Comment by verinus
1 year ago
and I find your judgement on this quite disturbing, even arrogant.
there is a reason nearly all religions take a stance against killing, even killing yourself!
and for me it starts with: who am I to judge somebody should rather be dead than alive? do you REALLY know?
That somebody is simply gone. It doesn't make sense to view it any other way.
It's not a disturbing view. However, as long as the affected person is not capable of suffering anymore it is fully up to the family to decide what they prefer. So either way can be a valid and ethical then. It can be ethical to hang on and it can be ethical to let go.
(That being said, If there is chance that the affected person could recover or even not recover but suffer at the moment then the question becomes very complex. I think most would admit that the complexity exists.)
But the son isn't gone from the experience of the father, why should he pretend like he is?
I think you forget the fact that his son has 0 ability for self-preservance. In some cases, we may make things that have no chance to exist on their own, persist, but in this case, what does it serve, but our own selfishness?
6 replies →
I believe it's selfish to keep somebody going when they have absolutely 0 ability for self-maintenance.
I believe the comment you reply to is disturbing (or rather insensitive) only because the article author is reading this thread.
But we should be able to have the discussion the grandparent poster wants to have.
If the author wants to do what he described in the article, that's fine – it's up to him and his partner.
However, we should as a society not expect it as a standard IMHO. No one should be expected to sacrifice themselves like that, for apparently little reason. It seems irrational and painful.