Also I think there are some things in life that we cannot expect to make money, healthcare and social care are 2 of those. If they are profit making we can pretty much expect them to be not serving their purpose somewhere along the line. It's common sense that these things cost money, don't make it.

@girlwithsmiles I think that is a big problem. Too many want a smaller government. One thing about government services is that they are usually non-profit. Privatizing services means higher costs for those involved. Too many health services are failing and looking to merge or turn over operations to religious (especially Catholic) run hospitals. My original posting (and letters to 3 local papers) concerned the influence of Peace Health (a Catholic hospital) on the Death with Dignity program that is legal in Wash. state (and 5 other states as well as Canada).

Everyone makes their own decisions. The important thing is that as many as possible be informed just what goes behind those decisions. Many on this site and elsewhere are more concerned with quality of life then length.

Applications to have children and a massive human rights argument would ensue if our lives were extended indefinitely. But I still don't know how long I'd want to live, would depend on the implications I guess. Would you, 'live forever' @goamerica76 ?

Both of these videos miss a critical point and that is the impact on the natural life support system of a overpopulated, human dominated planet! This issue has been gone over and over throughout this site. Avoidance of death is the driving force behind religion. One of 2 basic drives for all life forms is survival (the other is procreation). My late partner understood the life death connection as a young child and she accepted it. When she was diagnosed with a brain tumor at age 62 she was ready, happy and unafraid. She had had a good life and literally went out with a big smile (she took the Death with Dignity option).

Girlwithsmiles, I would certainly like to try to live forever. Yes, death is a natural part of life and it would certainly revolutionize our society if we were to even extend lifespan out to 150 years on average. I think the implications would be unforeseeable right now. It would affect us in so many ways that we are completely aware of right now. I would like to think we would take better care of our planet. I think we would value life more if we were to live indefinitely. It seems paradoxical that we would care more about life if we lived forever. But think of the tragedy it would become when someone is killed in a senseless shooting or car accident. Right now, if you are in your 60s or 70s then a car accident is not seen as super tragic. If you had another 80 years to live then it would be. Think of the culture you could gain. Learning new languages and instruments. The amount of time you could devote to creation.

JackPedigo, I will admit that extending lifespan indefinitely will come with a huge cost. We would need to reorganize our society. I can admit that we might be overpopulated, but I would pose the question exactly how many is too many people to have on this planet?

The problem with this site is that with so many new people coming on a lot of issues are redone. I got a letter posted in the Humanist Magazine about CRISPR ( [thehumanist.com] )and did a posting several months ago. There was a lot of discussion. One thing I mentioned is that I believe that there could be an infinite number of cognitive life forms (human) that could exist on this planet but not at one time. For some to want to extend their lifespans can mean that some other person will not be able to be created. The inability to appreciate our time on Earth and expect more, I see, as greedy and selfish and, as was quickly mentioned in the video, hubristic. Some of us secularists are no better than our religious counterparts. My letter concerned another issue about this technology and it was added to my posting.

I'm not sure how to answer that. I guess if you don't want to answer or discuss something that you discussed months ago then it's probably okay for you not to. I don't agree with trying to stifle conversation just because I have not read the exact same discussion points that you have. Of course secularist can be just as greedy and selfish as religious people. We have selfish genes and we got to the top of the planet by being ruthless. Have a great day.

@goamerica76 I am not trying to stifle conversation but this one topic has taken a lot of time and energy. I have had numerous postings and comments and all are around the same time as the original posting. Since my late partner died using the program it has become an important issue for me. Look at my original posting at ”Helping those around you deal with a crisis suicide". In one of my comments was my original letter to three of our papers (a shortened version was printed - but it is still long. I will also add the letter that appeared in the "Humanist Magazine" so you can get an idea of some of the dept in this issue.

CRISPR
In his review of A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution by Jennifer Doudna and Samuel Sternberg (N/D 2017), reviewer Carl Coon discusses some positive and negative effects of the gene editing technology CRISPR. One thing CRISPR cannot control is human behavior and our impact on the planet. One serious question not asked is: if this technology allows for more humans to lead longer and disease free lives what impact would that have on our numbers and, thereby, our carbon footprint. If rules were set up limiting the progeny of those who would participate in the technology what would that do to the generation spectrum?
To address a past issue (March/April, 2016) of this publication “When the Human in Humanism is not Enough” we need to overcome the serious problem of anthropocentrism? 15,000+ scientists just issued a dire warning about the problems that particular issue is causing.
Jack Pedigo
Lopez Island, WA 98261

As far as I know in the UK (and certainly not in Ireland) there is no Death with Dignity program. It is about individual choice not medical funding!

@JackPedigo There is no such programme but there are several organisations trying to change the law. I believe the law will change in the next few years to allow terminally ill people to die with assistance, but to extend it further will take a very long time.

@CeliaVL It seems to be taking off even in the U.S. Hawaii just last week legalized the program (the 6th in the U.S) and now NY is looking at it. The biggest problem is lack of knowledge. When my letters went out to 3 of our local papers our pharmacist director thanked me. He said the problem is that so few people even know the program exists.

True but it depends on the test and and the prognosis. For many, a long term debilitating disease is not a valid reason for continuing on with one's life. This issue has been a long and ongoing one on this site and a number of us are very interested.

@JackPedigo I had a stroke at 38, and believe me, if I had been unable to see progress, we had a hunter in the family....house full of guns...which I found VERY comforting!

All about dignity isn't it in the end