Comment by dotnet00
3 days ago
This is such a cruel perspective, implying that he'd be better off dead, for what, 3 years of inconvenience to his community, despite the previous 80 years being spent contributing positively to it?
You even literally show that he isn't solely remembered for those last 3 years of his life. We owe people like that care and understanding, not murder framed as mercy.
It's always so painful to see old people around who are clearly living alone, forced to do everything themselves, having to ask strangers for help because they're afraid of being a burden, and their actual children can't find time for them. Only to now see people actually supporting murder because old people become a burden for a couple of years near the end of their life.
Thank you for saying this. It's not a popular view, but it is the correct one.
> You really don't want to end up with dementia and related illnesses, it totally sours everyone's view of you.
I don't think I've read a wilder defense of euthanasia in my entire life.
This is a "great guy" who committed his life to teaching kids, being a good neighbour, and his reward is one of his former pupils arguing he ought to be killed because he's grown unwell, he's unable to maintain his optics, and the community he gave his life to has therefore 'soured' on him. How very inconvenient for you, that this man is unwell.
What message is this supposed to send to anyone? "Don't get invested in trying to be nice to the neighbours, they're all ghouls who'll have you shipped to the glue factory as soon as you stop seeming useful." And once everyone internalises this level of social atomism, where do you expect these 'great guys' to keep coming from?
He’d be dead either way, the question is if having those three years were a net improvement to his life
Not for us to question or answer though.
Putting that up for discussion makes the world worse than any suffering that may be experienced during that time.
By that logic we should invoke the death penalty for everyone who has been sentenced to life in prison and has exhausted all their appeals, or any seniors convicted of a crime.
Their life probably won't improve anymore, and in the latter case they're going to die in a few years anyway, so might as well just lighten the load on society?
No, you'd let them decide if they want to die.
3 years living vs dying is a 3 year net improvement on life. Such silly statement.
By your logic we should kill everyone at their peak.
I've known at least 2 old persons who were literally looking forward to their death because of chronic pain and general boredom and frustration of requiring 24h/7 assistance and not being able to live the way they used to.
They would have likely used assisted suicide if it had been an option back then.
2 replies →
On the contrary, I urge you to consider whether it is your statement that is overly dismissive. Is there perhaps some existing conditioning, maybe in the form of religious upbringing that is driving your reaction to this? Many of us in fact find OP's a very thoughtful comment than a "silly statement".
> By your logic we should kill everyone at their peak.
No, they suggested that the old and ailing whose quality of life has deteriorated to the point where there is no hope or no more joy in living, ought to be given the choice.
Let me end by quoting my favourite lines from the HN guidelines:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
5 replies →
In medical research on treatments the outcome is often measured in quality adjusted years of life, because just keping people alive at any cost is a bad metric.
3 years of living in constant pain - not saying it’s the case here - is not better than being dead to some people.
1 reply →
That's literally a one-dimensional analysis. Are you sure you're not missing any other relevant factors?I find it hard to believe you uncritically think 'more = better' in every context.
1 reply →
A beautiful woman dies twice as the old saying goes.
While what you say is extreme there is a point in the decline past which there is no point of living. If you have something worth living for - cling to life and to 107 if you like. But if the only thing that waits you is to slowly decay and fade and lose yourself - what is the point?
But this guy wanted to die right? Bit different. Agreed that 'how others view you' is such nonsense. People are cruel that way and also: those children who couldn't be bothered visiting or helping out, will be standing at the funeral sniffling and telling 'such great dad stories'. Makes my blood boil.