False dichotomy. There's a pretty big difference between dying after having a stroke that leaves you permanently disabled in your 70s vs. mandatory execution of healthy 40-year-olds.

There's a huge gradient between being a vegetable and virtually dead and suffering a minor injury that leaves you permanently crippled but in a way that isn't a big deal.

Where along that spectrum will you draw the line? Is that even possible to describe without being needlessly cruel, like someone who lost the use of both hands due to a stroke is killed but someone who lost the use of one hand and one leg gets to live?

These sorts of decisions should be left in the hands of those who are most impacted by it: The person in question. I'm a supporter of more dignified end-of-life options, of people being able to opt-out of life-saving treatment if they think it's not worth the fuss or the outcome is undesirable.

There's still a huge difference between someone electing to die with dignity because their cancer treatment has a 10% chance of delaying the onset by a few years, but a 100% chance of making their life a living hell for the duration, and someone who's told they're too ill to live and has their life abruptly terminated.

And you're trusting someone else to make that decision.

We should enable a culture where people are free to make that decision for themselves. California and several other US states allow for this - not sure about internationally.

I wouldn't want to live on life support. I'd rather my wife/kids get a nice (well managed) trust fund for the remaining savings and just go in peace early.

As I recall, the age of execution in the film was thirty, in the original novel it was 21.

Oh, didn't see your reply. Nice to know about the novel, need to check that out.

In Logan's Run the mandatory execution was at the age of thirty not forty ;)