Tommy- We're not talking about euthanasia for the elderly here. This is about a 29 year old young woman given less than six months to live as a result of terminal brain cancer. As I understand the facts of this case, money was not an issue.

But for the sake of argument, there are vested interests that, obviously, would SUPPORT spending as much money as possible to prolong life, even in hopeless situations. You can't bill for additional medical treatment after the patient dies.

“The burden of caring for ageing populations is set to challenge the ability of many countries to maintain investment grade credit ratings in the years ahead, with some likely to fall to junk status as soon as 2020 unless meaningful reforms are made.

Standard and Poor’s, the credit rating agency, said in a report that looked at total ageing costs, that despite efforts at reform in many countries, the burden of cost for the elderly, as a percentage of GDP, is likely to rise significantly, particularly in industrialised economies.”

Financial Times

The burden, eh. They can't afford the burden of caring for ageing populations. The burden, it is also the reason most chose death: they did not want to be a burden financial or otherwise. Laws related to euthanasia would save trillions of dollars. It is not over population but over money as usual. The current governments are engaging in cost-cutting exercises. The reason it is getting top billing is crystal clear to me. As to issue of whether euthanasia should be or not to be legal regarless of age. I think not, as there too many ways for it to be abused.

Again, that's not what this case is about. It is simply about a terminally ill patient's right to choose death with dignity on her own terms.

I wouldn't count on that, Bob.

See her "new" video that says, "In April she was given six months or less left to live."

http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/bl......ath-date

She "died with dignity" on Nov. 1, is that correct?

Http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mom-stuns-d......18135106

"'The mind is so much more powerful than anyone can imagine," she said. "People believe that when they get cancer, it will kill them. But I never once thought that.'"

http://www2.mdanderson.org/depts/oncolog......3-1.html

“'I think that people who have been treating this disease for 30 years definitely see this time as the initial stage of a new era,'” Dr. de Groot said. “'A lot of people are thinking that we’re on the verge of a breakthrough that sets us in motion to really improve the survival of patients with glioblastoma.'”

The new and improved pro-choice vs. pro-life debate. Is it her decision, or a bunch of legislators'?

As I said, Jerry Falwell framed the debate this way years ago. I may have imprecisely stated the relationship between religion and constitutional law; but, well, I'm not a lawyer.

So if anything is "new", it's the way that media in 2014 functions differently than in the past.

I think that that framing is interesting, but in the end, not that helpful or useful. Abortion and euthanasia are very different situations for many reasons. I think it would be hard to defend generalities across both topics.

I believe that it should be her choice legally, but it's a very slippery slope, one that I'm not sure we want to be sliding down or encouraging.

Don't go trying to pin me down as saying it's not her choice. Of course it's her choice and she has a right to make the choice, as we all do. She also has a right to an informed choice. That's what this is really about, especially when you bring in the doctors. And that's where we've got a quite serious concern in all of this. Doctors have hit plenty of people with that 6 month crap who've long surpassed it, some with complete remission, as we've seen from the article above. Did Brittany jump the gun by sticking to "her" guns on this one, is the question. She was already past the 6 months.

I've worked as a professional in a vet clinic and assisted far too many unnecessary euthanasias. Those that don't fit the mandate are the majority. It's rare euthanasia is carried out as was origninally intended. The influence of the medical system encourages a sway to considering death as the "realistic" current option. The reality that the body is designed to heal isn't given airtime. Those trying to call this something else, need to take a closer look, in my opinion.

If this is all about choice than why wouldn't these be about choice?

1. Sell my body parts if I want to?
2. Sell my kid if I want to? (Why can't someone pay me to have a baby for them?)
3. If I want to euthanize, why do I have to prove I'm dying?
4. Why only legalize marijuana? Why not any drug I want to take?

How many greedy kids will browbeat their elderly parent to make this 'decision' so that they can finally get their money on the inheritance? Or maybe just not have to take care of the elderly parent anymore?

1. Sell my body parts if I want to?
People donate body parts all the time. I carry an organ donars card myself.

2. Sell my kid if I want to? (Why can't someone pay me to have a baby for them?)
Surrogates get paid for having a baby for other people right now.

3. If I want to euthanize, why do I have to prove I'm dying?

You don't. Suicide is a pretty common occurance.

4. Why only legalize marijuana? Why not any drug I want to take?

Many people think that all drugs should legalized and controlled, taking the profit margin out of organized crime. Why not. It will happen eventually.

I definitely won't happen that "all drugs" will be legalized.

When I think of all the things that "definitely won't happen": gay marriage, marijuana legalized, African American President.....

Marijuana is illegal in all 50 states, but your point is well-taken. It's more than a quantum leap from any of those to legal PCP, though.

Whatever tops the bill will.

Again, this thread has nothing to do with euthanasia for the elderly. It's about a 29 year old courageous woman who chose to end her life on her own terms.

Correct. With a good deal of it.

Yes, but I think the point is that Nov. 1 is more than six months after April; therefore, the doctors were wrong.

“The new face of euthanasia.”

“The new face” means a new person presenting an established product in an advertising campaign.

“euthanasia” means the deliberate killing of a person for the benefit of that person.

Means this new person is in an advertising campaign presenting the deliberate killing of a person for the benefit of that person.

The new face of euthanasia is selling is Euthanasia.

The average age for Euthanasia is 70 yeas of age.

Thus the Elderly are the target of the Euthanasia which the New Face of euthanasia is advertising .

Extremely close though, apparently. She was starting to suffer serious seizures and other signs the the end was drawing nigh.

But I don't understand the point of nitpicking or otherwise criticizing this brave young woman's choice to end her life on her own terms.