Euthanasia of the Severely Mentally Retarded

And your only solution is to kill them? Have you thought about changing fund priority?

They aren't related because government funding is decided completely by an outside force. Is it reasonable to see a difference in funding and ask for the other to be killed?

The mentally disabled aren't the ones distributing money poorly.

No, but that's hardly the reason to commit homicide.

 

You make very good points, and for the most part I agree with you. I would rather execute murderers and rapists than the innocent intellectually disabled.

If some hypothetical society were two choose between the two options, they would hands down vote to get rid of the felons, but in one unhindered by ethics they would probably take both courses of action.

 

If one were unhindered by ethics, more than those two would be slaughtered.

 

Can you think of a cost effective way to house these individuals and meet their needs while cutting costs? The facilities they were in before 1975 were deemed inadequate which is why the public schools are now legally forced to provide for these children.

The intellectually disabled aren't to blame, but what else could we do with them? They're extremely high maintenance, you can't just throw them in a cell for a majority of the day like a murderer.

The quickest, easiest, and most cost effective way to solve the problem would be euthanasia.

 

Well considering my mom works with mentally retarded people and they have minds of children, I couldn't see them being killed. I mean if they committed a crime, they should be prosecuted also.

 

Obviously having a view such as yours is going to rustle the emotional jimmies of the sythe community.

I have no problem with euthanizing those who are unfit to live.

The problem with your argument is that it relies entirely on the economic aspect of life. There is an extreme undertone that supports the progression of humanity in your argument so I give you props for that.

Aborting a fetus deemed to live a life as you described seems reasonable. The actual extermination or murder of the living SMR(severely mentally retarded) is not a responsible, or moral way to handle this situation.

Choosing to birth a child with these qualities is a fucked up thing to do imo.

 

I agree. Suggesting the euthanasia of those that have been living for years now is extreme, which is why I kept stating it'd never happen. But with evolving technology there may come a time in the near future when a broader spectrum of diseases can be seen pre-birth and they will all be aborted.. in which case it'd be fair to assume their population would be completely eliminated within roughly 80 years.

Of course this is a free country and the religious zealots would insist on keeping their intellectually dysfunctional child, so maybe even that is a long shot.

 

Who are we to decide who get's to live and who dies. They were brought into this world and deserve to live in my opinion. We shouldn't be able to choose who lives and dies they are not better nor worse then us.

 

If humankind didn't intervene and take care of the intellectually disabled, they would die off.

If you want to be inhumane, we don't have to even euthanize them, we can just leave them to fend for themselves.

We step up to the plate and take responsibility for these children. WE, collectively, as a society, and I'd like you to note that many of us who DON'T have special children don't want to be paying for that with our tax dollars but we don't have a choice. It is the PARENTS responsibility to support these children, not ours. The parents have the same tax rate as us, yet their children get a larger share of the educational budget. Does that sound fair to you? No.

I've been talking with people the past few days about the topic as a fun debate, and once I show them the statistics and budget information on how much we spend on Special Education alone they go, "That is WAY too much" whether they believe they should be euthanized or not.

I don't think we saw the intellectually disabled wandering about in Sparta, Rome, China, or any other society prior to "modern" culture. We feel we have some sick moral obligation to keep these individuals alive, and that therefore it's justified to allocate a massive amount of funding and resources to that endeavor.

If you want to tell me that you 100% believe that you are equal to someone who can't figure out how to power on a computer, go right ahead. You might subscribe to that theory, but I certainly don't.

If you don't think we should get to choose who lives and dies everyday, I really hope you're anti-military, anti-animal euthanasia, etc.

 

Survival of the fittest takes care of this. I don't want to put it in a bad context, and I feel bad for using this example but in reality extreme poverty areas are like this. In places in Africa where people cannot get enough food and water to live daily, they die. They are unable to adapt and change their ways due to one means or another, and through survival of the fittest they die. Its not nice but its reality. We don't need to choose the ones who die. If these people are able to find other people who are willing to give up their own time and support to help these people survive, then so be it, those people have chosen to help them.

Can I know your source for this pie chart? Anyone can make a pie chart and put it on the internet. It only become valid of it is a source such as the ONS (Office of National Statistics). That's the UK's equivalent anyways.

In 2011-2012 the UK spent £51.54bn on Education funding agency (schools), 46.24bn on academy schools, and a further 56.27bn on the Education sector. I would be incredibly surprised if America spends a third of what the UK spends on Education, taking into consideration size, population and government spending.

This is slightly on a tangent, however (I could be wrong), I believe that the pie chart and those statistics are not accurate.



My statistics can be downloaded from here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8dY-3hzSftCMng5TFBkaFdSb3M/edit

This was originally published by the ONS.


EDIT: Your source is also outdated by 12 years. A lot can change in twelve years. Just look at computers and phones for example. Always been taught never to use statistics that are over 5 years old, as otherwise they can end up arguing against your own standpoint, and are invalid. I haven't stated my standpoint on the question at the moment, I'm still thinking about what I actually believe. Will get back to you soon.

 

The source was already linked, as you saw.

There were several reports done by a credible third party organization which was given the task of crunching these numbers by the Department of Education. The statistics ARE accurate, and the particular study that graph was from was updated in 2004 with another one complied a few years later.

I'd like to note that these were figures from the 1999-2000 school year which you're comparing to the 2011-2012 school year in Britain. With just inflation alone, it would equate to roughly $70 billion now. The studies alone showed that the cost for special education children was increasing each year.

Frankly, in terms of this discussion, it doesn't matter that the source is up to a decade old because it's very clear that the costs have increased. At this point we honestly don't need precise figures to safely say that the special education budget is too large.

 

My cousin has a syndrome and shes young so we dont know how she will turn out when shes older but for the most part i have to say i completely agree with you, you think of things the way i do and i see all the points that you have stated have been valid and to be honest mage will never agree since his brother is retarded.

 

Couldnt be bothered to read all the other posts, but I think it would be best for some people. It makes their life not even worth living and it would just be better for them, as well as the family trying to support them.

 

Would you consider a severely mentally retarded person conscious? Are they aware that they themselves are conscious along with the other humans that sou round them?

The answer to that would help me determine this.

 

I seriously doubt that they're self-aware.

 

I used it as an example. You can't just assume it would change in the 10 years, you need the data from the past couple of years to make it a valid point NOW. Inflation hasn't affected Britain at all, as the monetary policies have all been aiming to keep it low, which is one of the reasons Unemployment hasn't been lowered, as it isn't a key macro economic policy.

So no, it isn't 'very clear'. Get data that is within 2 years old and I will back down quietly and give you your spot on the podium, but you can't just follow trends and make assumptions. I agree the special education budget is too high, however I don't think that your figures on it are accurate enough and this may have been the case 10 years ago, and only recent data will give your argument the full weighing it needs.

 

I'll be frank with you. I don't care, and it doesn't matter that the statistics may be 10 years old.

I don't care if the Special Education budget is 10 billion dollars, and I don't care if it's 100 billion dollars. It doesn't matter to me. IT'S TOO MUCH. They are a drain on taxpayer dollars and a waste of space.

Follow trends? What a 2% growth since 1975 isn't valid enough for you? And first it was 5 years, now it's 2? What's with the arbitrary numbers?

Here, I'll give you a straight up fact: The severely intellectually disabled do not contribute to society.

 

I don't know still because what would you deem severely. What about the people who plead insanity when they are really not retarded.

 

I completely agree. Since society has made laws that basically counteract natural selection by keeping stupid people in check, we should do it manually via euthanasia.

 

My mom work(ed) with mentally retarded adults, and some are 50 and have a brain of a 8 year old child. It's sad but I don't think they should be killed. I feel like we'd be basically committing genocide. Why not kill all the people in comas.