Euthanasia of the Severely Mentally Retarded

I agree with you 100%. If you are to classify the executed into distribution, then you should be onto the mentally retarded.

 

Euthanasia as an entirety is wrong.

 

I really don't see why we do not, keeping them alive is just a drain so society and the family's cursed with a lame child.

I get the whole right to life thing, but, really, why? Put your self in the wheelchair of a severe down syndrome patient. Would 'YOU' want to live like that? No? So, is spending 1000's monthly keeping them alive really the 'humaine' thing to do?

OF course not!

It's crueler to keep them alive in their state then it is to let them go peacefully.

 

This is a classic example of a slippery slope argument. Where do you draw the line? Person X cannot breathe without being sustained by a machine, Person Y will never be able to speak or go to the bathroom by himself, Person Z is confined to his bed but is otherwise normal.

One cannot simply decide Persons X and Y die and Person Z lives. If it were a life or death situation where someone with little quality of life has to be sacrificed for the greater good, OP's argument holds water.

However, the amount of money allocated to support these handicapped people is insignificant compared to the much larger financial problems tied to bank, debt, etc. You couldn't look the families in the eye and say "Sorry, it's too expensive" as you pull the plug or shoot a needle when a CEO of a failed, bailed-out bank gets a 50 million dollar bonus for driving another portion of the country into bankruptcy

 

The only way I could humanely agree with this was if there was the technology to detect severe disability at the same stage of pregnancy that an abortion could be performed. After a period, morals and ethics will always rule no. You're thinking like a robot.

 

Euthanasia is wrong unless you write it in your will that if your ever on the plug etc. However you can not just decide for someone that has never decided that for themselves. These are human beings not $.

 

I dont agree with this because its not right but that part about four teachers constantly following them around school should change. I heard about some guy who had a mentally retarded person in their class who would sit and laugh through it and scribble on the test paper and the teacher would just give them an A every time. There should definitley be a better place for them all to go rather than a small group of in every school taking up more teachers.

Whether they should be killed or not is an extremely complex situation and it needs to be judged over in each individual case not just say "If they have this mental illness kill them at birth".

 

I fully support the position that severely mentally impaired people should be allowed to be humanely euthanized. Arguments opposed often use religious morality or simple utopian statements such as "they are happy" or "they don't want to die". To this I say, I know. It is an integral part of human nature to fight for your life. if you are drowning, you will struggle to breathe; this is the way of things. It makes no difference. Profound mental handicaps prohibit not only the individual afflicted from ever supporting themselves or having truly meaningful relationships that others enjoy (such as wife, mother, husband, father) but also they often prohibit those responsible for their care from ever contributing substantially to their own support or from being a part of their communities. An alarming 85% of parents with autistic children end up divorcing due to the stress and turmoil it causes in the home. Very often these single parent households have no choice but to rely on their governments for housing and total financial support. Even many two parent households have to do this. Studies show that at least one third of welfare recipient families are caring for significantly disabled children and that the care of disabled family members inhibits the financial stability of the family and ensures their continued dependence on public assistance programs (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1000MMR.pdf). And are they really just a bunch of happy smiling kids? are they all enriching the lives of thier parents and families by their mere presence? Autistic youth are 28 times more likely to commit suicide than those generally considered "normal". One recent study in Denmark concluded that the mortality risk of individuals with pervasive developmental delays (retardation, autism and such) is more than twice that of the general population (http://aut.sagepub.com/content/3/1/7.short). Sometimes the cause of death was a health condition they were born with apart from their retardation, but more often their death was at the hands of relatives and other caregivers pushed to their breaking points. So I would say...NO to the aforementioned utopian arguments.
My point in stating any of these facts is that the care of these individuals, while considered by our society to be a non-optional moral obligation, is in fact unfair and even detrimental. It's not possible to know if each person with profound retardation would prefer to continue living that way or not, but I am considering other moral implications as well. Does an individual requiring extreme levels of care have the absolute right to receive such care simply because it is required for his continued existence? I can see that it might be a desire because it is in the nature of nearly all living beings to fight for thier breath; but why is this care a right? what rights does his family or community have? his mere existence more often than not dooms his family to poverty and severe mental anguish. That tends to lead to pharmaceutical use to cope with depression, and even alcohol and drug abuse.

Before anyone thinks I am in any way cold or misinformed on the subject, I will let you know that I have a brother with severe cognitive limitations. he is 25 years of age but has mentally barely breached 2. He has cost taxpayers millions of dollars over his lifetime and will continue to soak up tax dollars until he dies. he is non-vocal, somewhat echolalic and cannot perform any self care whatsoever. he has no idea what age he is or when his birthday is, nor does he understand dates, holidays...really anything at all. The best we can hope to do is keep him fed, clean, and out of trouble. For the rest of his life, this is as good as it gets. He has lived in residential settings away from home for several years now and though it has been mostly safe to the best of our knowledge, We are unable to determine this for sure as he can tell us nothing when he visits. we have at times found bruises and scratches though. He has had to defend himself from staff and fellow clients alike, and once he was forced by staff to fight other clients , gladiator style, as a spectator sport for staff amusement. obviously this staff was fired. The suggestion of warehousing the disabled is a way to avoid the unpleasant truth that (brace yourselves) we are better not having to care for them at all. And the truth is that institutions are a grisly and dangerous existence for vulnerable people such as these. The physical and sexual abuses often endured in institutions is abominable. Euthanasia is a far more humane plan than institutionalizing.

 

I feel one of the biggest issues is that the person themselves can't really decide for themselves. For it to really be justified that person would have to knowingly be willing to commit suicide etc and seeing as they are mentally handicapped they can't.

 

It's inhumane to kill off a human being based on the fact that they have no potential to be productive members of society.

I, however, would do some variation of just that.

The family's of severely mentally handicapped persons should, if anything, be briefed on the process of euthanasia, as well as the rights after death that the person in question has (which are given to the family), such as donating organs, etc. It should then be the choice of the family. To give someone a better(more productive) meaning in life is, for a lot of people, a better incentive to act on something that they wouldn't have acted on if not for the true clarity of the situation.

For those who chose to keep their severely mentally handicapped member alive, I don't believe that the state should be responsible for funding their pointless (having no point) drudge through society.

It really is a waste of money, though, to keep severely mentally handicapped humans in school where at the end of the many years that they're there, they haven't learned a thing.

I also think that convicts of malicious crimes should also be euthanized. Js.

Also, comparing severely mentally handicapped people to people who otherwise are in states to not be productive in society makes little sense: A severely mentally handicapped person has no chance of getting better (until science breaches those barriers), however a morbidly obese person can lose weight, etc, etc.

 

If you're complaining about government wasting money over mentally handicapped people you need to wake up. The government is one of the most inefficient entities. They waste money on everything. Also, what gives us the right to say youre worth keeping alive, but some other person is not?

 

Redundant and obvious. This matter, the matter by which the thread pertains to, is one of those things.

In terms of morality, nothing. In terms of

the entire spectrum of potential that I have, that of which a person who is incapable of even lesser levels of competence does not.

That is, however, unless

this is an option.

 

off topic-Love your stargate avatar,<3 anubis
I support this,I dont want to come off as an asshole,But they dont really benifet society. Low functioning retards cant do anything. It'd suck for the caretaker to have to bear with them. If i was having a baby and i found out it'd be born with a serious mental defect,Id abort it. I mean high-functioning retards can benifet society,They are capable of work and alot can do well off as adults. I had a friend i knew for months and i had no idea he was considered "retarded". But as for the low functioning ones,The ones that cant really even use the restroom properly really dont need to exist.
Just my opinion though.

 

Anyone can judge you for what you believe/say, but only you can appraise yourself truly. I support the idea of euthanasia of the severely retarded on the sole reasons that the earth is getting too populated, the competitive state of the people is ever increasing, they have no key function in society & cannot contribute to the welfare of others [instead it is the opposite way around], the debt-ridden government has to further take care of them because nobody else would & finally they bring about topics like this, where people discuss euthanizing them & its pros & cons. More harm than good, but unlike many other similar products, the severely retarded cannot be based upon perspective & have no way to change themselves for the better unless a miracle happens [unlikely ever] to prove me wrong.

 

First of all, I have not seen the rest of the replies onto this thread yet.


I do have to agree with the OP. Why are we wasting our money on mentally retarded people who cannot even contribute to the society? The reason being Empathy. People feel bad for them, that they were borned this way. To the families, it's like throwing your own flesh & blood because their children were born mentally retarded.

I doubt we can change anything about this, about wasting money on the mentally retarded. If somehow, the Government allows for mentally retarded to be euthanize, I believe this will spark public outrage. People would be protesting for human rights.

 

I agree that the original poster is probably correct but here is where the problems would and do lie. First off there would have to be a very fine line for example children with Down Syndrome aren't completely mentally handicapped and I believe they have a right to live. So the line would have to be drawn. Also they still have parents and it is and should be the right of the parents to decide whether or not they would like to continue to keep their children. Now do I think it is necessary for us to put them into schools? No. I don't think so but should we take away other peoples family members ether? No we shouldn't do that. Anyone has the right to decide what to do with their child and we don't honestly have any right to question what they do with them.

 

The more mentaly retarted people the more jobs wich is good for the economy especially for usa
Hitler tactics nr 45 for a good economy kill all people who aint able to get money for the goverment

 

Agreed , even if i ended up brain dead due to a severe accident or some disorder i'd personally rather be dead then someone having to wipe my ass for me.

 

I support Euthanasia because it ends the suffering of the mentally disabled and those taking care of the person. It also promotes overall health for the society.

It allows resources to be put to more constructive things.

 

what you don't know is most mentally retarded people such as people that act strange, can't talk, moan, etc are actually thinking thoughts like me and you - but can't communicate it to us because something is stopping them or i don't know really, but there have been many breakthroughs specifically with computers where the mentally retarded, someone who you thought could never speak and didn't for 10 + years, use a computer and type an educated persons response and logic