In 1967 Logan's run a science fiction novel by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson was published. In a future world the young and healthy live wonderful lives. A palm implant crystal changes colour every seven years until at twenty one it turns black. Their life is over and they willingly report for a pleasant euthanasia. Some don't. Those who run are hunted down and killed. Those who escape reach sanctuary. In 1976 it was made into a film of the same name. Twenty one was deemed too scary and nine extra years of life were granted. In the film, the crystal turns black at thirty.
I have often wondered if the authors got their idea from the NAZI Aktion T4 Program. Hitler initiated the programme to provide Euthanasia (A good death) for the incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and elderly people. Their fate was to be judged according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, those judged suitable were granted a 'mercy killing'. Once the medical professionals involved had become inured to behaving contrary to normal ethical considerations, the programme expanded. A person could be judged unworthy of living if they were economically unproductive, classified as 'burdensome lives' and 'useless eaters'. T4 preceded the Holocaust. It was a training for that and the victims were Germans.
The NAZIs were good at euphemisms. Sadly so are the so-called progressives who now dominate our world. Pregnant persons and chest feeders are ways of obscuring truth. The fact that the truth is obvious to all but the fanatical is of no interest to the supporters of the new Dystopia. Late term termination (infanticide?) is now legal. Assisted dying (Suicide) will soon be too. Those who have found life intolerable have for centuries found ways to end it. In our 'Progressive' world however, a free choice is not enough. It must be a process involving the medically qualified and social workers.
A University of Chicago Medical Centre study in 1996 is pertinent. 'Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study'. According to the study Only 20% (92/468) of predictions were accurate (within 33% of actual survival); 63% (295/468) were overoptimistic and 17% (81/468) were over pessimistic. They concluded that "Doctors are inaccurate in their prognoses for terminally ill patients and the error is systematically optimistic. The inaccuracy is, in general, not restricted to certain kinds of doctors or patients. These phenomena may be adversely affecting the quality of care given to patients near the end of life".
Armed with a (probably) inaccurate prognosis there are then hoops to jump through. Two doctors? Most find it difficult to see even one. That aside. Is all this really just a slippery slope? Granting a kind death on request to a person able to make that choice is one thing. And those who cannot? Should they be denied kindness? How long before a kind progressive suggest that kindness should be extended to all who suffer? Decided by a panel of qualified people of course.
Society depends on a moral compass. We must surely tread carefully to preserve what's left of ours.
