9 ms·

> hard to fear it more than any other thing that can kill me - a stroke, a car accident, etc. Hm. I wonder your age. Young folk seem to think death impossibly

by arkades 10y ago

> hard to fear it more than any other thing that can kill me - a stroke, a car accident, etc. Hm. I wonder your age. Young folk seem to think death impossibly foreign, and fear it / ignore it all equally. Older folk, that have had more first-hand experience with the decline of the flesh in themselves and those they grew up with, have more an appreciation for the difference between an abrupt death in a car accident, and a slow dissolution like cancer. Quite a lot of people fear dying more than they do death.

fsloth 10y ago
Sorry, I didn't mean to speak of death in dismissive form. I've seen too many relatives and those close to me perish in various of ways before old age not to care about it. To me all forms of it ... just feel equally bad in the end from the point of fearing some personal fate or another. My view is not of someone oblivious to life's hardship. Life hits you, you take the punches, and stand as long as you can. "Cancer" in general does not mean a slow death. Some forms can kill within weeks of a diagnosis due to quickly arising medical complications. My intent was certainly not to be dismissive of the fate of Pieter and other cancer victims.
- the_duke 10y ago
  Radiation and chemo therapies are one of the most horrific things one can endure. Depending on the type of cancer, you can go in a few weeks, months, or fight the battle for years. Even if you endure and persist, which gets progressively easier for a lot of cancers thanks to more advanced therapies, you have to fear recurrence. I'm not at all opposed to ending one s own life if done without severe psychological issues and done thoughtfully after plenty consideration. Of course, if you regulate assisted suicide, as some countries in Europe have done, it leads down a very slippery slope. Who makes the decision on whether you are allowed to end your own life? Most current religions frown upon suicide as a sin. Life is god given and not yours to decide upon (Islam, Christianity). Or suicide is viewed as an unjustified interference in the natural order (Hinduism). And therefore most of our societies reject it. Admittedly, most suicides that are not connected to terminal illness manifest due to psychological / neurological illness and despair that might be cured or managed with proper therapy and medication, making a return to a happy life possible. It's a fascinating and very multi-facetted issue to think about.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    >If done without severe psychological issues and done thoughtfully after plenty consideration. I'm even mixed with psychological issues on this. We can help a lot of depression; some folks with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and a slew of others. But some, help is just barely help. If they've been trying treatment for 15-20 years as an adult, and have found life to be agonizing for the most part, and they've talked it over with a psychiatrist (who could have proceedures for due consideration)... yeah, I can't say I oppose it. This does lead back to: Who is allowed to decide whether you live or die? The slippery slope you were speaking of : To me, those are simply beginnings. It is a step above complete illegality.
    - nostrebored 10y ago
      If you're fine with a significant margin of error with people's lives, it's a step above. If you believe psychiatry is a mature field (it's not) it might even make sense.
  - bad_user 10y ago
    It's your own life to take and as long as your brain still works and you have some freedom of movement, nobody can actually stop you from doing it if you're so determined. And granted, when talking about mental illnesses that are considered treatable, like depression, you can't expect assistance for suicide. But when talking terminal illnesses, like cancer or dementia, then not legalizing assisted deaths is not only dangerous to others, but also an act of extreme selfishness. We're basically condemning people to suffer extreme physical pain and/or insanity until their last breath. And as a non-practicing Christian, I suspect the reason has less to do with God and more to do with not wanting to take on some fucking responsibility for others.
    - VLM 10y ago
      "not wanting to take on some fucking responsibility for others." They'll have to explain their sins themselves, but by observation I think its giving up that they oppose. Going up to OPs question of who gets to decide, decades ago when my father died of some weird fast moving liver cancer no one religious had any issue with the numerous treatment options all somewhat fatal or with the concept of being able to select a treatment plan. So the oncologist says chemo option A means X amount of pain and 90% chance you'll be dead in Y months, and option B, C, D, all different tradeoffs, or we could try whatever else and you'll get Y months with X amount of pain, or do nothing and you'll be gone in about Y weeks or etc etc. Basically the patient and team of doctors pick a death date which results in an associated level of pain and medical treatment (medical profit). The Christians don't seem to mind "pick a death date" they just seem very unhappy with the idea of the treatment plan being "give up completely" "game over". There seems this weird assumption that people can't handle picking a death date or it would warp culture too much, but any cancer patient with more than one medically approved treatment option is pretty much picking their date as it is today. Especially if its terminal cancer. Adding a third, fourth, fifth treatment option of "once we agree your quality of life is below level X then you're done" isn't going to be a huge addition or huge problem. My wife has power of attorney or whatever its called over her Alzheimer's damaged great uncle, she has full control over all of his medical treatment plan. The only real moral or ethical argument I can think of is if it were made legal maybe only only legal agreements drafted after the law change should be valid. Although then again, the whole point of her being in charge is he trusted his niece the most so if he were competent he would likely continue to trust her the most anyway.
- arkades 10y ago
  I didn't think you were being dismissive of it in any sort of callous or rude way. My comment was made in earnest, and honestly, without criticism. I don't think there's anything wrong with people at different stages in their lives having different outlooks on life and mortality; those outlooks are shaped by time and experience. A young person generally hasn't seen (many or any of) their close friends grow infirm and die, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that they don't see life through that lens yet.
paulcole 10y ago
Arent abrupt deaths more likely to happen to a young person? Shouldn't a young person then not fear cancer (less likely) any more than accidental death? I wonder your age. Old folk tend to assume they have some sort of wisdom and that they can't possibly be wrong simply because of extra years spent on Earth.
- tunap 10y ago
  Haha, 45yo geezer here! And allow me to retort w/ another broad stroke: Young people tend to assume they know a lot about things they have never experienced. Rest assured, what misconceptions time does not fix for us, death certainly will. edit: changed 'you' to 'us', none get out alive.
- arkades 10y ago
  Malignancy is the #4 leading cause of death in the US in 15-24s and 25-34s. #2, behind unintentional injury, if one excludes homocide/suicide (you may, or may not - I'll leave that to you). By 35-44 it's taken #2 in earnest, with homocide and suicide falling away behind heart disease, to take spots 4 and 5. That's as of 2010, at least. I'm not "old folk," but I do work in medicine. I may have seen a bit more death and death-fear than you. Then again, maybe not; I don't know you.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
The only way to win is not to play. I'm past 50. I'm not overly fussed about dying, it's not like it's avoidable. I'm not overly fussed about how either as I'll get what I'm given. Of course I'd prefer a pain-free exit rather than a 2 year painful decline to incoherent as my father had. Unless you go in your sleep I suspect all routes have pain as the final memory. I have no fear of any of it. The only thing actually on my radar is being aware I have limited time, and am past half-way. For those who die slowly, or lose faculties, the process seems unfair. For those who have a sudden exit the event seems unfair and can leave much unresolved and unsaid. Euthanasia, to me, seems to be the least worst option if I should ever find myself facing a drawn out exit. I get a bit frustrated those professing relgion like to play the "you must not" card. It's not their business unless I share their belief, which I don't. So I'll get the exit the universe decides. One day I'll be part of a star.
- frostymarvelous 10y ago
  > It's not their business unless I share their belief, which I don't. And even if you do share it, it's not.
- fsloth 10y ago
  It's pretty obvious to me most people debating how unethical euthanasia is have no exposure to needlessly prolonged suffering or just favor dogmatic cruelty over humane treatment of people. The kind of folks who think mother Theresa was a saint with her horror houses of suffering.
  - wtracy 10y ago
    It amazes me how many people will favor putting a suffering animal out of its misery, then fight tooth and nail against offering that same mercy to their fellow human beings.
    - yourapostasy 10y ago
      In many cases, it's social virtue signalling, with no real sapience behind the actions. See how virtuous I am empathizing with lower-order animals' suffering. See how virtuous I am championing the sanctity of human life. A lot of the latter can be mitigated: make those who want human life preserved "at all costs" pay cash-over-the-barrel into that "at all costs" effort, on an individual basis. Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts. They either withdraw their opinion immediately when they can no longer externalize their social virtue signalling choice's costs onto everyone else, or they go broke very soon and those who are suffering can make a free choice. Or we can pursue the sane choice and legislate elective assisted euthanasia with safeguards like Switzerland's or other rationally-chosen parameters. It is long past time to recognize that our medical technology has far outstripped our ability to reliably deliver an acceptably high quality of life.
Razengan 10y ago
Writing this as a reply to all the comments regarding death; I think "death" is just another condition like disease or disability that will eventually be defeated through technology. Someday we will have medical immortality and maybe even mind-backups, to "restore" a person (or a very close approximation of them) in the case of accident/violence. We should be looking at death as something surpassable and not necessarily grim or morbid.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  > I think "death" is just another condition like disease or disability that will eventually be defeated through technology. Someday we will have medical immortality and maybe even mind-backups, to "restore" a person (or a very close approximation of them) in the case of accident/violence. Backing up your brain does not prevent you to die. Your organic form will die anyway and you will have to go through death, it's just that a copy of you will continue without you. That's not defeating death at all.
  - Razengan 10y ago
    It may still be comforting for people to get their loved ones back in some way. Even without such "resurrection", medical immortality in the form of immunity to aging and disease and disability could be considered as "defeating" nonviolent death.
    - fsloth 10y ago
      "It may still be comforting for people to get their loved ones back in some way." Memories. All you get is memories. To imagine something else is delusional. Losing a loved one hurts like hell but life goes on. Denial is one part of the processs but most of all the difficult part of the process is remolding oneself into a world where the loved one is no more. The queen of the King of Sweden, Gustaf Adolf could not accept the passing of her husband and in her grief she stored his heart for years in a jar. While science fiction flirts with various kinds of immortality it offers no assistance forming a philosophy for todays world.
  - deleted 10y ago
jksmith 10y ago
>>Quite a lot of people fear dying more than they do death. Hell yes. Kids are grown. Fat life insurance policy. I can accept having a fatal heart attack under the right circumstances :) The slow, painful fade is the thing that scares me. It's better to "burn out, than fade away."

by arkades 10y ago

fsloth 10y ago

Sorry, I didn't mean to speak of death in dismissive form. I've seen too many relatives and those close to me perish in various of ways before old age not to care about it. To me all forms of it ... just feel equally bad in the end from the point of fearing some personal fate or another. My view is not of someone oblivious to life's hardship. Life hits you, you take the punches, and stand as long as you can. "Cancer" in general does not mean a slow death. Some forms can kill within weeks of a diagnosis due to quickly arising medical complications. My intent was certainly not to be dismissive of the fate of Pieter and other cancer victims.

the_duke 10y ago
Radiation and chemo therapies are one of the most horrific things one can endure. Depending on the type of cancer, you can go in a few weeks, months, or fight the battle for years. Even if you endure and persist, which gets progressively easier for a lot of cancers thanks to more advanced therapies, you have to fear recurrence. I'm not at all opposed to ending one s own life if done without severe psychological issues and done thoughtfully after plenty consideration. Of course, if you regulate assisted suicide, as some countries in Europe have done, it leads down a very slippery slope. Who makes the decision on whether you are allowed to end your own life? Most current religions frown upon suicide as a sin. Life is god given and not yours to decide upon (Islam, Christianity). Or suicide is viewed as an unjustified interference in the natural order (Hinduism). And therefore most of our societies reject it. Admittedly, most suicides that are not connected to terminal illness manifest due to psychological / neurological illness and despair that might be cured or managed with proper therapy and medication, making a return to a happy life possible. It's a fascinating and very multi-facetted issue to think about.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  >If done without severe psychological issues and done thoughtfully after plenty consideration. I'm even mixed with psychological issues on this. We can help a lot of depression; some folks with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and a slew of others. But some, help is just barely help. If they've been trying treatment for 15-20 years as an adult, and have found life to be agonizing for the most part, and they've talked it over with a psychiatrist (who could have proceedures for due consideration)... yeah, I can't say I oppose it. This does lead back to: Who is allowed to decide whether you live or die? The slippery slope you were speaking of : To me, those are simply beginnings. It is a step above complete illegality.
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    If you're fine with a significant margin of error with people's lives, it's a step above. If you believe psychiatry is a mature field (it's not) it might even make sense.
- bad_user 10y ago
  It's your own life to take and as long as your brain still works and you have some freedom of movement, nobody can actually stop you from doing it if you're so determined. And granted, when talking about mental illnesses that are considered treatable, like depression, you can't expect assistance for suicide. But when talking terminal illnesses, like cancer or dementia, then not legalizing assisted deaths is not only dangerous to others, but also an act of extreme selfishness. We're basically condemning people to suffer extreme physical pain and/or insanity until their last breath. And as a non-practicing Christian, I suspect the reason has less to do with God and more to do with not wanting to take on some fucking responsibility for others.
  - VLM 10y ago
    "not wanting to take on some fucking responsibility for others." They'll have to explain their sins themselves, but by observation I think its giving up that they oppose. Going up to OPs question of who gets to decide, decades ago when my father died of some weird fast moving liver cancer no one religious had any issue with the numerous treatment options all somewhat fatal or with the concept of being able to select a treatment plan. So the oncologist says chemo option A means X amount of pain and 90% chance you'll be dead in Y months, and option B, C, D, all different tradeoffs, or we could try whatever else and you'll get Y months with X amount of pain, or do nothing and you'll be gone in about Y weeks or etc etc. Basically the patient and team of doctors pick a death date which results in an associated level of pain and medical treatment (medical profit). The Christians don't seem to mind "pick a death date" they just seem very unhappy with the idea of the treatment plan being "give up completely" "game over". There seems this weird assumption that people can't handle picking a death date or it would warp culture too much, but any cancer patient with more than one medically approved treatment option is pretty much picking their date as it is today. Especially if its terminal cancer. Adding a third, fourth, fifth treatment option of "once we agree your quality of life is below level X then you're done" isn't going to be a huge addition or huge problem. My wife has power of attorney or whatever its called over her Alzheimer's damaged great uncle, she has full control over all of his medical treatment plan. The only real moral or ethical argument I can think of is if it were made legal maybe only only legal agreements drafted after the law change should be valid. Although then again, the whole point of her being in charge is he trusted his niece the most so if he were competent he would likely continue to trust her the most anyway.
arkades 10y ago
I didn't think you were being dismissive of it in any sort of callous or rude way. My comment was made in earnest, and honestly, without criticism. I don't think there's anything wrong with people at different stages in their lives having different outlooks on life and mortality; those outlooks are shaped by time and experience. A young person generally hasn't seen (many or any of) their close friends grow infirm and die, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that they don't see life through that lens yet.

paulcole 10y ago

Arent abrupt deaths more likely to happen to a young person? Shouldn't a young person then not fear cancer (less likely) any more than accidental death? I wonder your age. Old folk tend to assume they have some sort of wisdom and that they can't possibly be wrong simply because of extra years spent on Earth.

tunap 10y ago
Haha, 45yo geezer here! And allow me to retort w/ another broad stroke: Young people tend to assume they know a lot about things they have never experienced. Rest assured, what misconceptions time does not fix for us, death certainly will. edit: changed 'you' to 'us', none get out alive.
arkades 10y ago
Malignancy is the #4 leading cause of death in the US in 15-24s and 25-34s. #2, behind unintentional injury, if one excludes homocide/suicide (you may, or may not - I'll leave that to you). By 35-44 it's taken #2 in earnest, with homocide and suicide falling away behind heart disease, to take spots 4 and 5. That's as of 2010, at least. I'm not "old folk," but I do work in medicine. I may have seen a bit more death and death-fear than you. Then again, maybe not; I don't know you.

anexprogrammer 10y ago

The only way to win is not to play. I'm past 50. I'm not overly fussed about dying, it's not like it's avoidable. I'm not overly fussed about how either as I'll get what I'm given. Of course I'd prefer a pain-free exit rather than a 2 year painful decline to incoherent as my father had. Unless you go in your sleep I suspect all routes have pain as the final memory. I have no fear of any of it. The only thing actually on my radar is being aware I have limited time, and am past half-way. For those who die slowly, or lose faculties, the process seems unfair. For those who have a sudden exit the event seems unfair and can leave much unresolved and unsaid. Euthanasia, to me, seems to be the least worst option if I should ever find myself facing a drawn out exit. I get a bit frustrated those professing relgion like to play the "you must not" card. It's not their business unless I share their belief, which I don't. So I'll get the exit the universe decides. One day I'll be part of a star.

frostymarvelous 10y ago
> It's not their business unless I share their belief, which I don't. And even if you do share it, it's not.
fsloth 10y ago
It's pretty obvious to me most people debating how unethical euthanasia is have no exposure to needlessly prolonged suffering or just favor dogmatic cruelty over humane treatment of people. The kind of folks who think mother Theresa was a saint with her horror houses of suffering.
- wtracy 10y ago
  It amazes me how many people will favor putting a suffering animal out of its misery, then fight tooth and nail against offering that same mercy to their fellow human beings.
  - yourapostasy 10y ago
    In many cases, it's social virtue signalling, with no real sapience behind the actions. See how virtuous I am empathizing with lower-order animals' suffering. See how virtuous I am championing the sanctity of human life. A lot of the latter can be mitigated: make those who want human life preserved "at all costs" pay cash-over-the-barrel into that "at all costs" effort, on an individual basis. Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts. They either withdraw their opinion immediately when they can no longer externalize their social virtue signalling choice's costs onto everyone else, or they go broke very soon and those who are suffering can make a free choice. Or we can pursue the sane choice and legislate elective assisted euthanasia with safeguards like Switzerland's or other rationally-chosen parameters. It is long past time to recognize that our medical technology has far outstripped our ability to reliably deliver an acceptably high quality of life.

Razengan 10y ago

Writing this as a reply to all the comments regarding death; I think "death" is just another condition like disease or disability that will eventually be defeated through technology. Someday we will have medical immortality and maybe even mind-backups, to "restore" a person (or a very close approximation of them) in the case of accident/violence. We should be looking at death as something surpassable and not necessarily grim or morbid.

ekianjo 10y ago
> I think "death" is just another condition like disease or disability that will eventually be defeated through technology. Someday we will have medical immortality and maybe even mind-backups, to "restore" a person (or a very close approximation of them) in the case of accident/violence. Backing up your brain does not prevent you to die. Your organic form will die anyway and you will have to go through death, it's just that a copy of you will continue without you. That's not defeating death at all.
- Razengan 10y ago
  It may still be comforting for people to get their loved ones back in some way. Even without such "resurrection", medical immortality in the form of immunity to aging and disease and disability could be considered as "defeating" nonviolent death.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    "It may still be comforting for people to get their loved ones back in some way." Memories. All you get is memories. To imagine something else is delusional. Losing a loved one hurts like hell but life goes on. Denial is one part of the processs but most of all the difficult part of the process is remolding oneself into a world where the loved one is no more. The queen of the King of Sweden, Gustaf Adolf could not accept the passing of her husband and in her grief she stored his heart for years in a jar. While science fiction flirts with various kinds of immortality it offers no assistance forming a philosophy for todays world.
- deleted 10y ago

jksmith 10y ago

>>Quite a lot of people fear dying more than they do death. Hell yes. Kids are grown. Fat life insurance policy. I can accept having a fatal heart attack under the right circumstances :) The slow, painful fade is the thing that scares me. It's better to "burn out, than fade away."