Arguments sound familiar

To the editor:

There has been little discussion of one of the very likely end results of universal health coverage, and that is the "aborting" of the elderly.

Those elderly (at what age one becomes elderly to be determined later) whose families and themselves cannot pay for their medication or treatment would have their situation studied by a panel or a board. If the panel or board determined that an individual had no hopes of a full recovery or hopes of again becoming a productive member of society, it would recommend passive euthanasia, the withholding of medication or treatment.

Of course, the natural progression of things would be the practice of active euthanasia, taking measures to end the person's life.

The same arguments now used against those who oppose aborting fetuses and putting to death the newborn will be used against those who are against "aborting" the elderly:

1. It is too expensive to keep them alive. We simply cannot afford to provide for them.

2. They will have no quality of life.

3. It would be inconvenient to keep them alive.

4. If you are so against "aborting" the elderly, then take responsibility for them and provide for them. Of course, there would be many other rationalizations for ending the life of those elderly who cannot financially provide for themselves and who have no hope of ever becoming a productive member of society.

LAWRENCE AESCHLIMANN, Cape Girardeau