It should be up to the individual and/or immediate family.....state-sactioned lifespans?!? No!

Depends on whether one is talking about lifespan or "healthspan". Extending a quality life is great. Extending life without regard to that usually does not end well.

A family acquaintance, age 80, went to the hospital last week with a persistent urinary infection, turned out to have sepsis, and while treating that, congestive heart failure was discovered. Open heart surgery was scheduled to replace a couple of valves and do a triple bypass. Mercifully she died over the weekend. She had a good life, and ending it with that sort of uphill battle and massive chest wall pain to manage, does not strike me as a better way to go.

When the time comes, I want this to be up to me and no one else. That's where I stand.

As I'm ill and aged, I'm in favor of it.

If the elderly and ill desire to continue their lives, I believe we must do all we reasonably can to honor their wishes.

This morning I was having a discussion with one of the republican members on this site  regarding over population. To my surprise his solution was to let those who are ill or who are elderly just die.I am still in disbelief that someone in this age would offer that as a solution especially when they are so engaged in promoting every birth.I wonder if that solution applies to those who are born with medical problems as well. These medical problem births  could be prevented via abortion in the first place. This same person was against anyone taking their own life and considered this to be  a crime. Wouldn't it be just as much a crime to refuse medical treatment to the ill or elderly? Like so many other positions that the republicans are taking like no climate change,disregarding polution from coal and oil, relaxing emission limits on cars etc I just cannot understand their reasoning!