Is it imoral to use artificial death control to live past 120yrs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven_Merten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steven_Merten

Guest
A recent medical journal indicated that by the year 2050 death will only be optional. The journal stated that medicine is advancing at such a rapid rate in the direction of extending length of life, that it will, no doubt, be able to keep people alive indefinitely by 2050.

The bible indicates that before the flood men lived many hundreds of years. God saw how evil man became and decided to destroy all mankind with the flood, except for Noah and his family. God then put a limit on the length of man’s life.

NAB GEN 6:3The the Lord said: "My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years.

Has/is/should the Church define limits and mortal sin in regards to artificial death control as they have done for artificial birth control? When people actually died from natural death the average life span was about 50 years. With the marvals of modern medicine we have artificially increased this to 80 years over the past century. I think we all agree this was a good thing. Will there be any moral problem with man artificially surpassing God’s natural plan of 120 years limit for human life?

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
 
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with it if someone is that obsessed with living to an old age. We should desire to be with God. But, I can’t say if it is immoral.
 
What’s the difference between a person of 60 taking a pill to control cholesterol, and a person of 120 taking the same pill?

Do you somehow become less human as you age?

And if we say yes, isn’t that close to approving euthanasia?
 
Does anyone yet see the correlation in cost to increasing our lifespan? Will it exponentially cost more for every year of increased lifespan? At what point will this pursuit consume all our resources?
 
40.png
buffalo:
Does anyone yet see the correlation in cost to increasing our lifespan? Will it exponentially cost more for every year of increased lifespan? At what point will this pursuit consume all our resources?
Click to expand...
At the point where we die, of course.
 
I can’t imagine WHY one would want to be around to the age of 120–unless of course they find a way to slow the overall aging process so that 70 is the new 30!
 
I wonder if we, as a society, not most people here, could just end up extending our lives until we are tired of living and then depending on euthanasia when we are tired of it all.

All in all, God will prevail, but I am afraid of how far we push away from Him as a society…

John
 
40.png
buffalo:
I meant societal resources.
Click to expand...
Society will probably just enforce a forced euthanasia policy. Probably start in the UN after successfully being used in the Netherlands and Europe first.

SARCASM ON:
Can’t let those old people ruin everyone elses life, can we?
SARCASM OFF

John
 
40.png
buffalo:
I meant societal resources.
Click to expand...
So did I – if we are dependent on society, and consume too much in the way of resources, then society will decide when we have reached the limit.
 
40.png
yochumjy:
I wonder if we, as a society, not most people here, could just end up extending our lives until we are tired of living and then depending on euthanasia when we are tired of it all.
Click to expand...
I think some will suggest that we “allocate” or “manage” our resources. This will mean that once you are a certain age and of a certain poor health, then any expensive procedure will no longer be made available to you. So if you are 40 and need a bypass, then you’ll get it, but if you are 95, you will just get comfort care until you die.

The very wealthy will be able to avoid this by paying out of pocket. But public funds and/or private insurance won’t cover it.
 
There would not be anything wrong with living to be over 120 years of age if someone is in relative good health.

John
 
40.png
Pug:
I think some will suggest that we “allocate” or “manage” our resources. This will mean that once you are a certain age and of a certain poor health, then any expensive procedure will no longer be made available to you. So if you are 40 and need a bypass, then you’ll get it, but if you are 95, you will just get comfort care until you die.

The very wealthy will be able to avoid this by paying out of pocket. But public funds and/or private insurance won’t cover it.
Click to expand...
You’re describing the Canadian and British systems – with the Canadian system, however, it’s illegal to pay for your own healthcare. That’s why there are so many clinics right across the border in the US.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif
 
I have a NatioalGeographic from the 70’s which says by year 2000 we will have total weather control, and robot servents!
 
40.png
alyssa:
I have a NatioalGeographic from the 70’s which says by year 2000 we will have total weather control, and robot servents!
Click to expand...
Humanoids on the march
FIRST came Asimo, Honda’s childlike robot, which was introduced to the world in 2000. Sony responded with QRIO (pronounced curio) in 2003. Now a competition has broken out between Japan’s industrial firms to see which of them can produce the most advanced humanoid robot—and South Korean firms are getting involved, too.…

economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%27%29%280%2DP%21%5B%2B%23P%22D%0A&CFID=53277674&CFTOKEN=409e708-ee49fd6e-2440-4b21-8ea9-ba237ded5af6
 
40.png
alyssa:
I have a NatioalGeographic from the 70’s which says by year 2000 we will have total weather control, and robot servents!
Click to expand...
You can purchase weathre modification equipment here:

iceflares.com/

Ice Crystal Engineering, LLC manufactures weather modification cloud seeding flares for hail suppression, rain enhancement, snow pack enhancement, and fog dispersion. We are atmospheric research specialists. If you’re looking for the premier weather modification cloud seeding flare manufacturer in the world, you’ve come to the right place.
 
vern humphrey:
You’re describing the Canadian and British systems – with the Canadian system, however, it’s illegal to pay for your own healthcare. That’s why there are so many clinics right across the border in the US.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif
Click to expand...
Sad. I didn’t realize it was illegal for them to pay obtain the healthcare! I had mentioned it because I was reading a book “Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics” by a David F. Kelly and it has a whole section on “allocation” and proffers arguments that descrimination by age could be acceptable. So it makes me feel that the US could be moving that way for cost containment.

BTW, I am not suggesting anyone read the book.
 
40.png
Pug:
Sad. I didn’t realize it was illegal for them to pay obtain the healthcare! I had mentioned it because I was reading a book “Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics” by a David F. Kelly and it has a whole section on “allocation” and proffers arguments that descrimination by age could be acceptable. So it makes me feel that the US could be moving that way for cost containment.

BTW, I am not suggesting anyone read the book.
Click to expand...
The health care plan put together by Hillary Clinton was modeled on the Canadian system. It would have criminalized direct payments from patients to doctors as “bribes.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top