Suicide Recommended For Elderly

Baroness Mary Warnock, who is described as "one of Britain's leading medical ethics experts," recommended that the elderly kill themselves to avoid becoming a financial burden on their families.

"Anger Over Euthanasia Comments" 12 December 2004

That's how the welfare state works.

It confiscates whatever provisions people might make for their old age.

Then it dissipates the proceeds in vote-buying projects.

When it becomes obvious that the public pension system has promised more than it can deliver, they recommend the accelerated death of the elderly.
should be done like in the film 'Logans Run', except the age that you 'pop off' should be set by the moment that you buy a big powerful car but only drive it at 30mph at all times.
Responding to her comments, an Age Concern spokeswoman said: "These are outrageous remarks. The ageing society shouldn't be seen as a burden.
what the spokeswoman may have meant was "we need the aging community, so we can claim to be a charity and charge outrageous rates for our services to the elderly" :twisted:
I'm 71. I had already made up my mind to do the Oates' walk when the time was right for me so she is not coming out with something totally from left field.
Initially I thought it was difficult to understand why anyone would consider ending their life in order to spare their relatives the cost of looking after them. Then I remembered some of the elderly people I have seen as patients, who have been abused by their families on the basis of them being percieved to be a burden, and I understood why some may not want to go on living. Then there's the people who feel they they no longer have a satisfactory quality of life, pushed around by social workers and treated like children by 'carers' whilst the government starves them and uses them as pawns.

I'm not sure the Baroness doesn't have a point.
I've always said, so long as the marbles are there, keep on trucking, even if its writing cheques the body can't cash. However, once I become a drooling idiot (even more than I am now!), 9mm lead aspirin please.

Frighteningly, I agree with Filbert again. Logans run, time to die when I start acting like Mrs Brady old lady.
The Germans believed in euthanasia too. It started with the mentally handicapped and ended with the jews/gypsies and other groups that were felt to be inferior. In Holland they are euthanizing newborn babes that are felt to have "no future" because of some defect or other.
tomahawk6 said:
The Germans believed in euthanasia too.
and so do my residents! in answer to that, I was asked recently how many paracetamols could do the job ...... wasnt a joke!!!
Its shameful when their children make them buy these flats for extortionate amounts, and expect them to be happy ever after. All the offspring are after is the last will and testament stuff in their bank accounts! All too often here! Hasnt stopped me saying so in this job..... so far!!!!
Viro I can relate to your post. I see this sort of stuff every day, from carers and un-caring relatives to social workers that do a wonderful job but at the end of the day, to them, its just a job. I would never treat my family so. End of.
I'm going to spend every penny I've got, having a great time; make sure I haven't left any debts to friends; make sure my dogs and my guns go to good homes and then I'll take a few bottles of Laphroaig on a walk in the hills and watch the sun set...
Even if I have to crawl there!

But knowing my luck it'll probaby p*ss down! :lol: :lol: :lol:
problem with euthansia is once you start when do you stop ?
All these nurses start out trying to ease suffering and then they end up
knocking off a colleuge who says this hangover is killing me :lol:
some times we are keeping people alive for no point but killing people just becase there in convient is a bit harsh
Appaling concept :evil:
I spend my day as a CPN for the elderly. Time and time again I see the"children" try to safeguard their parents. Often elderly themselves. If you are in your nineties, your "kids" are in their seventies!!
The parents, by the time they reach our service, have an advanced dementia. The carers are still trying to protect them.
The people we are talking about are the those that lived throughout WW1 and WW2. Probably the most robust generations that have ever lived in UK.
Logans Run should not be an option!. Gratitude would be more appropriate.
Rant over.


Kit Reviewer
Don't be sorry Black Adder, you hit the nail on the head.

But the present junta has no gratitude but for themselves......

As Regards the next generation of doctors, nurses and social workers. I do not envy them!!. With the present generation of individuals expecting money every time they do not look where they are going and end up on their a**se,it appears that only a legal qualification or a sudden, sharp, change in occupation will preserve their self esteeem, qualifications and motivation.
Tinsel is now considered dangerous. Feck me, depleted uranium must be safe.

Sod it!! Thought I had stopped ranting!!!!!!!!
I am 56 and basically in good health.
There should be dignty in death and a time will come when my body/brain starts the process of failing me.
I will do what I think is correct when that time comes.
It's MY life and I'll do what I want.
The 'Logans Run' principal should be law, not on the age front though but on an IQ basis. I know quite a few elderly (over 85) who are more deserving of the vote than many 'tricked up Clio driving breeding machines' from certain council estates. Why is it that these types are actually allowed to be a part of our future history?? Or should we just start a civil war and wipe out the cause and not the effect?
Funniest thing i ever saw was a room full of elderly people watching
logans run :lol: or maybe i'm just sick .
The Lord Flasheart said:
The 'Logans Run' principal should be law, not on the age front though but on an IQ basis. I know quite a few elderly (over 85) who are more deserving of the vote than many 'tricked up Clio driving breeding machines' from certain council estates. Why is it that these types are actually allowed to be a part of our future history?? Or should we just start a civil war and wipe out the cause and not the effect?
Flash, this leads me to veer slightly off-thread but the concept of voter qualification is something that has bugged me for a long time.
Presently we will be asked to cast our votes, yet again. Most of us on this forum would like to see the end of Bliar and his cronies and most of us have 'earned' our vote the hard way... But what does that mean when the chavs, the 'tricked up Clio driving breeding machines', are just given a vote, gratis, having done nothing for it, save existing and making others' lives a misery.
The vote is a valuable thing, yet most people regard it as an imposition and give very little thought to the process; witness the turnout figures in most elections.
I know that, in former times, the franchise was limited by qualifications such as property and social standing and people fought hard to gain universal sufferage.
Sadly, it seems, that all such struggles were in vain because what is now freely given, has little or no value to the vast majority.
Of those who do vote, it is often the case that they vote along traditional party lines lines, because that is what they have always done and they give little thought to the matter; the vote has always been free, they did nothing to earn it and so they cast it as casually as they would discard a sweet wrapper.
Suppose, for a moment, that in order to vote, applicants for the franchise were required to meet some qualification, to actually EARN the right to vote? Suppose that one had to perform some public service, for a specified amount of time or of some significant quality; military, social or a donation of skills, assessed according to the abilities of the applicant.
I can see that there are a lot of possible objections to this, simply because some folk who feel strongly enough to want to vote might find it difficult to meet some arbitrary criteria. Fine, so there should be some flexibility built in to accomodate such people, because if they feel that strongly then they will value their vote and use it well; those who can't be ARRSED (chav-scum etc) simply won't bother and so they won't have a say in how things are run.
The seed of this rant is a novel which is a long time favourite of mine, 'Starship Troopers' by Robert Heinlein. It not only examines the reasons why we, as soldiers, bear arms but describes a system of social responsibility which caused the so-called 'liberal' left to hop up and down on the spot and vilify the novel as a picture of a militeristic fascist state. The cr*ppy film, of the same name, merely ran this theme deeper into the ground, along with some rather silly special effects.
The question we all have to ask ourselves, is this; 'What is my vote worth to me, having served and paid my way, when the vote of the f*ckwit chav-scum next door, who has done nothing for society, has the same weight?'
Any answers?
Now I think I'll have another wee dram to calm myself down. :wink:
Dementia is a gradual process. I think we all say "when we get to the point when we go "ga ga", knock me on the head". The problem is that as life proceeds the family circumstances continually change. Your mental state is not in line with this and your point of arrival at dementia (whether past or present (I can explain if asked)) does not co-incide with the family

NL says that they are merely trying to legislate what is already happening. Their Live Wills issues apperently let people pre-determine what medical staff can (or should not do) to them. Their view seems to be that while sane, someone can pre-determine the medical action to be be carried out upon them if they are terminally ill and in the future will not be able to communicate their wishes in a sane and rationlised basis. This therefore could remove the ability (if the subject wishes) of the immediate family members to influence the outcome of the individuals life. What do you think?

This is communicated via the media by NL spokespersons and I must admit I am very concerned that this is yet another move towards the whole "state" being the important factor rather than the individual or the individuals family.


Similar threads

Latest Threads