3 ms·
From reading this article I didn't get the impression the owners of the property were at issue with him. I assume that wasn't the case, this narrative certainl
by Timpy 8y ago
From reading this article I didn't get the impression the owners of the property were at issue with him. I assume that wasn't the case, this narrative certainly was not "30 year pest finally eradicated from beach front."
I made brief comment on what I believe the other side of the story would be; he was sick (suspected flue) and modern medicine could heal him. In most cases I would consider that a moral imperative, as in "it is wrong if you don't do it." But according to the information presented in this article, healing an 82 year old man of the flu is not assuring him any quality of life. Consider it a "Do Not Resuscitate" order. Plenty of elderly have DNRs and have made their wishes clear; they want to die at home.
edit: article posted by doall apparently explaining he was attracting unwanted tourism to what is private property, it's in Japanese: https://www.dailyshincho.jp/article/2015/12090710/?all=1 https://www.dailyshincho.jp/article/2015/12090710/?all=1
- ebbv 8y agoThere's another comment here in the article explaining the reason he was removed was at the request of the people who owned the property.
- dalore 8y agoEasier to remove him while he is alive. If he died there it would create issues for the owners probably.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- privacypoller 8y agoif he died there why would you remove him?