4 ms·
I can understand why you'd feel the risk of such an event is sufficiently low that it's not worth buying/charging/wearing a "permanent tracking device", particu
by scottlamb 7y ago
I can understand why you'd feel the risk of such an event is sufficiently low that it's not worth buying/charging/wearing a "permanent tracking device", particularly if you also feel it doesn't respect your privacy adequately. And I agree our collective tolerance to risk is going down over time. But I'm curious about this part of your comment:
> Speaking for myself, I'm ready to die when its time. If my body is so weak and knackered that I cannot even go for a bike ride without medical assistance then I reckon it's time to shuffle off this mortal coil and make way for someone else.
This could happen because of a hit-and-run driver or because of some other temporary medical condition; either might be completely resolved with the right treatment. I think a better way to look at it is about your quality of life afterward. If you're terminally ill or of very advanced age with a poor prognosis for recovery, then I can see why you'd want a "do not resuscitate" order, would disable this feature, etc. Otherwise why not get help?
- frabbit 7y agoAgree about the quality of life afterwards being the most important issue. I have seen too many people who have lingered "alive". I suspect that if I get knocked down then there is a dichotomy of outcomes: 1) unpleasant, painful, survivable, not time-critical, not life-changing 2) major trauma, life can be saved with a time-critical intervention. Prognosis post-event is for a decreased quality of life. Would probably die if left without unusually quick ER. I can only see the watch being useful for #2: the exact situation where I think it would be better that I die.