Now the Logan to whom I am referring appears in a novel by William F. Nolan and George C. Johnson entitled Logan's Run. To quote the Wikipedia article (emphasis added):

Published in 1967, it depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources is managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expedience of demanding the death of everyone upon reaching a particular age, thus avoiding the issue of overpopulation. The story follows the actions of Logan, a Deep Sleep Operative or "Sandman" charged with enforcing the rule, as he tracks down and kills citizens who "run" from society's lethal demand only to himself ultimately "run."

In short, it is a society where “the right to die” has become “the duty to die.” 

The alert reader will notice that this kind of society is viewed as a “dystopia,” a totalitarian government run amok and to be opposed, something which we can still see as antithetical to the value of human life as put forward by the Judeo-Christian ethic (and admittedly, even many atheistic ethics, although they have no real foundation for such pronouncements).

Surely we don’t have to worry about this kind of scenario here in the United States, right? Right?

Imagine that you have lung cancer.  It has been in remission, but tests show the cancer has returned and is likely to be terminal.  Still, there is some hope.  Chemotherapy could extend your life, if not save it.  You ask to begin treatment.  But you soon receive more devastating news.  A letter from the government informs you that the cost of chemotherapy is deemed an unjustified expense for the limited extra time it would provide.  However, the government is not without compassion. You are informed that whenever you are ready, it will gladly pay for your assisted suicide.

Think that's an alarmist scenario to scare you away from supporting "death with dignity"?  Wrong.  That is exactly what happened last year to two cancer patients in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal.

Yes, that is the Oregon on the west coast of the good old U.S. of A., as documented by Wesley Smith in the Telegraph. He rightly concludes that (emphasis added),

The Oregon experiment shows how easily the "right to die" can become a "duty to die" for vulnerable and depressed people fearful of becoming a burden on the state or their relatives.

This process of moral putrefaction is slow and under the radar, so the alarm is not being triggered as it would be if we just started killing the elderly. The frog is being slowly cooked, and we are the frogs.

Mr. Smith then continues (emphasis added):

A study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine last year, for example, found that doctors in Oregon write lethal prescriptions for patients who are not experiencing significant symptoms and that assisted suicide practice has had little do with any inability to alleviate pain – the fear of which is a chief selling point for legalisation.

The report said that family members described loved ones who pursue "physician-assisted death" as individuals for whom being in control is important, who anticipate the negative aspects of dying and who believe the impending loss of self and quality of life will be intolerable. They fear becoming a burden to others, yet want to die at home.  Concerns about what may be experienced in the future were substantially more powerful reasons than what they experienced at that point in time.

When a scared and depressed patient asks for poison pills and their doctor's response is to pull out the lethal prescription pad, it confirms the patient's worst fears – that they are a burden, that they are less worth loving.

Understand clearly, these are patients whose disease has not progressed to the point of imminent death. The possibility of cure has not been ruled out. Years of productive life are still a possibility, but because they are sick and know it, and have no control over it, they become depressed and dwell on all the problems involved rather than the opportunities that may present themselves. And apparently the fragmentation of the family and social structure of the immediate past has left them with no support from the family that should be cherishing and valuing their life and knowledge and wisdom, and communicating that with them so they understand the value their life has to others.

It is a sign of our present narcissistic culture that the only good in a situation is what might be good (and convenient) for me, and that “dignity” is defined as “doing it MY way,” and that goes for both the patient and the immediate family of the patient.

One of the keys to understanding this issue is in the last quote above. The issue of control, or rather, who is in control, is one that defines man’s pride. Man in his pride wants to be in control (cf. Psalm 2). Translation: man wants to play God with his life. This is the bioethical quandary over euthanasia. As the above instances show, it is usually not a matter of alleviating pain, but of convenience and the all too pragmatic issue of cost.

So, what is this true dignity with which we are exhorted to die? Oxford defines it as “the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.” Modern man has translated that into respecting the desire of one who wants to die…and then encouraging them to do so. But tell me, who do you really honor and respect more, someone who gives up and takes the easy way out, or someone who fights the good fight all the way to the end? For whom do you really have more respect, the one who essentially shoves their elderly relative under the rug, seeking to be rid of them as soon as possible so they can get on with their own freakin’ life, or the one who shows the strength of character to live sacrificially, taking care of another without thought of reward and “what’s in it for me?”

Please note that I am not diminishing the fact of pain and suffering on the part of loved ones, and the anguish faced by those responsible over difficult decisions involving their loved ones care. But as noted above, these are people who are NOT on their death bed who are being told that they may as well just up and die. And while I have been blessed to date with not having to make such decisions personally myself, I have had such in my immediate family. My mother-in-law with whom I actually have a good relationship despite all the mother-in-law jokes, while in her 70’s, took care of her mother, by herself, until her mother died. Her mother was in her 90’s and had Alzheimer’s and some other medical issues that raised the stress levels to astronomical heights. It was not pretty. It was not convenient. At times it was incredibly thankless as her mother didn’t recognizer her and ranted at her regardless of what she did for her. I have tremendous respect and honor for my mother-in-law for how she handled herself with her mother (her mother passed on a few years ago and she herself is still vertical and ventilating, running a Bed-and-Breakfast and raising dogs, goats and chickens outside of Detroit!).