Hmm, the way I read the text it was Hendrik doing the underlining by pointing out the inhumanity of it all… I guess what’s meant is that he is the example that underlines the inhumanity of it all. Okay :)
fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 11 Dec 09:58
collapse
I guess that could be misinterpreted, but yeah, that sentence means that he is putting special attention on those measures, and doubling down on it by proposing even harsher measures.
In a paragraph below you have it clearer:
Speaking to the right-wing broadcaster Welt TV, he raised the question of whether elderly people should still be prescribed expensive medication. He said there are “phases in life when certain medications should no longer be used.” He cited the example of a 100-year-old man suffering from cancer and asked, “Do we really want to use these expensive drugs” in such a case?
You see that he is clearly advocating pro those inhumane changes.
And yes, read the fracking article next time will ya! 😁
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
on 11 Dec 10:44
collapse
This is one of the things that while it’s correct most people react very emotionally to the idea and for a politician it’s better never to talk about it. What they are talking about is very similar to euthanasia that is legal and accepted in many countries. If a patient has no chance of survival it doesn’t make much sense to spend a lot of money in prolonging his life for couple of days. What often happens is that people spend the last days so their lives in intensive care, in coma and on a ventilator. It just prolongs suffering as there is no chance for improvement. What he’s getting wrong is the solution. Instead of restricting care they should implement robust system of DNRs/life testaments. Everyone should decide what type of care they want to receive, doctors should be legally obligated to follow those directions and it should not be possible to override it by family members. A lot of people would still be against it because death is a very emotional topic but at least it doesn’t sound evil.
threaded - newest
What an asshole.
~~Title and text seem to contradict each other, no? ~~
Nope, both are against giving meds to the elderly. What are you misunderstanding?
Hmm, the way I read the text it was Hendrik doing the underlining by pointing out the inhumanity of it all… I guess what’s meant is that he is the example that underlines the inhumanity of it all. Okay :)
I guess that could be misinterpreted, but yeah, that sentence means that he is putting special attention on those measures, and doubling down on it by proposing even harsher measures.
In a paragraph below you have it clearer:
You see that he is clearly advocating pro those inhumane changes.
As was the German way before… 😨😖
And yes, read the fracking article next time will ya! 😁
This is one of the things that while it’s correct most people react very emotionally to the idea and for a politician it’s better never to talk about it. What they are talking about is very similar to euthanasia that is legal and accepted in many countries. If a patient has no chance of survival it doesn’t make much sense to spend a lot of money in prolonging his life for couple of days. What often happens is that people spend the last days so their lives in intensive care, in coma and on a ventilator. It just prolongs suffering as there is no chance for improvement. What he’s getting wrong is the solution. Instead of restricting care they should implement robust system of DNRs/life testaments. Everyone should decide what type of care they want to receive, doctors should be legally obligated to follow those directions and it should not be possible to override it by family members. A lot of people would still be against it because death is a very emotional topic but at least it doesn’t sound evil.
Euthanasia implies consent. Without consent, it’s murder.
Have you even read what I said?