Also an extremely easy answer for me to choose the future over the past. There was no reason my grandpa should have been getting dialysis paid for by taxpayers at the age of 93. For years. Give him access to assisted suicide and invest that money into the nation’s children.
And while it is probably easier to talk the talk than walk the walk, I do not want a dime spent on me once I am chronically unable to do simple tasks myself. If I need 24/7 care, then I like to think I will opt to take myself out.
So your grandfather lived for years after the age of 93 with the help of basic, modern medicine. Yet you feel that his medical care was a significant share of society's resources. Dialysis costs between $30K and $90K per year (in the US) depending on type of treatment.
In 2019, the Federal budget outlays were $4.4 Trillion dollars. State expenditures were another $2.3T. Total US wealth was roughly $96T.
I think we can afford to give dialysis to anyone who needs it.
It's part of the societal contract, though: Why would I rip myself a new one for a country that hands out suicide pills or lets me die in agony because some kid on the other side of the country doesn't get free healthy food from their school, if the resources for universal healthcare are there, but are not distributed equally?
Old people vote. Kids by definition don't (and parents of kids that can't afford healthcare are also less likely to vote).
See this is where the hypotheticals go. Let's say your grandpa doesn't want to do the assisted suicide thing. Are you willing to "withdraw care" (the medical term for when doctors kill people on purpose) or even take more active measures? I know the arithmetic is pretty obvious but as you say walking the walk is something different entirely.
If the question is would I want a significant share of society’s resources to not go towards extending the life of a 93 year old, then my answer is no.
Of course, I would not want society to force anyone to accept assisted suicide (which would not really be suicide).
Ok, what if we tell the grandparent that we'll take half of their expected costs for care and give that to their grandchildren's college funds if they go through with the suicide? Is that an acceptable compromise or horrible dystopian bargain? Basically it's the trolley problem in that there are endless hypotheticals you can construct to determine your values, but as I said it can get pretty distasteful.
I do not think it would be useful for a society to specifically allocate the resources saved by not extending a 90 year old’s life specifically to their grandkids.
Society already triages resources for various populations. It is not like the government throws unlimited money at old people to get all the gold plated healthcare they need. It is allocated roughly based on how rich you are, with poor people getting less care via reduced Medicaid reimbursements and a million other ways to price discriminate recipients.
If anything, this opaque maze of who does and does not get a share of society’s resources is worse than a transparent policy.
And while it is probably easier to talk the talk than walk the walk, I do not want a dime spent on me once I am chronically unable to do simple tasks myself. If I need 24/7 care, then I like to think I will opt to take myself out.