One of Bidens virus "advisors"

[MungoGungo]

Ezekiel Emanuel, a member of Bidens rona advisor board, says people shouldn't live past 75. Great choice for advise on a virus that decimates older people. From what I gather he might be talking about his own wishes... not sure...But either way its interesting to see his thought process....especially with the position he is in.

Below is copy/paste

Some of his qoutes from a few years back:

…A simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic…By the time I reach 75, I will have lived a complete life. I will have loved and been loved. My children will be grown and in the midst of their own rich lives. I will have seen my grandchildren born and beginning their lives. I will have pursued my life’s projects and made whatever contributions, important or not, I am going to make. And hopefully, I will not have too many mental and physical limitations. Dying at 75 will not be a tragedy.

If you aren’t sufficiently horrified yet, Emmanuel then goes into detail about what sorts of medical care he thinks we should and should not accept after the age of 75:


What about simple stuff? Flu shots are out. Certainly if there were to be a flu pandemic, a younger person who has yet to live a complete life ought to get the vaccine or any antiviral drugs. A big challenge is antibiotics for pneumonia or skin and urinary infections. Antibiotics are cheap and largely effective in curing infections. It is really hard for us to say no. Indeed, even people who are sure they don’t want life-extending treatments find it hard to refuse antibiotics. But, as Osler reminds us, unlike the decays associated with chronic conditions, death from these infections is quick and relatively painless. So, no to antibiotics.

 

[ellu]

not sure

He only says its over and over again. Is intellectual dishonesty that rampant?

 

[ellu]

Let me be clear about my wish. I’m neither asking for more time than is likely nor foreshortening my life. Today I am, as far as my physician and I know, very healthy, with no chronic illness. I just climbed Kilimanjaro with two of my nephews. So I am not talking about bargaining with God to live to 75 because I have a terminal illness. Nor am I talking about waking up one morning 18 years from now and ending my life through euthanasia or suicide. Since the 1990s, I have actively opposed legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. People who want to die in one of these ways tend to suffer not from unremitting pain but from depression, hopelessness, and fear of losing their dignity and control. The people they leave behind inevitably feel they have somehow failed. The answer to these symptoms is not ending a life but getting help. I have long argued that we should focus on giving all terminally ill people a good, compassionate death—not euthanasia or assisted suicide for a tiny minority.


I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.

I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.

....
Seventy-five. That is all I want to live. But if I am not going to engage in euthanasia or suicide, and I won’t, is this all just idle chatter? Don’t I lack the courage of my convictions?

No. My view does have important practical implications. One is personal and two involve policy.

Once I have lived to 75, my approach to my health care will completely change. I won’t actively end my life. But I won’t try to prolong it, either. Today, when the doctor recommends a test or treatment, especially one that will extend our lives, it becomes incumbent upon us to give a good reason why we don’t want it. The momentum of medicine and family means we will almost invariably get it.

My attitude flips this default on its head. I take guidance from what Sir William Osler wrote in his classic turn-of-the-century medical textbook, The Principles and Practice of Medicine: “Pneumonia may well be called the friend of the aged. Taken off by it in an acute, short, not often painful illness, the old man escapes those ‘cold gradations of decay’ so distressing to himself and to his friends.”

Again, let me be clear: I am not saying that those who want to live as long as possible are unethical or wrong. I am certainly not scorning or dismissing people who want to live on despite their physical and mental limitations. I’m not even trying to convince anyone I’m right. Indeed, I often advise people in this age group on how to get the best medical care available in the United States for their ailments. That is their choice, and I want to support them.

I think the rejection of my view is literally natural. After all, evolution has inculcated in us a drive to live as long as possible. We are programmed to struggle to survive. Consequently, most people feel there is something vaguely wrong with saying 75 and no more. We are eternally optimistic Americans who chafe at limits, especially limits imposed on our own lives. We are sure we are exceptional.

I also think my view conjures up spiritual and existential reasons for people to scorn and reject it. Many of us have suppressed, actively or passively, thinking about God, heaven and hell, and whether we return to the worms. We are agnostics or atheists, or just don’t think about whether there is a God and why she should care at all about mere mortals. We also avoid constantly thinking about the purpose of our lives and the mark we will leave. Is making money, chasing the dream, all worth it? Indeed, most of us have found a way to live our lives comfortably without acknowledging, much less answering, these big questions on a regular basis. We have gotten into a productive routine that helps us ignore them. And I don’t purport to have the answers.

But 75 defines a clear point in time: for me, 2032. It removes the fuzziness of trying to live as long as possible



Damn folks, do better, took about two seconds to google. Everything doesn't have to be goddamned confirmation bias.

 

[MungoGungo]

Here is is full article for anyone who wants to read the whole thing. Not my or anyone's excerpts. From reading the whole thing he clearly doesn't belief life is valuable past 75. Still not a person I would want guiding me. But you can decide for yourself.

Why I Hope to Die at 75

An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly

www.theatlantic.com

 

[MungoGungo]

Let me be clear about my wish. I’m neither asking for more time than is likely nor foreshortening my life. Today I am, as far as my physician and I know, very healthy, with no chronic illness. I just climbed Kilimanjaro with two of my nephews. So I am not talking about bargaining with God to live to 75 because I have a terminal illness. Nor am I talking about waking up one morning 18 years from now and ending my life through euthanasia or suicide. Since the 1990s, I have actively opposed legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. People who want to die in one of these ways tend to suffer not from unremitting pain but from depression, hopelessness, and fear of losing their dignity and control. The people they leave behind inevitably feel they have somehow failed. The answer to these symptoms is not ending a life but getting help. I have long argued that we should focus on giving all terminally ill people a good, compassionate death—not euthanasia or assisted suicide for a tiny minority.


I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.

I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.

....
Seventy-five. That is all I want to live. But if I am not going to engage in euthanasia or suicide, and I won’t, is this all just idle chatter? Don’t I lack the courage of my convictions?

No. My view does have important practical implications. One is personal and two involve policy.

Once I have lived to 75, my approach to my health care will completely change. I won’t actively end my life. But I won’t try to prolong it, either. Today, when the doctor recommends a test or treatment, especially one that will extend our lives, it becomes incumbent upon us to give a good reason why we don’t want it. The momentum of medicine and family means we will almost invariably get it.

My attitude flips this default on its head. I take guidance from what Sir William Osler wrote in his classic turn-of-the-century medical textbook, The Principles and Practice of Medicine: “Pneumonia may well be called the friend of the aged. Taken off by it in an acute, short, not often painful illness, the old man escapes those ‘cold gradations of decay’ so distressing to himself and to his friends.”

Again, let me be clear: I am not saying that those who want to live as long as possible are unethical or wrong. I am certainly not scorning or dismissing people who want to live on despite their physical and mental limitations. I’m not even trying to convince anyone I’m right. Indeed, I often advise people in this age group on how to get the best medical care available in the United States for their ailments. That is their choice, and I want to support them.

I think the rejection of my view is literally natural. After all, evolution has inculcated in us a drive to live as long as possible. We are programmed to struggle to survive. Consequently, most people feel there is something vaguely wrong with saying 75 and no more. We are eternally optimistic Americans who chafe at limits, especially limits imposed on our own lives. We are sure we are exceptional.

I also think my view conjures up spiritual and existential reasons for people to scorn and reject it. Many of us have suppressed, actively or passively, thinking about God, heaven and hell, and whether we return to the worms. We are agnostics or atheists, or just don’t think about whether there is a God and why she should care at all about mere mortals. We also avoid constantly thinking about the purpose of our lives and the mark we will leave. Is making money, chasing the dream, all worth it? Indeed, most of us have found a way to live our lives comfortably without acknowledging, much less answering, these big questions on a regular basis. We have gotten into a productive routine that helps us ignore them. And I don’t purport to have the answers.

But 75 defines a clear point in time: for me, 2032. It removes the fuzziness of trying to live as long as possible



Damn folks, do better, took about two seconds to google. Everything doesn't have to be goddamned confirmation bias.

Mr. Objective, you clearly copied every paragraph that's supports what you want to believe. If you read the entire essay you clearly see a man who does not value life past a certain age. Is that a man you want advising you on matters that primarily effect people in advanced age? The whole point is he has a man who doesnt value life after 75 advising him on a virus that kills the old.

You and I can both pull excerpts and point it in any direction we want, much like taking a single bible verse and making it mean whatever you want. The essence of his article is that life loses purpose and value as we age and he personally doesnt value life past 75. The sub title of his work is - An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly-. He makes arguments on why life has no value past a certain age and backs that with his own wishes. You are being intellectually dishonest by pretending this mans personal beliefs dont matter and have no impact on his position.

 

[JCR Cane]

Ironic, since his boss is 77....

 

[dmatt]

Just remember..Trump is the real villain in the mishandling of this horrendous pandemic..142,000+ new cases , death rate is 1400 a day and it’s happening in all 50 states and all Trump cares about is making sure the next President has as difficult time as possible during the transition....

 

[289fia]

Mr. Emanuel apparently doesn't come from a good gene pool. There are MANY people who live vibrant and full lives into their late 80's and 90's. My mother's side of the family if full of men and women living full lives, and contributing, well into their 90's. Strong, healthy, mentally alert.
One uncle is in the final phases of having his 13th airplane built .. he is 85 years old and looks like a very healthy 60 year old. Active pilot, gun collector - shooter, building contractor, and retired Air Force member of SAC. One of my closest friends is approaching 75, and he is one of the most successful cowboy mounted shooters on the East Coast .. and that takes some demanding physical condition and mental acuity. Emanuel's general attitude is scary .. especially when the country is leaning towards more "government management" of critical issues .. such as who shall be able to receive WHAT type of health care. Imagine .. "no antibiotics" for anyone over 75 who has any kind of infection or pneumonia. If that were a policy .. it would be like something from the Hitler regime.

 

[cortez55403]

Mr. Emanuel apparently doesn't come from a good gene pool. There are MANY people who live vibrant and full lives into their late 80's and 90's. My mother's side of the family if full of men and women living full lives, and contributing, well into their 90's. Strong, healthy, mentally alert.
One uncle is in the final phases of having his 13th airplane built .. he is 85 years old and looks like a very healthy 60 year old. Active pilot, gun collector - shooter, building contractor, and retired Air Force member of SAC. One of my closest friends is approaching 75, and he is one of the most successful cowboy mounted shooters on the East Coast .. and that takes some demanding physical condition and mental acuity. Emanuel's general attitude is scary .. especially when the country is leaning towards more "government management" of critical issues .. such as who shall be able to receive WHAT type of health care. Imagine .. "no antibiotics" for anyone over 75 who has any kind of infection or pneumonia. If that were a policy .. it would be like something from the Hitler regime.

Dr. Emmanuel,

FYI, his gene pool is amazing. His two brothers?

Rahm Emmanuel, former Mayor of Chicago, WH Chief of Staff under Obama and Congressman

Ari Emmanuel, legendary talent agent in LA, head of William Morris/Endeavor. Remember the TV series “Entourage”? Agent Ari Gold was modeled on Ari Emmanuel.

Arguments at the dinner table must have been amazing at the Emmanuel home.

 

[816_Cane]

when they said you’ll kill your grandma if you don’t wear a mask, but they actually really want you to kill your grandma.