Yeah, the writer makes it clear he is offering a personal opinion he intends to apply to himself. I don't know that this is any different than believing in assisted suicide or other end of life arrangements for yourself.
I literally don't know how OP could come away with their reading. Is it like, they've been consuming a lot of anti-right-wing sneers about reopening the economy (hence the specific phrase "sacrifice lives for the economy"), and they hate Biden, so they went hunting for ways to link the two? And then they found something with a provocative title and decided to extrapolate without reading it?
You might be right.
For what it’s worth, [Ezekiel has taken the exact opposite opinion](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/07/ezekiel_emanuel_us_must_stay_locked_down_for_12-18_months_until_theres_a_vaccine.html) from “we should sacrifice lives for the economy” in the context of the coronavirus:
>And then there are the tens of millions of Americans who have lost jobs and businesses, or who fear that they're just about to. Your anxiety about the virus is coupled with worry over having a paycheck, covering the mortgage, keeping the lights on, and buying food.
>Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications. I know that's dreadful news to hear. How are people supposed to find work if this goes on in some form for a year and a half? Is all that economic pain worth trying to stop COVID-19? The truth is we have no choice.
>If we prematurely end that physical distancing and the other measures keeping it at bay, deaths could skyrocket into the hundreds of thousands if not a million. We cannot return to normal until there's a vaccine. Conferences, concerts, sporting events, religious services, dinner in a restaurant, none of that will resume until we find a vaccine, a treatment, or a cure.
>One thing I've learned as a cancer doctor is that it's wrong to paint an overly rosy picture in order to maintain a patient's hope. It's wrong because it fails. It's false. Biology and disease are formidable opponents that inevitably tell us the truth. We cannot relieve the oppression of this pandemic until we are realistic. We need to prepare ourselves for this to last 18 months or so and for the toll that it will take. We need to develop a long-term solution based on those facts. It has to account for what we are losing while this fight goes on, things like schooling and income and contact with our friends and extended family.
Say what you will about the guy, but there’s no honest way to argue that he is on the same side of the debate as the “economy > human lives” debate. If anything, he has been criticized by some (mostly on the right wing) for being too focused on preserving life and insufficiently concerned about the economic impact of the lockdown.
Op’s title isn’t entirely accurate, though I do feel the author is
normalizing a certain amount ableism with his article. I came away
reading from it that he believes he’s better to be dead than disabled
and I feel like the “this is my personal viewpoint only applied to me”
is a rather weasel-y way to avoid being critiqued as such considering he
also really wants people to consider adopting his view on
aging/disability. I mean, why did he publish the article?
Articles like this make me super uncomfortable as a disabled person
tbh.
It's kinda pedantic, but eugenics is "good birth", curating a population by controlling who has kids. This really has nothing to do with eugenics, unless you're going to say that literally any conversation that *involves* population statistics is eugenics.
If you want to give it a Greek name, you're looking for "eudaimonia". The linked article is an examination of what makes an individual life worth living, and when a simple metric like "years" ceases to be meaningful.
E: User was banned for this post lol
Is it really though? There’s a huge difference between advocating for eugenics as a public policy and personally deciding that, *for yourself only*, you would not want extraordinary measures taken to extend your life beyond a certain point. Ultimately, shouldn’t it be up to an individual to decide on their own end of life planning?
Comparing it to the pedophilia vs ephebophilia thing is misleading.
The article is full of eugenical thinking about how people with disabilities have lives less worthy of living. Even if it ends with "disclaimer but I'm just saying this as personal opinion it's not my fault if this is extrapolated" it's still the same shitty eugenical thinking.
The author's father was slowed down by a heart attack. He is still happy, but the author seems to think being slowed down even a little somehow outweighs the happiness. That's really disturbing.
He's also much more mask-off in an [interview five years later](https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/21/238642/a-doctor-and-medical-ethicist-argues-life-after-75-is-not-worth-living/amp/). (emphasis mine)
>We’re having more disabilities. We have people with more problems. And even more important, for most people, is the biological decline in cognitive function. If you look at really smart people, there aren’t that many writing brand-new books after 75, and really developing new areas where they are leading thinkers. They tend to be re-tilling familiar areas that they’ve worked on for a long time...
>These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” **almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work.** They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? **Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life.**
Honestly, disappointing to see sneerclub be so bad at reading between the lines with the article in the OP.
I like this piece actually, and most of the sneers on it read to me
like they are based on a very uncharitable, surface-level read. An
interview with him last year (also linked elsewhere in this thread) was
posted on this sub then and I already defended it in the comments there,
so I’m just gonna drop
a link there instead of starting over here.
[deleted]
Op’s title isn’t entirely accurate, though I do feel the author is normalizing a certain amount ableism with his article. I came away reading from it that he believes he’s better to be dead than disabled and I feel like the “this is my personal viewpoint only applied to me” is a rather weasel-y way to avoid being critiqued as such considering he also really wants people to consider adopting his view on aging/disability. I mean, why did he publish the article?
Articles like this make me super uncomfortable as a disabled person tbh.
This is from 2014
I like this piece actually, and most of the sneers on it read to me like they are based on a very uncharitable, surface-level read. An interview with him last year (also linked elsewhere in this thread) was posted on this sub then and I already defended it in the comments there, so I’m just gonna drop a link there instead of starting over here.