Global Citizen, @S. Anonyia, @Templar

    Get a job, you little whippersnapper. You watch too many cartoons, just like all your generation.

    Why are you even on this site. You have real work to do, like making me a sandwich.

  131. @Art Deco
    @Jesse

    Holy strawman, dude. No one’s saying that we should kill the elderly.

    You need to re-read some of the contributions to this thread. Start with 'JackD'.


    We’re questioning the utility of spending hundreds of thousands on, say, chemo that will cause huge pain and *might* keep them alive an extra 18 months.

    Did you just accuse me of setting up a straw man?



    Or the kindness of saving them from a quick death from the flu so they can spend a decade plus dying of dementia.

    What are you planning to do to this 'flu' patient to cause his death? Dehydrate him? There are laws against criminally negligent homicide. For a reason.



    It might actually be better to pack them off to homes. What we have right now is millions of people slowly sucking the life out of their adult kids. You can always tell if someone is of A Certain Age and has no experience of the special hell that is caring for the elderly, because they get remarkably angry at the idea that the people they full intend on being a burden to, might not love every moment.


    There are 47 million elderly in this country. There are 5.7 million people living in the homes of their adult children. It's not exactly a modal living arrangement for the old. Some of these geezers are high-maintenance, some aren't. About 3 million dementia patients live with family, about 1.3 million continue to live alone, and about 1 million are in assisted living and nursing homes. Your complaint is what, that we don't move them into nursing homes quickly enough?

    Replies: @Jack D

    You’re completely twisting my words. A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life. Many times people don’t even want this much treatment – they just want to die a natural death. But the system insists on overtreating them because it’s a moneymaker for all concerned. Their kids are guilted into allowing this overtreatment. If someone has lived a full life and are now in their sunset period, just leave them alone and give them a dignified death – the kind that old people used to get. Being all hooked up to tubes and wires like some lab rat is cruel.

    • Agree: Old Prude, ThreeCranes
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @Jack D


    You’re completely twisting my words. A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life. Many times people don’t even want this much treatment – they just want to die a natural death.
     
    You're a lawyer. You understand the evil that lurks in men's hearts. If this is legalized, people will be pressured, via mistreatment, to allow themselves to be killed even if they don't want to die. That's all Art Deco was alluding to.

    Replies: @SFG

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    You’re completely twisting my words.

    No, you don't like your words read back to you.



    A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life.

    Medical care is given to sick people. Some of whom die in spite of it. And some of whom do not.



    Many times people don’t even want this much treatment – they just want to die a natural death. But the system insists on overtreating them because it’s a moneymaker for all concerned. Their kids are guilted into allowing this overtreatment.

    I've been through this eight times with moribund friends relations and the next time I encounter anything resembling this will be the first.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    , @Johann Ricke
    @Jack D


    A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life.
     
    I'd have to agree with that - an acquaintance died at the age of 40, after a long battle with cancer. Now, maybe she should have been euthanized earlier, but her hubby would probably have been a little resistant to that idea.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  132. @Alexander Turok
    @Jesse

    One thing I've wondered is so many people take care of elderly parents themselves rather than just try to get them into some home on the taxpayer's dime. You don't see childless elderly people dying on the street, so there must be something out there.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Stan d Mute

    One thing I’ve wondered is so many people take care of elderly parents themselves rather than just try to get them into some home on the taxpayer’s dime. You don’t see childless elderly people dying on the street, so there must be something out there.

    The taxpayer will only pick up the tab after all the geezer’s assets are depleted. In many cases, families keep granny at home to conserve her estate. The medical profession has become like leeches determined to suck out every dime possible and destroy the now abandoned ethic of leaving a beneficial sum to one’s posterity.

    It’s hard not to wonder if the prevalence of third world immigrant doctors isn’t a proximate cause. In just the past five years I have watched half a dozen close friends and family kept alive artificially for years when they could no longer recognize their own children. Cui bono?

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Stan d Mute

    The elder has to get rid of all assets 2 years before applying for Medicaid, not Medicare and going into a nursing home on the taxpayers dime. Best to consult an attorney as it’s a combination of federal and your state law.

    Son in law’s father died very young of Alzheimer’s. Most of the family thought it was ok to put him in a nursing home and let that eat up 4 houses. SIL was only 20, but objected. So he worked and cared for his father for several years and saved the family estate.

    As soon as you join AARP or sign up for Medicare, you’ll get weekly mailings about how to save your estate if you need to go into a nursing home.

  133. @Autochthon
    @El Dato


    I don’t know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it’s SciFi.
     
    Okay, Boomer.

    Since the average person died at about thirty years of age in most of the ancient world, how in the Hell did those "dumb kids" manage all those aquaducts, triremes, pyramids, and such?

    I expect you reckon it was all account of the lucky people who made it fifty, sixty, or seventy years coordinating it all, but that's bullshit, when we examine representative "dumb kids," but that is demonstrable bullshit, since the leaders were often "dumb kids," too:

    Here's one who essentially conquered the world by age thirty-two:

    https://www.history.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_faces:center%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_768/MTU3ODc5MDgzMjEwMTg4NTEx/alexander_the_great_by_tamarie-d57sirl.jpg


    Some other jackass established the Roman Empire and initiated the Pax Romana before dying aged forty. Still another know-nothing whipper-snapper established the bases for the world's most popular religion (and the most salubrious, to gauge by the scientific and cultural achievements engendered by the adherents of and in the name of a religion) before he died aged about thirty-five.

    The trend continued and continues. Thomas Jefferson was all of thirty-three when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. One could go on and on.

    The idea people in the first three decades or so of their lives, or a people whose lives lasted only about three decades, couldn't possibly "survive" or manage a civilisation outside the contrived premises of mediocre science fiction because such people are "dumb kids" is deminstrably ri-goddam-diculous.

    Replies: @Lot, @Global Citizen, @S. Anonyia, @Templar

    The average person did not “die at 30” in the ancient world. More like 55-70. There were 3 big hazards that made lifespans seem lower than they really were: infant mortality, war, and childbirth. If you made it past all that you were generally ok. By the way even childbirth wasn’t as dangerous as presumed…only killed around 1 in 20 women over their lifetime. And we are talking people having on average 5-12 children. So the risk per pregnancy was actually quite low.

    Also there is a world of difference between one’s 30s and 18-25. I’m not 30 yet but intellectually/professionally it seems that’s when many people “peak.” 23 on the other hand …you are still young and dumb with an unfinished brain. So yeah, the sci-fi premise of everyone dying at 30 is ridiculous.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @S. Anonyia

    Usually, once women survived their first two births they were okay unless they got "childbed fever" from unsanitary conditions at birth, filthy midwives or doctors putting their hands or unsterilized instruments up there, etc. If they had an unbirthworthy pelvis or other such conditions the first one killed them.

  134. @Global Citizen
    @J1234


    the most efficient way to deal with humanity is to turn them into something akin to livestock.
     
    What kind of people would believe that?

    Replies: @J1234

    Good question

  135. @kaganovitch
    @Harry Baldwin

    I remember reading an editorial in Newsweek around 30-35 years ago from an "ethicist" or perhaps a "patient advocate " calling for the euthanization of mildly retarded people on the grounds of being annoying and low quality of life. Considering the cadre who have made the long march through the institutions of our civilization, it is sheer suicidal recklessness to hand them life and death decisions. Trawling your social media accounts for hate crimes as grounds for euthanization is not out of the realm of possibility. These people hate you and want to burn you at the stake.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

    These people hate you and want to burn you at the stake.

    What they really want is to dispossess you and your children of every last dime you’ve ever earned, only after that do they want you to perish (painfully).

  136. @Jesse
    I know it's fun to psychoanalyze this, but the fact is he's right. People are living too long, and it's cruel for them and for the younger generations who have to take care of them. I've seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won't just die already. Most of then are, privately, talking in the same way about how they want to die quickly before they ruin their own daughters' lives.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @bomag, @SFG, @Lot, @Alexander Turok, @Anonymousse

    Women’s happiness seems contingent on killing lots of inconvenient people nowadays… unborn children, elderly parents.

    Got to leave plenty of time and money for franzia, netflicks, and botox and cut loose all those downer filial human feelings of non transactional love and responsibility.

  137. @Stan d Mute
    There’s a very legitimate point however that you gloss over, the question of “who pays?”

    As long as my mother-in-law is paying for her own upkeep and six figure annual medical expenses while doing the incredibly important things like crapping in her diapers and abusing her caregivers, it’s fine and well (to hell with what her grandchildren might have otherwise benefitted from a debt free education). But how about a destitute doppelgänger consuming six figures (or more) of public funds extracted by force from the contributions sent to you which otherwise might allow you some meat protein once a week along with your ramen noodles?

    I was literally raised in hospitals and nursing homes accompanying Dr Mom on her rounds. Other kids had babysitters, I had the doctor’s lounge or nurse's station and the sights and smells of decrepit octogenarians drooling in wheelchairs as the sat stewing in their own waste in a corridor. One never forgets the smell.

    Who pays? Like most boomers, you Steve seem oblivious to the fact that real money doesn’t magically appear but requires enforced labor of future generations.

    Replies: @follyofwar, @Anonymousse

    This topic seems exceptionally useful for getting sociopaths to publicly self identify.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
    @Anonymousse

    Comments like this are part of the problem. I don't know what it is about this subject, but for some reason it makes many conservatives suddenly start sounding like hysterical Leftists. "How dare you ask questions about 'who pays,' this is about whether you CARE, it seems clear you don't CARE?"

    Replies: @SFG, @Anonymousse

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Anonymousse

    If by sociopath you mean "kept alive at all costs" then yes.

  138. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    You're completely twisting my words. A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life. Many times people don't even want this much treatment - they just want to die a natural death. But the system insists on overtreating them because it's a moneymaker for all concerned. Their kids are guilted into allowing this overtreatment. If someone has lived a full life and are now in their sunset period, just leave them alone and give them a dignified death - the kind that old people used to get. Being all hooked up to tubes and wires like some lab rat is cruel.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Art Deco, @Johann Ricke

    You’re completely twisting my words. A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life. Many times people don’t even want this much treatment – they just want to die a natural death.

    You’re a lawyer. You understand the evil that lurks in men’s hearts. If this is legalized, people will be pressured, via mistreatment, to allow themselves to be killed even if they don’t want to die. That’s all Art Deco was alluding to.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Johann Ricke

    Exactly.

    Sorry, but given how elites like Emanuel (with or without parentheses) handle immigration and gender relations, I'm sure as heck not comfortable letting them decide people are too old to live after a certain age cutoff.

  139. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    You're completely twisting my words. A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life. Many times people don't even want this much treatment - they just want to die a natural death. But the system insists on overtreating them because it's a moneymaker for all concerned. Their kids are guilted into allowing this overtreatment. If someone has lived a full life and are now in their sunset period, just leave them alone and give them a dignified death - the kind that old people used to get. Being all hooked up to tubes and wires like some lab rat is cruel.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Art Deco, @Johann Ricke

    You’re completely twisting my words.

    No, you don’t like your words read back to you.

    A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life.

    Medical care is given to sick people. Some of whom die in spite of it. And some of whom do not.

    Many times people don’t even want this much treatment – they just want to die a natural death. But the system insists on overtreating them because it’s a moneymaker for all concerned. Their kids are guilted into allowing this overtreatment.

    I’ve been through this eight times with moribund friends relations and the next time I encounter anything resembling this will be the first.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @Art Deco


    I’ve been through this eight times with moribund friends relations and the next time I encounter anything resembling this will be the first.
     
    What happens is that the sick are worried that they're being a burden. While there are nogoodniks who can't wait to get at the estate, most of the people I know spent a good chunk of money trying delay the inevitable for their loved ones. Because what is medical care other than delaying the inevitable for an incrementally bigger slice of life?

    Replies: @Art Deco

  140. Indeed that did it, Tina. That did it. Thank you so much.

  141. @Johann Ricke
    @Jack D


    You’re completely twisting my words. A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life. Many times people don’t even want this much treatment – they just want to die a natural death.
     
    You're a lawyer. You understand the evil that lurks in men's hearts. If this is legalized, people will be pressured, via mistreatment, to allow themselves to be killed even if they don't want to die. That's all Art Deco was alluding to.

    Replies: @SFG

    Exactly.

    Sorry, but given how elites like Emanuel (with or without parentheses) handle immigration and gender relations, I’m sure as heck not comfortable letting them decide people are too old to live after a certain age cutoff.

  142. @Lot
    @Jesse

    Jesse, 100% agree.

    Steve, easy to parody this guy, but he’s powerless.

    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    Health care is 18% of the US economy and rapidly growing. Subsidies and taxes for extreme end of life care are crushing US based businesses and hurting the fertility of young working Americans.

    Dr. E going a little too far in the other direction? I’m cool with that.

    “ I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.”

    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.

    Replies: @Global Citizen, @Jesse, @nebulafox, @Dave Pinsen, @Art Deco, @Harry Baldwin, @AnotherDad, @Dacian Julien Soros

    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.

    Lot–from your writing you seem like a good guy. Be the man in your family and intervene with her to the maximum reasonable extent.

    I’ve collected some specific “lessons learned” dealing with my dad’s issues and stroke this summer/fall that i’ve bulleted and am going to write up for my kids. (My dad did some stupid stubborn stuff and i wasn’t as proactive as i should have been.) But i’m ending the missive with the overarching point that their fundamental responsibility is not to me or AnotherMom but to their children. That dealing with us, they should do nothing that actually sacrifices from the proper raising of their own children and most especially don’t let it keep you from having more kids. Put me on the ice flow if it’s what your family needs.

    Never sacrifice the future for the past.

    • Agree: Jesse
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @AnotherDad

    Put me on the ice flow

    Since Reg is not stepping up here..

    floe

    , @Alden
    @AnotherDad

    Good for you. Nothing is more important than your children.

    , @Anonymous
    @AnotherDad

    Would you mind sharing your bullet points here? Like a lot of people, I don’t like thinking about it, but I want to do right by my kids and future grandkids.
    I also fear that the survival instinct is so strong that I’ll make imprudent choices when the “time” comes. A handful of my loved ones (89 to 93 years old) opted for things like chemo, a pacemaker, dialysis, and surgery, when they had talked for many years about not wanting those types of interventions at that age. In every case the dr. explained that the diagnosis was terminal, that quality of life improvements were dubious and that intervention increased the likelihood of their last days being spent in a vegetative state, rather than a quick death.
    Of course I loved them and wanted every last moment with them AND seeing the fear of death in their eyes was unbearable. The doctors only half-heartedly offered the options (didn’t sell them at all) and quality of life was not improved, just as doctors had warned. Clearly fear of death can overwhelm any plans or principles you thought you had.
    Each one of them had been adamant about preserving every penny of their assets so that the money could benefit their children and grandchildren; not that it was a lot of money but it was honestly earned and they insisted that they had scrupulously saved it for that purpose. Medicare doesn’t cover long term care, as it seems some commenters are unaware. Another thing that seems to escape most people is that end of life care almost always means changing diapers - something I willingly did but don’t want done for me.
    My understanding is that end-of-life directives are only for decisions that need to be made if I’m incapacitated or in dementia. But I’m looking for guidance on how to stick to my guns when I’m not incapacitated but overwhelmed with fear of imminent death. Currently my only plans are to pray for courage and wisdom. I could use some other ideas.

    Replies: @notsaying

  143. @Dumbo

    “whether our consumption is worth our contribution.”
     
    Didn't Hitler also said something about "useless eaters"?

    This argument about "contributing" is something that I hear a lot, even in the alt-right or HDB-sphere, as if only those who contribute to something beyond their immediate survival are somehow valuable. But contribute to what? What if such contributions are negative? Mr. Ezekiel's work as "medical ethicist" has been useful to whom, exactly? Except for his own pockets and the insurance companies which he helped by creating Obamacare?

    You'd have to eliminate 99% of mankind if you would only keep those who do "meaningful, creative work".

    Replies: @notsaying, @Hypnotoad666

    Zeke’s “ethics” seem like an atavistic throwback to hunter-gatherer times, when infanticide was SOP and the old folks were put on an ice flow and pushed out to sea when they could no longer “contribute.”

    What’s the point of having a rich industrial society if you can’t afford anything or anyone that doesn’t immediately “contribute” to the collective.

    • Replies: @Carol
    @Hypnotoad666

    The ice is really "flowing" tonight at iSteve.

  144. @follyofwar
    @Stan d Mute

    In 1984, Colorado governor Richard Lamm said that old folks had a "duty to die," and he supported physician-assisted suicide. Naturally, he was pilloried for it. Now that he remains alive at 84, I wonder if he still feels the same.

    Still his point remains more valid today than ever. It's been said that 50% of overall medical costs are amassed during a person's last 6 months of life. That is intolerable and unsustainable.

    On a "60 Minutes" segment about this subject a few years back, a disgruntled doctor complained that sick, old people and their families were often insistent that every single high tech medical treatment, no matter the cost (paid by Medicare anyway), be utilized to keep grandpa alive, even when all quality of life is long gone.

    Emanuel is right that at some point medical treatment must be withheld and the plug pulled. "Death panels" are a prejorative phrase, but something like them is necessary.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    Head of a local hospice spoke to a group I belonged to. He emphasized telling people what is in your living will. Because multiple times they had a patient who wanted taken off life support, but they didn’t do it. A family member they’d never seen before came in screaming they were going to murder mom or dad. Showing them the living will had no effect.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Redneck farmer

    My mom had COPD and was intubated for it in 2013. Afterwards she said she never wanted to go through that again, and I believe she had a living will done.

    She still got intubated twice more in 2015 before my dad and sisters agreed to let her die.

  145. @Jesse
    @bomag

    And this is why women hate the right. Not wanting your life ruined by caring for someone kept alive with massive, pointless effort is now "hedonistic". Do you think, prior to the medical revolution, women were universally caring for children *and* desperately keeping the elderly existing (I won't say 'living")?

    Replies: @bomag

    Not wanting your life ruined by caring for someone kept alive with massive, pointless effort is now “hedonistic”

    I’m leery of heading down the road where “getting rid of burdens” is a guiding philosophy.

    I’d like to think we can arrange care without ruining lives; and there is value in caring for others.

  146. Condolences to Rahm and Ari Emanuel. Congratulations to Ezekiel.

    More Sailer gold.

  147. @Anonymousse
    @Stan d Mute

    This topic seems exceptionally useful for getting sociopaths to publicly self identify.

    Replies: @Alexander Turok, @MikeatMikedotMike

    Comments like this are part of the problem. I don’t know what it is about this subject, but for some reason it makes many conservatives suddenly start sounding like hysterical Leftists. “How dare you ask questions about ‘who pays,’ this is about whether you CARE, it seems clear you don’t CARE?”

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Alexander Turok

    (a) a lot of conservatives come from Christian traditions that state man doesn't decide when your life ends, God does

    (b) a lot of the rest of us Don't Trust The Government to decide this stuff

    (as a vaguely pro-Christian agnostic, 'God decides' winds up working out to 'nature decides', whereas coming up with some sort of rational rule means you start moving to excuses for euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary, pretty quick)

    Replies: @Alexander Turok

    , @Anonymousse
    @Alexander Turok

    I don’t know what sort of right wing you fancy yourself a part of... but as far as right wing principles go 1) respect for one’s elders and 2) care for one’s own people who are in need through no fault of their own... are pretty much top of the heap.

    Maybe you’ve come here through Ben Shapiro and TPUSA so you’ve got the wrong idea somehow, but low marginal tax rates ain’t exactly the heart of this thing.

    Casting homicidal glances at granny because she isn’t adding to the GDP anymore and might even be costing jeff bezos extra shekels on his 1040? If fiscal responsibility is your thing... how about we execute every single murderer, rapist, and child molester we house at fabulous expense for decades BEFORE we decide a warm safe room, medical care, and some tapioca is way too much to provide our own senior citizens for (median stay) five months before their natural death.

    And that’s IF you can’t be inconvenienced to care for your own parents yourself, you know, like they cared for you back when you always shit your pants and ate tapioca.

    https://www.geripal.org/2010/08/length-of-stay-in-nursing-homes-at-end.html?m=1

  148. @AnotherDad
    @Lot


    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.
     
    Lot--from your writing you seem like a good guy. Be the man in your family and intervene with her to the maximum reasonable extent.

    I've collected some specific "lessons learned" dealing with my dad's issues and stroke this summer/fall that i've bulleted and am going to write up for my kids. (My dad did some stupid stubborn stuff and i wasn't as proactive as i should have been.) But i'm ending the missive with the overarching point that their fundamental responsibility is not to me or AnotherMom but to their children. That dealing with us, they should do nothing that actually sacrifices from the proper raising of their own children and most especially don't let it keep you from having more kids. Put me on the ice flow if it's what your family needs.

    Never sacrifice the future for the past.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Alden, @Anonymous

    Put me on the ice flow

    Since Reg is not stepping up here..

    floe

  149. @Hhsiii
    @Jesse

    My grandparents all lived to 85-95 and never lived in hospices. Always by themselves (or my grandmother and great Aunt lived together when my grandfather died). My dad was in and out in his 80s, but all paid with insurance. My mom or us kids visited every day. I know not always the case, but 75 seems bizarrely arbitrator. I’ll only be 8 years retired by then. I’m gonna hey all the juice out of the rind and live in through if I can. If I can’t take it I’ll deal with it then. I’d rather watch reruns of Have Gun Will Travel than not exist.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    75 is when things tend to start failing, no matter what you do.

  150. @Lot
    @Autochthon

    “ Since the average person died at about thirty years of age in most of the ancient world”

    That might have been life expectancy at birth, but ancients who made it past 16 tended to die 55+. Mortality just wasn’t high around 20-45.

    Replies: @res, @Herzog

    I was tempted to give the same kind of response you did, but double checked and was amazed how short lives were in ancient Egypt.
    https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/researchers-in-museums/2015/03/02/old-age-in-ancient-egypt/

    Very high infant death rates due to high risks of infections resulted in an average age at death of 19 years. However those who survived childhood had a life expectancy of 30 years for women* and 34 years for men. Most ancient Egyptians were unlikely to live beyond 40 years of age

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @res

    In a Teaching Company course on ancient Egypt, the lecturer pointed out that perhaps 1/3 of Egyptians died of oral infections. Grit in the bread caused lacerations in the mouth, and you died painfully.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  151. @Lot
    @Autochthon

    “ Since the average person died at about thirty years of age in most of the ancient world”

    That might have been life expectancy at birth, but ancients who made it past 16 tended to die 55+. Mortality just wasn’t high around 20-45.

    Replies: @res, @Herzog

    Somewhere in Psalms (or was it Proverbs? Too lazy to google it) there is a verse to the effect of “A human life lasts seventy years, or eighty if you get old.”

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Herzog

    Psalm 90

  152. “Don’t work, don’t eat” is Civilization 101. People forget that we’re not that many decades removed from the time without heart surgery, chemotherapy, and effective pharmaceutical treatments. Doing everything possible used to be a lot easier, and less effective.

  153. @Anon
    @Old Prude


    Umm. Steve, I think you should have stopped posting after the last cocktail. Tina Turner and a clip from Babe is a juxtaposition that, how can one put this? – isn’t your finest work.
     
    Submitting shallow, foppish critiques about a professional writer's essay, when you have nothing to show for yourself, is considered lowbrow, and perhaps your worst anonymous internet submission to date.

    Perhaps you’re getting too old for this. I’m not suggesting that you consider killing yourself.

    Or AM I?!
    ⚰️⚰️⚰️

    Replies: @Old Prude

    That’s a good one😍

  154. @PiltdownMan
    Benjamin Emanuel died early last month.

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/10/3/20895790/benjamin-emanuel-rahm-ari-ezekiel-israel-obituary

    Replies: @JMcG, @Steve Sailer, @istevereader

    Wish come true!

  155. @Alexander Turok
    @Anonymousse

    Comments like this are part of the problem. I don't know what it is about this subject, but for some reason it makes many conservatives suddenly start sounding like hysterical Leftists. "How dare you ask questions about 'who pays,' this is about whether you CARE, it seems clear you don't CARE?"

    Replies: @SFG, @Anonymousse

    (a) a lot of conservatives come from Christian traditions that state man doesn’t decide when your life ends, God does

    (b) a lot of the rest of us Don’t Trust The Government to decide this stuff

    (as a vaguely pro-Christian agnostic, ‘God decides’ winds up working out to ‘nature decides’, whereas coming up with some sort of rational rule means you start moving to excuses for euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary, pretty quick)

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
    @SFG

    That's all fine, but the Christian tradition doesn't ordinarily lead people to get angry when the question of "who pays" is raised.

    In socialized medicine, the government decides, in private medicine with health insurance, the insurance company decides. Or you can sue the insurance company, and then the government decides.

  156. @Autochthon
    @JimB


    Didn’t Studs Turkey publish his memoir at 95?
     
    A shining example of nanogenerian productivity, was Mr. Turkey....

    http://bestanimations.com/Holidays/Thanksgiving/happy-thanksgiving-animated-gif-18.gif

    You know who else was productive after the age of seventy-five? This pimp:

    http://www.astro.com/imwiki/adb/thumb/5/53/Tonyrandall.jpg/180px-Tonyrandall.jpg

    (What kind of selfish bastard does that, knowing his children will, with near statistical certainty, be orphans before they reach ten years of age?)

    Replies: @Bugg, @Reg Cæsar

    Never understood these types of guys who have children way later in life. It’s selfish in the extreme. They will be lucky to be the guy with the oxygen tank at little league or high school graduation. Most won’t be there for their kids at all.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Bugg

    Never understood these types of guys who have children way later in life. It’s selfish in the extreme. They will be lucky to be the guy with the oxygen tank at little league or high school graduation. Most won’t be there for their kids at all.

    Don't know about that. My father was well into his fifties when I was born and he was gone b4 I turned 18, but I'm very happy to have been born. I mean I missed my Dad, truth be told I still do, but so what? It didn't condemn me to a miserable existence, I just wish I'd had him longer.

  157. @Massimo Heitor

    And even more important, for most people, is the biological decline in cognitive function. If you look at really smart people, there aren’t that many writing brand-new books after 75, and really developing new areas where they are leading thinkers. They tend to be re-tilling familiar areas that they’ve worked on for a long time.
     
    One unfortunate reality is that most people won't become great at completely new crafts late in life. But many older people can continue being excellent in a career that they were already excellent in.

    Consider Martin Scorcese at 77, just finished The Irishman, which looks like a great movie. The musician, Leonard Cohen, released awesome new albums in the last few years of his life. You'd think he might get lazy and sloppy towards the end, but not at all, they were excellent works.

    I'm not sure about STEM and engineering types. Bill Gates retired from tech. Will people like Elon Musk still be a leading figure after 70?

    Replies: @Alden

    Don’t forget Clint Eastwood making the great film about Richard Jewel at 90.

    Some patients in nursing homes are there for a few days after surgery for therapy and then go home.

  158. @AnotherDad
    @Lot


    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.
     
    Lot--from your writing you seem like a good guy. Be the man in your family and intervene with her to the maximum reasonable extent.

    I've collected some specific "lessons learned" dealing with my dad's issues and stroke this summer/fall that i've bulleted and am going to write up for my kids. (My dad did some stupid stubborn stuff and i wasn't as proactive as i should have been.) But i'm ending the missive with the overarching point that their fundamental responsibility is not to me or AnotherMom but to their children. That dealing with us, they should do nothing that actually sacrifices from the proper raising of their own children and most especially don't let it keep you from having more kids. Put me on the ice flow if it's what your family needs.

    Never sacrifice the future for the past.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Alden, @Anonymous

    Good for you. Nothing is more important than your children.

  159. @SFG
    @Alexander Turok

    (a) a lot of conservatives come from Christian traditions that state man doesn't decide when your life ends, God does

    (b) a lot of the rest of us Don't Trust The Government to decide this stuff

    (as a vaguely pro-Christian agnostic, 'God decides' winds up working out to 'nature decides', whereas coming up with some sort of rational rule means you start moving to excuses for euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary, pretty quick)

    Replies: @Alexander Turok

    That’s all fine, but the Christian tradition doesn’t ordinarily lead people to get angry when the question of “who pays” is raised.

    In socialized medicine, the government decides, in private medicine with health insurance, the insurance company decides. Or you can sue the insurance company, and then the government decides.

  160. @Anonymousse
    @Stan d Mute

    This topic seems exceptionally useful for getting sociopaths to publicly self identify.

    Replies: @Alexander Turok, @MikeatMikedotMike

    If by sociopath you mean “kept alive at all costs” then yes.

  161. @Daniel H
    @Dave Pinsen

    https://twitter.com/Mangan150?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    To the extent Mangan has encouraged people to lift he’s done some good work, but I would be judicious about which of his suggestions to follow.

  162. @Stan d Mute
    @Alexander Turok


    One thing I’ve wondered is so many people take care of elderly parents themselves rather than just try to get them into some home on the taxpayer’s dime. You don’t see childless elderly people dying on the street, so there must be something out there.
     
    The taxpayer will only pick up the tab after all the geezer’s assets are depleted. In many cases, families keep granny at home to conserve her estate. The medical profession has become like leeches determined to suck out every dime possible and destroy the now abandoned ethic of leaving a beneficial sum to one’s posterity.

    It’s hard not to wonder if the prevalence of third world immigrant doctors isn’t a proximate cause. In just the past five years I have watched half a dozen close friends and family kept alive artificially for years when they could no longer recognize their own children. Cui bono?

    Replies: @Alden

    The elder has to get rid of all assets 2 years before applying for Medicaid, not Medicare and going into a nursing home on the taxpayers dime. Best to consult an attorney as it’s a combination of federal and your state law.

    Son in law’s father died very young of Alzheimer’s. Most of the family thought it was ok to put him in a nursing home and let that eat up 4 houses. SIL was only 20, but objected. So he worked and cared for his father for several years and saved the family estate.

    As soon as you join AARP or sign up for Medicare, you’ll get weekly mailings about how to save your estate if you need to go into a nursing home.

  163. Anon[224] • Disclaimer says:

    By the way, Tina Turner naturalized to Swiss citizenship and renounced U.S. citizenship, I’m guessing because of the burdensome tax filing and FATCA retirements for U.S. expats. Expats already pay taxes to their nation of domicile, and there’s usually a double taxation treaty, so the filing requirements are just harassment.

  164. @Intelligent Dasein

    Medical Ethicist Ezekiel Emanuel Concocts Grand Kantian Principle
     
    The only thing reminiscent of Kant in this piece is the last name of the author. This was no categorical imperative a la Kantian ethics, it was a basic utilitarian argument.

    And he's right. There is a disproportionate amount of resources flowing to the aged. The Silent and the Boomers are consuming everything, spending everything, wearing everything out, and giving no thought to the future.

    Life extension is a very bad bargain for society as a whole. The reason why birth rates are so low is because there are old people lingering on in a state of decrepitude for 20-odd years, refusing to allow their worn out existence to be replaced by another.

    Replies: @Anon

    You go first.

  165. @anon

    I don’t want the government putting old people down: nor do I want the government artificially prolonging their lives against their will. I want the government (and everybody else) to stay the hell out of it and let the old people make their own decisions.
     
    How do you make your own decision when, because of your stroke, you can't remember what Wednesday is, and you never wrote a manifest of what you'd like to have happen to you, if you have a stroke that gives you the reasoning of a 2 year old with no short-term memory?

    Your emotionally overburdened family? The cold state? Really?

    Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian

    This is what advanced directives are for, also medical powers of attorney. The latter is not leakproof, but if you have made your values clear enough to those to whom you have assigned medical power of attorney, and additionally you have chosen wisely in your designee, chances are enhanced that your wishes and values will be respected.

    My wife and I just had these documents drawn up, signed, and notarized along with our wills and power of attorney designations. They cost a bit of money to have them drawn up by my family’s established eldercare attorney, but in our judgment, this expenditure was far and away justified by having registered our values and wishes, and even more importantly, by lessening the future anxiety of those into whose hands we have entrusted these charged decisions. Next up is to pre-pay our expenses for cremation.

    Our state of residence, New Jersey, has moved on establishing the right to die. My father wanted that choice, but we could not honor that wish; the best we could do was hospice care. At the end, my wife & I gave him explicit permission to go, and not long after, he went to his rest, dignity intact. We miss that old man all the time, but this was entirely right and proper.

    If you don’t push for and exercise rights such as these, others make decisions for you. To those reading this, get off of your duffs and do all that you can to convey your wishes, and to make it possible that they will be respected comes the time.

  166. @Hypnotoad666
    @Dumbo

    Zeke's "ethics" seem like an atavistic throwback to hunter-gatherer times, when infanticide was SOP and the old folks were put on an ice flow and pushed out to sea when they could no longer "contribute."

    What's the point of having a rich industrial society if you can't afford anything or anyone that doesn't immediately "contribute" to the collective.

    Replies: @Carol

    The ice is really “flowing” tonight at iSteve.

  167. During my internship at the NIH, Zeke was a great guy – totally supportive of all our attempts to ascend to positions of greater influence…

  168. @Herzog
    @Lot

    Somewhere in Psalms (or was it Proverbs? Too lazy to google it) there is a verse to the effect of "A human life lasts seventy years, or eighty if you get old."

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    Psalm 90

  169. @Autochthon
    @JimB


    Didn’t Studs Turkey publish his memoir at 95?
     
    A shining example of nanogenerian productivity, was Mr. Turkey....

    http://bestanimations.com/Holidays/Thanksgiving/happy-thanksgiving-animated-gif-18.gif

    You know who else was productive after the age of seventy-five? This pimp:

    http://www.astro.com/imwiki/adb/thumb/5/53/Tonyrandall.jpg/180px-Tonyrandall.jpg

    (What kind of selfish bastard does that, knowing his children will, with near statistical certainty, be orphans before they reach ten years of age?)

    Replies: @Bugg, @Reg Cæsar

    What kind of selfish bastard does that, knowing his children will, with near statistical certainty, be orphans before they reach ten years of age?

    As with the Brimelows (and, to a less extreme extent, the Cæsars), a couple quite apart in age just happened to hit it off, married, and, as happens in marriage, bore children. (That’s the whole point of marriage, regardless of Anthony Kennedy’s fantasies.)

    You want them to use contraception? Few men need it at 75. Men don’t face the same cliff women do, but we do have a continental shelf of our own.

    Anyway, your math is off. Orphans are missing two parents, not one. Only half of 75-year-old men will be dead by 85. Randall was still active on stage at 83. I was sure he would live another decade beyond that, and was surprised at his early exit.

    All marriages are crapshoots in that regard– my father was born a few weeks before Randall, buried two of his five children, and didn’t live to see a grandchild. His sisters are now in their nineties.

    Also, note that Randall was married to his first wife for 54 years and had no children. If he was going to follow the Biblical injunction to “be fruitful and multiply”, he had little choice.

    But I’ll let Mrs Randall speak for herself:

    https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/advice/a1123/tony-randall-wife/

    Here’s the happy couple at their wedding:

  170. @Bugg
    @Autochthon

    Never understood these types of guys who have children way later in life. It's selfish in the extreme. They will be lucky to be the guy with the oxygen tank at little league or high school graduation. Most won't be there for their kids at all.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    Never understood these types of guys who have children way later in life. It’s selfish in the extreme. They will be lucky to be the guy with the oxygen tank at little league or high school graduation. Most won’t be there for their kids at all.

    Don’t know about that. My father was well into his fifties when I was born and he was gone b4 I turned 18, but I’m very happy to have been born. I mean I missed my Dad, truth be told I still do, but so what? It didn’t condemn me to a miserable existence, I just wish I’d had him longer.

  171. @S. Anonyia
    @Autochthon

    The average person did not “die at 30” in the ancient world. More like 55-70. There were 3 big hazards that made lifespans seem lower than they really were: infant mortality, war, and childbirth. If you made it past all that you were generally ok. By the way even childbirth wasn’t as dangerous as presumed...only killed around 1 in 20 women over their lifetime. And we are talking people having on average 5-12 children. So the risk per pregnancy was actually quite low.

    Also there is a world of difference between one’s 30s and 18-25. I’m not 30 yet but intellectually/professionally it seems that’s when many people “peak.” 23 on the other hand ...you are still young and dumb with an unfinished brain. So yeah, the sci-fi premise of everyone dying at 30 is ridiculous.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Usually, once women survived their first two births they were okay unless they got “childbed fever” from unsanitary conditions at birth, filthy midwives or doctors putting their hands or unsterilized instruments up there, etc. If they had an unbirthworthy pelvis or other such conditions the first one killed them.

  172. Watch the movie, “Midsommar”. In the mythical village portrayed in the movie, elders commit suicide at the age of 72. I, myself, don’t want to live much past 75. It’s all up to the individual and for those against longevity, we can take matters into our own hands.

  173. @Alexander Turok
    @Anonymousse

    Comments like this are part of the problem. I don't know what it is about this subject, but for some reason it makes many conservatives suddenly start sounding like hysterical Leftists. "How dare you ask questions about 'who pays,' this is about whether you CARE, it seems clear you don't CARE?"

    Replies: @SFG, @Anonymousse

    I don’t know what sort of right wing you fancy yourself a part of… but as far as right wing principles go 1) respect for one’s elders and 2) care for one’s own people who are in need through no fault of their own… are pretty much top of the heap.

    Maybe you’ve come here through Ben Shapiro and TPUSA so you’ve got the wrong idea somehow, but low marginal tax rates ain’t exactly the heart of this thing.

    Casting homicidal glances at granny because she isn’t adding to the GDP anymore and might even be costing jeff bezos extra shekels on his 1040? If fiscal responsibility is your thing… how about we execute every single murderer, rapist, and child molester we house at fabulous expense for decades BEFORE we decide a warm safe room, medical care, and some tapioca is way too much to provide our own senior citizens for (median stay) five months before their natural death.

    And that’s IF you can’t be inconvenienced to care for your own parents yourself, you know, like they cared for you back when you always shit your pants and ate tapioca.

    https://www.geripal.org/2010/08/length-of-stay-in-nursing-homes-at-end.html?m=1

  174. @Lot
    @Jesse

    Jesse, 100% agree.

    Steve, easy to parody this guy, but he’s powerless.

    The actual medical consensus that completely rules our system: an 85-year old who can’t walk, tube feeds, and doesn’t know what year it is or his wife’s dead, should get $500,000-$1,000,000 in medical care a year for another decade if possible.

    Health care is 18% of the US economy and rapidly growing. Subsidies and taxes for extreme end of life care are crushing US based businesses and hurting the fertility of young working Americans.

    Dr. E going a little too far in the other direction? I’m cool with that.

    “ I’ve seen middle aged women have their lives ruined because their parents won’t just die already.”

    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.

    Replies: @Global Citizen, @Jesse, @nebulafox, @Dave Pinsen, @Art Deco, @Harry Baldwin, @AnotherDad, @Dacian Julien Soros

    The Emmanuels are probably concerned you could have sent more to Israel.

  175. @Art Deco
    @Lot

    How many median middle class families’ entire tax burden is required to pay that? Ten?

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis has it that nursing homes and 'social assistance' programs have budgets which sum to $480 bn, which amounts to 1.3% of gross output and 2.6% of personal income.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    That’s the argument every net consumer makes: for a mere rounding error in the federal budget, you get National Public Radio! Eventually, you’re $21.9T in debt.

    $150K a year is serious money. If Uncle Sugar weren’t making those transfer payments, that care would simply not be administered.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    I'm looking forward to your son putting you out on an ice floe. You've earned it.

    That aside, you don't have $20 tn in debt because you have National Public Radio or publicly-provided long-term care. You have $20 tn in debt because politicians prefer to finance a part of public expenditure through borrowing than through taxation. Prior to 1960, they weren't inclined to do that except during general mobilizations, when you had large spikes in public expenditure that came and went in a discrete run of years. We have lower quality public officials than we used to, at least at the federal level.

    If you'd quit snarling and sneering for a moment and actually digested what people said to you, it might occur to you that stating the dimensions of a phenomenon is not an argument for that phenomenon, much less an argument that the phenomenon should be financed by the central government.

    I personally am content to have long-term care (which isn't and never has been a 'rounding error') financed and administered by provincial authorities, which is how it was done prior to 1965 (bar those in veteran's hospitals). You used to have state asylums, sanitoriums, community hospitals, and poor houses; now you have Medicaid financing of a variety of institutions with some direct provision here and there. The society of the time wasn't so addled by bad attitudes that it thought to kill off the infirm as 'net consumers'.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  176. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Zeke needs to be the one to tell this old guy we never should have given him his recent minimally invasive heart procedure, he’s not worth it:

    And warn this crone she’d better get her shots and procedures up to date ASAP because next July, she’s on the no care list:

  177. We really need to introduce this guy to Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and about half of the United States Senate.

    • LOL: Redneck farmer
  178. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    You're completely twisting my words. A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life. Many times people don't even want this much treatment - they just want to die a natural death. But the system insists on overtreating them because it's a moneymaker for all concerned. Their kids are guilted into allowing this overtreatment. If someone has lived a full life and are now in their sunset period, just leave them alone and give them a dignified death - the kind that old people used to get. Being all hooked up to tubes and wires like some lab rat is cruel.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Art Deco, @Johann Ricke

    A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life.

    I’d have to agree with that – an acquaintance died at the age of 40, after a long battle with cancer. Now, maybe she should have been euthanized earlier, but her hubby would probably have been a little resistant to that idea.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Johann Ricke

    I’d have to agree with that

    Dunno. Smells like a factoid.


    We've been through the cancer-treatment mangle in our household. The sticker price for the whole nine month course of treatments approached $300,000. That's about 50 years worth of mean annual per capita medical expenditure (at it was at that time). Now, the providers didn't actually get $300,000, because the insurance companies which actually financed the care negotiate discounts. I'd have to dig up and review the statements to see what Blue Cross actually paid the surgeon and the medical oncologist and the radiation oncologist. Maybe it was 25 years worth of an ordinary year's worth of medical service charges. Had the treatments been unsuccessful, you'd say retrospectively that most of the medical services you received (by value) were delivered in your last year (or last two years or last three years or however long it would have taken for the metastases to kill you off). They weren't unsuccessful. You generally don't have a crystal clear idea beforehand how it's going to play out.

    Replies: @Jack D

  179. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    You’re completely twisting my words.

    No, you don't like your words read back to you.



    A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life.

    Medical care is given to sick people. Some of whom die in spite of it. And some of whom do not.



    Many times people don’t even want this much treatment – they just want to die a natural death. But the system insists on overtreating them because it’s a moneymaker for all concerned. Their kids are guilted into allowing this overtreatment.

    I've been through this eight times with moribund friends relations and the next time I encounter anything resembling this will be the first.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    I’ve been through this eight times with moribund friends relations and the next time I encounter anything resembling this will be the first.

    What happens is that the sick are worried that they’re being a burden. While there are nogoodniks who can’t wait to get at the estate, most of the people I know spent a good chunk of money trying delay the inevitable for their loved ones. Because what is medical care other than delaying the inevitable for an incrementally bigger slice of life?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Johann Ricke

    What happens is that the sick are worried that they’re being a burden.

    Haven't encountered much of that, either.


    While there are nogoodniks who can’t wait to get at the estate, most of the people I know spent a good chunk of money trying delay the inevitable for their loved ones. Because what is medical care other than delaying the inevitable for an incrementally bigger slice of life?

    Actually, a great deal of medical care for the elderly consists of attempts to manage and navigate problems, not get an 'incrementally bigger slice of life'. And, again, the hospitalizations my peeps had were to address discrete problems they were suffering. It's called 'acute care' for a reason.

  180. I’m leery of heading down the road where “getting rid of burdens” is a guiding philosophy.

    I’d like to think we can arrange care without ruining lives; and there is value in caring for others.

    Agreed. We cared for my elderly mother at home. It was a lot of work and quite a bit of a stress but it was the right thing to do and we don’t regret having kept her at home until the end.

    In Australia if you care for someone elderly at home you get quite a lot of support from government agencies. The direct support is from private agencies but it’s the government that pays. Personally I think it’s a good system and caring for the elderly is one of the marks of a civilised society.

    The amount of shameless selfishness in modern society horrifies me.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    @dfordoom

    Wonderful. And there is precisely *no* chance of getting that level of support in the US, in no small part because the GOP/socons have been stopping it.

    And that doesn't change the fact that people have a right to live their own lives without straining to keep someone alive at huge cost and with ever decreasing standards of living.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  181. @notsaying
    @Dave Pinsen

    Thank you for this very thoughtful comment. You are sharp to make the connection between isolated old people and jobless younger people not doing well experiencing similar problems and results.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    Thanks. I wish I remembered the name of the late gerontologist.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Dave Pinsen

    I think it may be the late John Cacioppo at Univ. of Chicago

  182. @Intelligent Dasein
    @SFG


    I mean, the government tosses people in jail for saying racist stuff in England. You want to give them the right to decide how long you get to live?
     
    If you'd actually bother reading the article, God damn it, you would see that nobody was even proposing, let alone arguing for, government regulation.

    And by the way, in England, the NHS already decides how long you get to live.

    Replies: @Templar

    If the NHS does indeed ‘decide how long you get to live’ then perhaps you should mention that the NHS death panels have decided that English men and women should get to live 18 months longer than their American counterparts?

  183. @Autochthon
    @El Dato


    I don’t know how a civilization can survive on what is essentially dumb kids, but it’s SciFi.
     
    Okay, Boomer.

    Since the average person died at about thirty years of age in most of the ancient world, how in the Hell did those "dumb kids" manage all those aquaducts, triremes, pyramids, and such?

    I expect you reckon it was all account of the lucky people who made it fifty, sixty, or seventy years coordinating it all, but that's bullshit, when we examine representative "dumb kids," but that is demonstrable bullshit, since the leaders were often "dumb kids," too:

    Here's one who essentially conquered the world by age thirty-two:

    https://www.history.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_faces:center%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_768/MTU3ODc5MDgzMjEwMTg4NTEx/alexander_the_great_by_tamarie-d57sirl.jpg


    Some other jackass established the Roman Empire and initiated the Pax Romana before dying aged forty. Still another know-nothing whipper-snapper established the bases for the world's most popular religion (and the most salubrious, to gauge by the scientific and cultural achievements engendered by the adherents of and in the name of a religion) before he died aged about thirty-five.

    The trend continued and continues. Thomas Jefferson was all of thirty-three when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. One could go on and on.

    The idea people in the first three decades or so of their lives, or a people whose lives lasted only about three decades, couldn't possibly "survive" or manage a civilisation outside the contrived premises of mediocre science fiction because such people are "dumb kids" is deminstrably ri-goddam-diculous.

    Replies: @Lot, @Global Citizen, @S. Anonyia, @Templar

    “Some other jackass established the Roman Empire and initiated the Pax Romana before dying aged forty.” ????
    Who is this mysterious figure?
    The first Roman emperor was Augustus who was 75 years old when he died.
    He schemed his way to power by leveraging his connection to his great uncle Julius Caesar whom I suspect is who you are referencing.
    Caesar was born in 100BC and was assassinated in 44BC making him 56 years old.

  184. @res
    @Lot

    I was tempted to give the same kind of response you did, but double checked and was amazed how short lives were in ancient Egypt.
    https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/researchers-in-museums/2015/03/02/old-age-in-ancient-egypt/


    Very high infant death rates due to high risks of infections resulted in an average age at death of 19 years. However those who survived childhood had a life expectancy of 30 years for women* and 34 years for men. Most ancient Egyptians were unlikely to live beyond 40 years of age
     

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    In a Teaching Company course on ancient Egypt, the lecturer pointed out that perhaps 1/3 of Egyptians died of oral infections. Grit in the bread caused lacerations in the mouth, and you died painfully.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Redneck farmer

    Ouch.

  185. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    That's the argument every net consumer makes: for a mere rounding error in the federal budget, you get National Public Radio! Eventually, you're $21.9T in debt.

    $150K a year is serious money. If Uncle Sugar weren't making those transfer payments, that care would simply not be administered.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I’m looking forward to your son putting you out on an ice floe. You’ve earned it.

    That aside, you don’t have $20 tn in debt because you have National Public Radio or publicly-provided long-term care. You have $20 tn in debt because politicians prefer to finance a part of public expenditure through borrowing than through taxation. Prior to 1960, they weren’t inclined to do that except during general mobilizations, when you had large spikes in public expenditure that came and went in a discrete run of years. We have lower quality public officials than we used to, at least at the federal level.

    If you’d quit snarling and sneering for a moment and actually digested what people said to you, it might occur to you that stating the dimensions of a phenomenon is not an argument for that phenomenon, much less an argument that the phenomenon should be financed by the central government.

    I personally am content to have long-term care (which isn’t and never has been a ’rounding error’) financed and administered by provincial authorities, which is how it was done prior to 1965 (bar those in veteran’s hospitals). You used to have state asylums, sanitoriums, community hospitals, and poor houses; now you have Medicaid financing of a variety of institutions with some direct provision here and there. The society of the time wasn’t so addled by bad attitudes that it thought to kill off the infirm as ‘net consumers’.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    Lot said end of life care is $500K. You said no $150K. He said who pays that--it would take 10 net tax-producing families. You said why that's just a single digit percentage of my large aggregated statistic I pulled from my Fuddy-Dud index card file. Now you're on about distributism, not that there's anything wrong with that but it's missing the point: end of life care is COSTLY because demand is inelastic and other people pay it.

    I agree distributism would solve that problem because then five or fewer families have to come up with that amount, so it won't be paid. Grandpa will be given a bed and a morphine pump.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  186. @Anonymous
    Emmanuel's idea of a "meaningful life" is obviously sitting around and strategizing how to get the masses to accept shorter lifespans.

    He's a satanist.

    Easy to understand their hatred of Christianity which roadblocks all of their psychotic plans.

    Today he feels it's crucial to publicly vocalize these evil ideas. First you talk about the subject until it's boring, old hat. Talk now then action can come later. But first they must de-Christianize society much much further in order to pull off these satanic schemes.

    Emmanuel must strongly approve of all the deaths happening in Venezuela due to medical shortages of every kind. Read this missive from a guy in Caracas (part of a series... Breitbart is defying the blackout on another commie collapse in Latin America):

    https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/11/24/my-socialist-hell-mourning-the-victims-of-venezuelas-healthcare-miracle/

    THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES A TERRIFYING GLIMPSE INTO AMERICA'S LIKELY FUTURE AS A THIRD WORLD SOCIALIST HISPANIC SHITHOLE.

    Replies: @Dissident

    Easy to understand their hatred of Christianity which roadblocks all of their psychotic plans.

    So does Judaism, actually. Don’t confuse Cult-Marx/ WOKEism/ SJWism/Neoconism, Zionism, etc. with Judaism.

  187. @Johann Ricke
    @Art Deco


    I’ve been through this eight times with moribund friends relations and the next time I encounter anything resembling this will be the first.
     
    What happens is that the sick are worried that they're being a burden. While there are nogoodniks who can't wait to get at the estate, most of the people I know spent a good chunk of money trying delay the inevitable for their loved ones. Because what is medical care other than delaying the inevitable for an incrementally bigger slice of life?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    What happens is that the sick are worried that they’re being a burden.

    Haven’t encountered much of that, either.

    While there are nogoodniks who can’t wait to get at the estate, most of the people I know spent a good chunk of money trying delay the inevitable for their loved ones. Because what is medical care other than delaying the inevitable for an incrementally bigger slice of life?

    Actually, a great deal of medical care for the elderly consists of attempts to manage and navigate problems, not get an ‘incrementally bigger slice of life’. And, again, the hospitalizations my peeps had were to address discrete problems they were suffering. It’s called ‘acute care’ for a reason.

  188. @Redneck farmer
    @res

    In a Teaching Company course on ancient Egypt, the lecturer pointed out that perhaps 1/3 of Egyptians died of oral infections. Grit in the bread caused lacerations in the mouth, and you died painfully.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Ouch.

  189. @Johann Ricke
    @Jack D


    A large % of US healthcare spending is spent on people during the last year of their life.
     
    I'd have to agree with that - an acquaintance died at the age of 40, after a long battle with cancer. Now, maybe she should have been euthanized earlier, but her hubby would probably have been a little resistant to that idea.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I’d have to agree with that

    Dunno. Smells like a factoid.

    We’ve been through the cancer-treatment mangle in our household. The sticker price for the whole nine month course of treatments approached $300,000. That’s about 50 years worth of mean annual per capita medical expenditure (at it was at that time). Now, the providers didn’t actually get $300,000, because the insurance companies which actually financed the care negotiate discounts. I’d have to dig up and review the statements to see what Blue Cross actually paid the surgeon and the medical oncologist and the radiation oncologist. Maybe it was 25 years worth of an ordinary year’s worth of medical service charges. Had the treatments been unsuccessful, you’d say retrospectively that most of the medical services you received (by value) were delivered in your last year (or last two years or last three years or however long it would have taken for the metastases to kill you off). They weren’t unsuccessful. You generally don’t have a crystal clear idea beforehand how it’s going to play out.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Doctors like to give people hope and there are some cancers where a few people have miraculous permanent remissions, but generally they have a pretty good idea of which cancers kill you and how long it will take. Cancer treatment for those cancers is aimed at increasing survival by a few months, during which you will be very sick anyway. Nowadays, there are other cancers where they can pretty much cure you or extend your lifespan with good quality of life for a long time and I'm not talking about those, but for the ones that are a death sentence they are just prolonging suffering and playing into people's understandable hope for a miracle cure. And naturally the patients don't care how much this costs because they are not the ones paying.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  190. @Dave Pinsen
    @notsaying

    Thanks. I wish I remembered the name of the late gerontologist.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    I think it may be the late John Cacioppo at Univ. of Chicago

  191. @Art Deco
    @Johann Ricke

    I’d have to agree with that

    Dunno. Smells like a factoid.


    We've been through the cancer-treatment mangle in our household. The sticker price for the whole nine month course of treatments approached $300,000. That's about 50 years worth of mean annual per capita medical expenditure (at it was at that time). Now, the providers didn't actually get $300,000, because the insurance companies which actually financed the care negotiate discounts. I'd have to dig up and review the statements to see what Blue Cross actually paid the surgeon and the medical oncologist and the radiation oncologist. Maybe it was 25 years worth of an ordinary year's worth of medical service charges. Had the treatments been unsuccessful, you'd say retrospectively that most of the medical services you received (by value) were delivered in your last year (or last two years or last three years or however long it would have taken for the metastases to kill you off). They weren't unsuccessful. You generally don't have a crystal clear idea beforehand how it's going to play out.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Doctors like to give people hope and there are some cancers where a few people have miraculous permanent remissions, but generally they have a pretty good idea of which cancers kill you and how long it will take. Cancer treatment for those cancers is aimed at increasing survival by a few months, during which you will be very sick anyway. Nowadays, there are other cancers where they can pretty much cure you or extend your lifespan with good quality of life for a long time and I’m not talking about those, but for the ones that are a death sentence they are just prolonging suffering and playing into people’s understandable hope for a miracle cure. And naturally the patients don’t care how much this costs because they are not the ones paying.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    but generally they have a pretty good idea of which cancers kill you and how long it will take.

    No, they don't. Oncologists know their treatment protocols and have a general idea of how lethal are cancers at a given the site of a given the subtype at a given stage. Physicians are not actuaries and commonly do not frame the discussion of your prognosis correctly. Even if they did, statements of this nature are probabalistic and not precisely predictive of a particular patient's course. They can tell you pretty securely that stage IV cancers can be contained for a time but not cured, and even that's not categorically true in re some sites (IIRC, the main type of thyroid cancer can be treated stage IV). And one thing they cannot tell you reliably is how long you'll last (unless you're moribund).


    but for the ones that are a death sentence they are just prolonging suffering and playing into people’s understandable hope for a miracle cure. And naturally the patients don’t care how much this costs because they are not the ones paying.

    You are consulting a caricature which exists in your head and nowhere else. If you've been witness to cancer treatment at any time in the last four decades, you've had ample opportunity to see surgeons and oncologists be quite blunt about what they can and cannot accomplish. In any case, there's consumer health information all over the place these days.

    There are a half-dozen sites where cancer is usually lethal: esophagus, pancreas, brain, lung, liver, and ovary. There are three other sites (or types) where you have better prospects but are commonly in danger: acute myeloid leukemia, colon and rectum, and stomach. People seldom survive esophageal cancer or pancreatic cancer, but it's common (though not the mode) to survive the others if they're operable and not stage IV when discovered. As for cancer treatments for terminal patients, sometimes you can contain it for a good while and some patients have treatments in attempts to address cancer pain.

  192. @Anonymouse
    Did Steve overlook recent death of Dr.Emanuel? Not religious apparently. An outstanding pater familias.

    About the subject of useless existence in old age. I am an unwilling investigator of that condition being 85. Compared to decades of unfocused existence in 2003 I re-engaged in my earlier intellectual interest and took to writing scholarly papers. Two were published in 2008 and 2011 respectively. I have written 4 more which have been rejected by the many refereed journals I have submitted them to. They seem to me to be genuine contributions to knowledge but I would say that having authored them. The world must be the judge of that.

    Judge for yourself: "The grammatical puzzles of Socrates' Last Words".

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Anonymouse

    The counter on that page recorded 21 hits, 1 each from Norway and Poland.

  193. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Doctors like to give people hope and there are some cancers where a few people have miraculous permanent remissions, but generally they have a pretty good idea of which cancers kill you and how long it will take. Cancer treatment for those cancers is aimed at increasing survival by a few months, during which you will be very sick anyway. Nowadays, there are other cancers where they can pretty much cure you or extend your lifespan with good quality of life for a long time and I'm not talking about those, but for the ones that are a death sentence they are just prolonging suffering and playing into people's understandable hope for a miracle cure. And naturally the patients don't care how much this costs because they are not the ones paying.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    but generally they have a pretty good idea of which cancers kill you and how long it will take.

    No, they don’t. Oncologists know their treatment protocols and have a general idea of how lethal are cancers at a given the site of a given the subtype at a given stage. Physicians are not actuaries and commonly do not frame the discussion of your prognosis correctly. Even if they did, statements of this nature are probabalistic and not precisely predictive of a particular patient’s course. They can tell you pretty securely that stage IV cancers can be contained for a time but not cured, and even that’s not categorically true in re some sites (IIRC, the main type of thyroid cancer can be treated stage IV). And one thing they cannot tell you reliably is how long you’ll last (unless you’re moribund).

    but for the ones that are a death sentence they are just prolonging suffering and playing into people’s understandable hope for a miracle cure. And naturally the patients don’t care how much this costs because they are not the ones paying.

    You are consulting a caricature which exists in your head and nowhere else. If you’ve been witness to cancer treatment at any time in the last four decades, you’ve had ample opportunity to see surgeons and oncologists be quite blunt about what they can and cannot accomplish. In any case, there’s consumer health information all over the place these days.

    There are a half-dozen sites where cancer is usually lethal: esophagus, pancreas, brain, lung, liver, and ovary. There are three other sites (or types) where you have better prospects but are commonly in danger: acute myeloid leukemia, colon and rectum, and stomach. People seldom survive esophageal cancer or pancreatic cancer, but it’s common (though not the mode) to survive the others if they’re operable and not stage IV when discovered. As for cancer treatments for terminal patients, sometimes you can contain it for a good while and some patients have treatments in attempts to address cancer pain.

  194. @Redneck farmer
    @follyofwar

    Head of a local hospice spoke to a group I belonged to. He emphasized telling people what is in your living will. Because multiple times they had a patient who wanted taken off life support, but they didn't do it. A family member they'd never seen before came in screaming they were going to murder mom or dad. Showing them the living will had no effect.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    My mom had COPD and was intubated for it in 2013. Afterwards she said she never wanted to go through that again, and I believe she had a living will done.

    She still got intubated twice more in 2015 before my dad and sisters agreed to let her die.

  195. @dfordoom

    I’m leery of heading down the road where “getting rid of burdens” is a guiding philosophy.

    I’d like to think we can arrange care without ruining lives; and there is value in caring for others.
     
    Agreed. We cared for my elderly mother at home. It was a lot of work and quite a bit of a stress but it was the right thing to do and we don't regret having kept her at home until the end.

    In Australia if you care for someone elderly at home you get quite a lot of support from government agencies. The direct support is from private agencies but it's the government that pays. Personally I think it's a good system and caring for the elderly is one of the marks of a civilised society.

    The amount of shameless selfishness in modern society horrifies me.

    Replies: @Jesse

    Wonderful. And there is precisely *no* chance of getting that level of support in the US, in no small part because the GOP/socons have been stopping it.

    And that doesn’t change the fact that people have a right to live their own lives without straining to keep someone alive at huge cost and with ever decreasing standards of living.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jesse

    Wonderful. And there is precisely *no* chance of getting that level of support in the US, in no small part because the GOP/socons have been stopping it.

    They've been doing nothing of the kind. The efforts of people like Wesley Smith have been in the realm of blocking euthanasia. Others emphasize ending the abortion license. Modes of financing long-term care aren't a contentious issue anywhere at this time.

  196. I read this post completely about the comparison of
    most up-to-date and previous technologies, it’s awesome article.

  197. @Jesse
    @dfordoom

    Wonderful. And there is precisely *no* chance of getting that level of support in the US, in no small part because the GOP/socons have been stopping it.

    And that doesn't change the fact that people have a right to live their own lives without straining to keep someone alive at huge cost and with ever decreasing standards of living.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Wonderful. And there is precisely *no* chance of getting that level of support in the US, in no small part because the GOP/socons have been stopping it.

    They’ve been doing nothing of the kind. The efforts of people like Wesley Smith have been in the realm of blocking euthanasia. Others emphasize ending the abortion license. Modes of financing long-term care aren’t a contentious issue anywhere at this time.

  198. Anonymous[260] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @Lot

    Agreed. I think Steve is overly harsh on this dude. It's easy to make memes about "killing granny", but what about the wishes of the old people themselves? By the time you hit your mid-80s, you've had plenty of time to think about and come to terms with the fact that your life is mostly over. They might not wish to be put down like a pet, but I've found from admittedly personal experience that old people tend to be at peace with their life stage and prepared for nature's inevitable call, when it comes.

    Aside from all the political and economic arguments to be made, this is a personal issue for me: I've had multiple grandparents kept alive against their will while dealing with dementia or being strapped to a machine: they were absolutely miserable and when they were lucid enough to comment on their situation, more than a little bit peeved that people were treating them as not competent to make their own decisions for their own lives, as if they were five year olds who were terrified at the idea of the lights going out. While not necessarily wishing to be euthanized like a pet, they were ready for nature to take its course. They would not object to, say, unhoooking themselves and inevitably dying a few days or a few weeks later, while getting to eat and drink whatever they wanted, rather than buying 10 years as an invalid and being spoon-fed vitamins.

    It was rage-inducing to see their own children treat them like children. I'm not going to tolerate that: if I get to my 80s, I'm going to skydive Bush Senior style, eat red meat, read, get my face slapped when I hit on that very comely senior lady next door, whatever I feel like doing. I'm going to be dead soon, which gives me the liberating consequence of not having to care about the long-term all that much. I'm going to take care of my body and save up enough money over the next half-century so that, with a bit of luck, I'll be able to. And when my body inevitably can't handle it, I'm ready to accept the consequences of my activities. I'm not going to tolerate living like a premature, ventilated baby just to extract a few years. I'm going to die one way or another not too far in the future, so I'll do it on my terms. As long as I'm not violating the rights of anybody else, isn't this the essence of what being an American citizen is about? Making your own choices?

    Of course, by the time I reach that age well over half a century from now, there's no way in hell the current system wouldn't have fiscally collapsed by then, but you get the point.

    Live life as you find worthwhile until you can't live it anymore: and then go out living life. Others are welcome to their own approaches, but that's mine. Pimply healthcare bureaucrats miss out on a few checks, tough break, and if I have kids, I brought 'em into the world, they've got no veto power on how I exit.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Anonymous

    My elderly grandfather (90s) won’t shut up about how his life is ‘shit’ and how he wishes he was dead. Everybody just rolls their eyes at this and tells him to not say such things. He clearly means it though as his mind is still sharp.

    It’s not just the physical pain and disabilities that get to you at that age, but also that all your friends are dead or senile. Everybody who remembers you is gone.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Anonymous

    That sort of dissatisfaction is baseline for some people. They'll talk like that if they're 25, 50, 70, or 90.

  199. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    @Lot


    Me too. One is passing away her last fertile years living with her machine-bound father.
     
    Lot--from your writing you seem like a good guy. Be the man in your family and intervene with her to the maximum reasonable extent.

    I've collected some specific "lessons learned" dealing with my dad's issues and stroke this summer/fall that i've bulleted and am going to write up for my kids. (My dad did some stupid stubborn stuff and i wasn't as proactive as i should have been.) But i'm ending the missive with the overarching point that their fundamental responsibility is not to me or AnotherMom but to their children. That dealing with us, they should do nothing that actually sacrifices from the proper raising of their own children and most especially don't let it keep you from having more kids. Put me on the ice flow if it's what your family needs.

    Never sacrifice the future for the past.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Alden, @Anonymous

    Would you mind sharing your bullet points here? Like a lot of people, I don’t like thinking about it, but I want to do right by my kids and future grandkids.
    I also fear that the survival instinct is so strong that I’ll make imprudent choices when the “time” comes. A handful of my loved ones (89 to 93 years old) opted for things like chemo, a pacemaker, dialysis, and surgery, when they had talked for many years about not wanting those types of interventions at that age. In every case the dr. explained that the diagnosis was terminal, that quality of life improvements were dubious and that intervention increased the likelihood of their last days being spent in a vegetative state, rather than a quick death.
    Of course I loved them and wanted every last moment with them AND seeing the fear of death in their eyes was unbearable. The doctors only half-heartedly offered the options (didn’t sell them at all) and quality of life was not improved, just as doctors had warned. Clearly fear of death can overwhelm any plans or principles you thought you had.
    Each one of them had been adamant about preserving every penny of their assets so that the money could benefit their children and grandchildren; not that it was a lot of money but it was honestly earned and they insisted that they had scrupulously saved it for that purpose. Medicare doesn’t cover long term care, as it seems some commenters are unaware. Another thing that seems to escape most people is that end of life care almost always means changing diapers – something I willingly did but don’t want done for me.
    My understanding is that end-of-life directives are only for decisions that need to be made if I’m incapacitated or in dementia. But I’m looking for guidance on how to stick to my guns when I’m not incapacitated but overwhelmed with fear of imminent death. Currently my only plans are to pray for courage and wisdom. I could use some other ideas.

    • Replies: @notsaying
    @Anonymous

    I think what you are looking for is a "don't let me change my mind later about dying directive" that will be legal and followed.

    I don't think that's something that we as a society should be doing. What people think when they are healthy is not always what they think when they are sick and sometimes that for good reasons. People of sound mind should be able to change their minds and not be tied to past opinions.

    I think you and everybody else has to stick with hoping for courage and wisdom. You could also make sure to ask about the negatives associated with any treatments or procedures you might consider. Adding actual negative outcomes to a discouraging lack of positive outcomes might do the trick when the time comes. Discussing your beliefs with relatives and loved ones ahead of time might also be a good idea.

  200. All of this plays into the old joke…
    Who wants to live to be 100?!?!
    99 year-olds, that’s who.

  201. @Anonymous
    @nebulafox

    My elderly grandfather (90s) won't shut up about how his life is 'shit' and how he wishes he was dead. Everybody just rolls their eyes at this and tells him to not say such things. He clearly means it though as his mind is still sharp.

    It's not just the physical pain and disabilities that get to you at that age, but also that all your friends are dead or senile. Everybody who remembers you is gone.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    That sort of dissatisfaction is baseline for some people. They’ll talk like that if they’re 25, 50, 70, or 90.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  202. @Anonymous
    @AnotherDad

    Would you mind sharing your bullet points here? Like a lot of people, I don’t like thinking about it, but I want to do right by my kids and future grandkids.
    I also fear that the survival instinct is so strong that I’ll make imprudent choices when the “time” comes. A handful of my loved ones (89 to 93 years old) opted for things like chemo, a pacemaker, dialysis, and surgery, when they had talked for many years about not wanting those types of interventions at that age. In every case the dr. explained that the diagnosis was terminal, that quality of life improvements were dubious and that intervention increased the likelihood of their last days being spent in a vegetative state, rather than a quick death.
    Of course I loved them and wanted every last moment with them AND seeing the fear of death in their eyes was unbearable. The doctors only half-heartedly offered the options (didn’t sell them at all) and quality of life was not improved, just as doctors had warned. Clearly fear of death can overwhelm any plans or principles you thought you had.
    Each one of them had been adamant about preserving every penny of their assets so that the money could benefit their children and grandchildren; not that it was a lot of money but it was honestly earned and they insisted that they had scrupulously saved it for that purpose. Medicare doesn’t cover long term care, as it seems some commenters are unaware. Another thing that seems to escape most people is that end of life care almost always means changing diapers - something I willingly did but don’t want done for me.
    My understanding is that end-of-life directives are only for decisions that need to be made if I’m incapacitated or in dementia. But I’m looking for guidance on how to stick to my guns when I’m not incapacitated but overwhelmed with fear of imminent death. Currently my only plans are to pray for courage and wisdom. I could use some other ideas.

    Replies: @notsaying

    I think what you are looking for is a “don’t let me change my mind later about dying directive” that will be legal and followed.

    I don’t think that’s something that we as a society should be doing. What people think when they are healthy is not always what they think when they are sick and sometimes that for good reasons. People of sound mind should be able to change their minds and not be tied to past opinions.

    I think you and everybody else has to stick with hoping for courage and wisdom. You could also make sure to ask about the negatives associated with any treatments or procedures you might consider. Adding actual negative outcomes to a discouraging lack of positive outcomes might do the trick when the time comes. Discussing your beliefs with relatives and loved ones ahead of time might also be a good idea.

  203. anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:

    Also, his dad Benjamin, who is now 92 was a member of Jabotinsky’s rightwing Irgun terrorist
    group that blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem

    just like Irgun ethnically cleansed the Deir Yassin Arab village back in 1948

    I’ve often had to chide this site when open antisemitic carnards are mindlessly repeated like the above quoted material. It’s a shame to see Steve’s otherwise intelligent site repeat this sort of stuff, which is easily refuted from very standard and acceptable sources.

    I now recite some effortlessly verifiable facts:

    The Irgun was not “Jabotinsky”s” (he had died in 1940)

    It was not a “terrorist group” that blew up a “hotel”. The King David Hotel wing that was blown up was a legitimate target of a *guerrilla* operation, being the headquarters of the perfidious British military occupying authority. And a warning was given to avoid casualties. The British haughtily disregarded the warning. For their pains they were kicked out of Palestine. So it’s like saying George Washington “led a terrorist raid on a hotel in Trenton”.

    Deir Yassin was a battle the Arabs l0st, casualties on both sides, followed by fake atrocity stories blah blah blah. After 70 years enough already. No “ethnic cleansing”, sorry Jimmy Carter.

    These are both standard anti-Israel and antisemitic “tropes”, and there’s no reason for a normally honest site like this to promote them. I would guess that Steve doesn’t want to seem blinded by the usual leftwing Jewish prejudices, and therefore tries to be appear “balanced” by not being caught in a “pro-Israel” attitude. In this case, however, he makes the naive mistake of trying to achieve balance between a humane democratic Israel and a really horrible Arab side.

    Unfortunately, his (justifiable) hatred of the Emanuel brothers leads him into a really ignorant understanding of the history of Israel. A very little reading would clear this up.

    And while I’m at it: I’m a big defender of the “alt-right”, as a diverse and honest umbella sheltering all sorts of valuable viewpoints these days. But the downside of diversity and honesty is that the so-called alt-right does indeed attract actual crazies in the form of actual antisemites, supremacists, racists etc., at the far ends of the curve and easily recognized as such.

    It’s just a shame that historical ignorance of things like the King David Hotel, Jabotinsky, Deir Yassin, and other “issues” for the demented left and right appears in an otherwise honorable and literate site.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @anonymous

    Palestine was given to the British as a mandate at the official Versailles Conference after WW1.
    The Zionist and Jewish representatives to that conference wanted that arrangement and agreed to it.

    Britain was the legitimate colonial authority. The Zionist IMMIGRANTS were invaders, not even revolutionaries. Revolutionaries are natives revolting against their government. The Jews were just invaders, many illegal immigrants.

    Here’s the story of just one Palestine Family.

    The family lived in Jerusalem as far back as baptism, marriage , death and property records went, centuries.

    Greek Orthodox religion, not Muslim meaning they were descendants of Christians who lived in Palestine before 650 AD. And before Christianity, Jewish.

    Family were solid comfortable middle class. Father worked for the city of Jerusalem since about 1920. He got the job under the old Turkish government before the British took over. He also inherited a big apartment town house complex. His family lived in one of the apartments, 10 rooms.

    Mothers dowry was rent from 2 farms plus a share of poultry eggs and produce.

    They had 8 children, mostly boys and had a good comfortable upper middle class life.

    Then WW2 ended and the illegal Jewish immigrants and Zionists embarked on a terrorist campaign to remove the legitimate Palestine mandate British administration and steal the real and chattel property of the native Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims.

    One of the sons was killed when Zionist illegal immigrant terrorists set off a bomb at a crowded intersection.

    Then came 1948. Noo Yawk Jews bribed the Latin American ambassadors to the United Nations to vote to create the Jewish nation of Israel. Only the Cuban ambassador refused to accept the Jewish bribe

    The father of the family was immediately fired from the job he’d held for almost 30 years, and the city pension funds stolen by the Jews so no pension of course. The farms were stolen by the Jews. The tenants were driven away by force and terror and of course no more rent and food from the farms.

    It was outright robbery and theft by force, violence and murder by the Jewish immigrant invaders.

    A few months later, armed European Jewish immigrant invaders arrived at the family home in Jerusalem. The family was given exactly one hour to pack up only what they could carry and leave with a threat of death if they remained when the hour was up.

    The youngest child was a 4 year old boy. He had to leave behind his favorite toy, not a rocking horse but a rocking tiger. He suffered a great trauma that day with the bully boy robbing fascist Zionist illegal immigrant invading European Jews pushing punching and bullying his family and stealing all their possessions around.

    Being Greek Orthodox the family found refuge in a pilgrim’s hostel. How would you like it?

    From a 10 room home to a room in a hostel with 7 kids, mostly boys, the youngest 4 years old and the husbands pension, the wife’s rent, all their furniture and household equipment and a family home and rental property they’d owned for centuries stolen by illegal immigrant invading Jews?

    Stolen , robbed by violence and threat of murder if the family resisted

    How would you like it?

    But you are a Jew and therefore chosen by God to steal everything , farms, apartment complexes and even children’s toys and dishes from the this sub human goyim family and the rest of Palestine.

    The Family were granted a refugee visa to the United States and settled in Pasadena Ca.

    The mother learned English went to work in a church nursery school. The children learned English finished school and went to work . the father never adjusted to life in America and went back to Palestine.

    The youngest son went to Pasadena community college. One of his teachers was a Zionist marxist Jew ( weren’t all jews in the 50s) who extolled both communist Russia and the Jewish theft of Palestine in class. This of course infuriated the youngest son. He was very small and dropped out to become an apprentice jockey.


    The family’s last name was Sirhan. The youngest son’s first name was Sirhan.

    That’s the story of just one Palestinian family and what the Jewish robbers did to them. Multiply that family by millions.

    Many of us wonder how we can prevent the Jews doing to us American White goyim what jews did to Russians and Palestinians.

  204. @anonymous
    Also, his dad Benjamin, who is now 92 was a member of Jabotinsky’s rightwing Irgun terrorist
    group that blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem

    just like Irgun ethnically cleansed the Deir Yassin Arab village back in 1948


    I've often had to chide this site when open antisemitic carnards are mindlessly repeated like the above quoted material. It's a shame to see Steve's otherwise intelligent site repeat this sort of stuff, which is easily refuted from very standard and acceptable sources.

    I now recite some effortlessly verifiable facts:

    The Irgun was not "Jabotinsky"s" (he had died in 1940)

    It was not a "terrorist group" that blew up a "hotel". The King David Hotel wing that was blown up was a legitimate target of a *guerrilla* operation, being the headquarters of the perfidious British military occupying authority. And a warning was given to avoid casualties. The British haughtily disregarded the warning. For their pains they were kicked out of Palestine. So it's like saying George Washington "led a terrorist raid on a hotel in Trenton".

    Deir Yassin was a battle the Arabs l0st, casualties on both sides, followed by fake atrocity stories blah blah blah. After 70 years enough already. No "ethnic cleansing", sorry Jimmy Carter.

    These are both standard anti-Israel and antisemitic "tropes", and there's no reason for a normally honest site like this to promote them. I would guess that Steve doesn't want to seem blinded by the usual leftwing Jewish prejudices, and therefore tries to be appear "balanced" by not being caught in a "pro-Israel" attitude. In this case, however, he makes the naive mistake of trying to achieve balance between a humane democratic Israel and a really horrible Arab side.

    Unfortunately, his (justifiable) hatred of the Emanuel brothers leads him into a really ignorant understanding of the history of Israel. A very little reading would clear this up.

    And while I'm at it: I'm a big defender of the "alt-right", as a diverse and honest umbella sheltering all sorts of valuable viewpoints these days. But the downside of diversity and honesty is that the so-called alt-right does indeed attract actual crazies in the form of actual antisemites, supremacists, racists etc., at the far ends of the curve and easily recognized as such.

    It's just a shame that historical ignorance of things like the King David Hotel, Jabotinsky, Deir Yassin, and other "issues" for the demented left and right appears in an otherwise honorable and literate site.

    Replies: @Alden

    Palestine was given to the British as a mandate at the official Versailles Conference after WW1.
    The Zionist and Jewish representatives to that conference wanted that arrangement and agreed to it.

    Britain was the legitimate colonial authority. The Zionist IMMIGRANTS were invaders, not even revolutionaries. Revolutionaries are natives revolting against their government. The Jews were just invaders, many illegal immigrants.

    Here’s the story of just one Palestine Family.

    The family lived in Jerusalem as far back as baptism, marriage , death and property records went, centuries.

    Greek Orthodox religion, not Muslim meaning they were descendants of Christians who lived in Palestine before 650 AD. And before Christianity, Jewish.

    Family were solid comfortable middle class. Father worked for the city of Jerusalem since about 1920. He got the job under the old Turkish government before the British took over. He also inherited a big apartment town house complex. His family lived in one of the apartments, 10 rooms.

    Mothers dowry was rent from 2 farms plus a share of poultry eggs and produce.

    They had 8 children, mostly boys and had a good comfortable upper middle class life.

    Then WW2 ended and the illegal Jewish immigrants and Zionists embarked on a terrorist campaign to remove the legitimate Palestine mandate British administration and steal the real and chattel property of the native Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims.

    One of the sons was killed when Zionist illegal immigrant terrorists set off a bomb at a crowded intersection.

    Then came 1948. Noo Yawk Jews bribed the Latin American ambassadors to the United Nations to vote to create the Jewish nation of Israel. Only the Cuban ambassador refused to accept the Jewish bribe

    The father of the family was immediately fired from the job he’d held for almost 30 years, and the city pension funds stolen by the Jews so no pension of course. The farms were stolen by the Jews. The tenants were driven away by force and terror and of course no more rent and food from the farms.

    It was outright robbery and theft by force, violence and murder by the Jewish immigrant invaders.

    A few months later, armed European Jewish immigrant invaders arrived at the family home in Jerusalem. The family was given exactly one hour to pack up only what they could carry and leave with a threat of death if they remained when the hour was up.

    The youngest child was a 4 year old boy. He had to leave behind his favorite toy, not a rocking horse but a rocking tiger. He suffered a great trauma that day with the bully boy robbing fascist Zionist illegal immigrant invading European Jews pushing punching and bullying his family and stealing all their possessions around.

    Being Greek Orthodox the family found refuge in a pilgrim’s hostel. How would you like it?

    From a 10 room home to a room in a hostel with 7 kids, mostly boys, the youngest 4 years old and the husbands pension, the wife’s rent, all their furniture and household equipment and a family home and rental property they’d owned for centuries stolen by illegal immigrant invading Jews?

    Stolen , robbed by violence and threat of murder if the family resisted

    How would you like it?

    But you are a Jew and therefore chosen by God to steal everything , farms, apartment complexes and even children’s toys and dishes from the this sub human goyim family and the rest of Palestine.

    The Family were granted a refugee visa to the United States and settled in Pasadena Ca.

    The mother learned English went to work in a church nursery school. The children learned English finished school and went to work . the father never adjusted to life in America and went back to Palestine.

    The youngest son went to Pasadena community college. One of his teachers was a Zionist marxist Jew ( weren’t all jews in the 50s) who extolled both communist Russia and the Jewish theft of Palestine in class. This of course infuriated the youngest son. He was very small and dropped out to become an apprentice jockey.

    The family’s last name was Sirhan. The youngest son’s first name was Sirhan.

    That’s the story of just one Palestinian family and what the Jewish robbers did to them. Multiply that family by millions.

    Many of us wonder how we can prevent the Jews doing to us American White goyim what jews did to Russians and Palestinians.

    • Agree: JMcG
  205. These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. …

    Right, because living long enough for your grandchildren to get to know you is not meaningful.

  206. @Art Deco
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    I'm looking forward to your son putting you out on an ice floe. You've earned it.

    That aside, you don't have $20 tn in debt because you have National Public Radio or publicly-provided long-term care. You have $20 tn in debt because politicians prefer to finance a part of public expenditure through borrowing than through taxation. Prior to 1960, they weren't inclined to do that except during general mobilizations, when you had large spikes in public expenditure that came and went in a discrete run of years. We have lower quality public officials than we used to, at least at the federal level.

    If you'd quit snarling and sneering for a moment and actually digested what people said to you, it might occur to you that stating the dimensions of a phenomenon is not an argument for that phenomenon, much less an argument that the phenomenon should be financed by the central government.

    I personally am content to have long-term care (which isn't and never has been a 'rounding error') financed and administered by provincial authorities, which is how it was done prior to 1965 (bar those in veteran's hospitals). You used to have state asylums, sanitoriums, community hospitals, and poor houses; now you have Medicaid financing of a variety of institutions with some direct provision here and there. The society of the time wasn't so addled by bad attitudes that it thought to kill off the infirm as 'net consumers'.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Lot said end of life care is $500K. You said no $150K. He said who pays that–it would take 10 net tax-producing families. You said why that’s just a single digit percentage of my large aggregated statistic I pulled from my Fuddy-Dud index card file. Now you’re on about distributism, not that there’s anything wrong with that but it’s missing the point: end of life care is COSTLY because demand is inelastic and other people pay it.

    I agree distributism would solve that problem because then five or fewer families have to come up with that amount, so it won’t be paid. Grandpa will be given a bed and a morphine pump.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    I said nothing about 'distributism'.

    It's costly because nursing homes are staffed 24/7.

  207. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    Lot said end of life care is $500K. You said no $150K. He said who pays that--it would take 10 net tax-producing families. You said why that's just a single digit percentage of my large aggregated statistic I pulled from my Fuddy-Dud index card file. Now you're on about distributism, not that there's anything wrong with that but it's missing the point: end of life care is COSTLY because demand is inelastic and other people pay it.

    I agree distributism would solve that problem because then five or fewer families have to come up with that amount, so it won't be paid. Grandpa will be given a bed and a morphine pump.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I said nothing about ‘distributism’.

    It’s costly because nursing homes are staffed 24/7.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS