Okay, this may seem very brutal, but I want to be practical and

File: m7100113-cancer_chemotherapy-1200x800[1].jpg (69KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1200x800px

Okay, this may seem very brutal, but I want to be practical and ethical at the same time.

Some facts:
1. People live longer in this century, but the later part of their life is low quality, they are "existing" and not really having a good life.
2. Social security and pensions are an ever larger part of spending, and they burden the economy and enslave the new generations to pay for the old to exist.

Would it not make sense then, ethically speaking, to stop sustaining the existence (hardly life) of our elderly?
They are kept alive with very expensive procedures, drugs, labor intensive care, all paid for by the young. And that extra decade isn't productive at all, and isn't even very enjoyable for the elderly themselves.
Just like the argument that chemo isn't worth it for cancer patients, ruining the family financially while only giving the patient years of low quality life, the same argument can be extended for the elderly in general.

So, from an ethic standpoint, and considering both the economy as a whole and the young being debt slaves to the old, would you consider care for the elderly to be lowered, and euthanasia for the sick (especially with brain degeneration, which prevents them from quality life) to be encouraged?