Comment by joelwilliamson
3 days ago
He’d be dead either way, the question is if having those three years were a net improvement to his life
3 days ago
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.
In this case man doesn't want to die but others are suggesting it to make it easier on society.
1 reply →
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."
The problem is on your end.
Consider the following scenarios:
There is a red button that orders your euthanasia. Pressing it instantly teleports you to a euthanasia facility and leads to your death unless you say no within 30 seconds. The button reads your fingerprint and can only be pressed by you. (Assume science fiction level technology to make this true)
1. The button is located 5000 km away from you in an unknown location.
2. The location is known.
3. You can order the delivery of the button to you for $50
4. The button is in your basement
5. The button is next to your bed
6. The button is on your keyboard and mouse
7. The button is on your keychain
Now consider there is a blue button with the same rules as above, which makes you feel compelled to press the first button for a day and it can be pressed by anyone.
You'd want the red button as far away from you as possible and the blue button secured in a location that is as inaccessible to others as possible.
In today's society there are too many people obsessed with pressing blue buttons. Also, pressing blue buttons is not a crime, because red buttons happen to be pretty far away from most people.
But now there are people obsessed with pressing red buttons. They want to ship the red button to your house on your behalf, while thinking they are doing you a favor.
This would be okay if the blue button pressing people were a minority and there was a punishment for pressing blue buttons, but it turns out both positions are popular and when averaged together, the buttons will be placed next to each other, thereby turning the blue button into a second red button.
3 replies →
They are suggesting a man who is making life hard on others should die for society which I think is wrong. No one is saying that those who choose to die shouldn't have that choice rather it's not society who should be making the choice.
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.
[dead]
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.
More doesn't equal better but it is no one choice but the person. Not society or the medical system assigning a quality of life score.
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?