As a younger person having watched/lived through at least 3 members of my immediate family die with dementia/mental health problems, I lose more sleep at night over the prospect that euthanasia won't be legal and managed properly where I live by the time I get old.

I'm actually hoping that our shared generational suffering with respect to our baby boomer parents makes us get our generations' butt in gear and do something about it.

Got to use all that unnecessary suffering for something positive :/

My buddy and I have a pact: if one of us needs a piece in a hospital, the other will furnish one.

Yes, seriously.

How would this be done, exactly? It would be horrible to find out that fulfilling the wishes of your friend (or vice versa) results in murder charges.

My grandfather had a stroke two weeks ago. It affected 3/4 of the left side of his brain, which means he couldn't speak (except for 'shit', 'god damn', 'yes/no') and couldn't swallow. Or walk, obviously.

He told us repeatedly while he was alive that he didn't want to be put in a home. He wanted to cut his grass, feed the birds and be left alone - and after the stroke there was no way he could do that. We respected his wishes and opted out of the feeding tube, but he essentially starved to death. No fluids, no food for two weeks. Those two weeks burnt up all of his savings.

Everyone in my family agrees that it'd be better if assisted suicide were legal. No starving, no pain - just a nitrogen mask, and you don't even know you're dying.

Frankly, I find your 'older-and-wiser' posturing disgusting. Obviously it should be their choice, but today it's not their choice - the government says they must suffer and starve to death.

edit for less meanness

Basicplus appears to be responding to imgabe's second paragraph, which seems to suggest that euthanasia should be an obligation, not a choice.

The legalization of euthanasia raises some moral questions with respect to coercion and self-serving misrepresentation, but in cases like your grandfather's, where a decision has been made, those concerns no longer apply.

Perhaps I was vague, but I'm not suggesting we start murdering the elderly if that's what you mean. Like everything else in the world, we have a limited amount of resources to spend on healthcare. A disproportionate amount of them are spent extending the lives of people who have already lived a long full life.

If we have to choose between helping someone who's already lived 70 years live another miserable 10 years in a hospital bed hooked up to a machine vs. helping a 30-40 year old person overcome cancer so they can go back to supporting their family, we should do the latter first. Just thinking off the top of my head maybe we could accomplish this with pricing, by making end of life care more expensive and using the cost to subsidize care for younger people.

It's been legal in California for a year [1], though I'm not sure if your grandfather would have qualified (would his condition be considered terminally ill?).

Regardless, this is the way we should allow it. Eating up the savings of the dying seems particularly ghoulish when the wishes of the afflicted and their family are not respected.

[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/10/46997075...