4 ms·

> a "valiant fight to the end" that lasts years of agony without acceptable quality of life is egoist. Your close relatives will be relieved when you pass away,

> a "valiant fight to the end" that lasts years of agony without acceptable quality of life is egoist. Your close relatives will be relieved when you pass away, partly because you were suffering, and partly because a very long agony could become a huge drain of time, money and emotional burden. This inadvertently sends a message that some life isn't worth living and that it's moral thing to end your life when you "permanently" become a burden to others. Once this way of thinking becomes dominant, it will put incredible psychological pressure on to people with poor life quality that depend on others. What is acceptable quality of life? When does it become unacceptable? You may think it is a personal choice, but it really isn't. If majority of people around you think you are being egoistic for trying to live, despite the burden you are putting on others, you aren't given much real choice anymore. Look up how big influence can peer pressure and brain washing have on people. > I want to be able to choose when and how to die on my terms, legally. It's also egoistic supporting a law because of some personal wants, despite significant bad side effects it can bring. IMO, upsides a legal suicide law brings are much lower than downsides. And even without legal suicide, person that commits suicide won't get a legal punishment. So, you still have a choice.

sokoloff 6y ago
Perhaps rather than inadvertently sending a message, it acknowledges the reality that some life isn’t worth living. I’ve seen the agony it puts on family members when someone makes the (in their mind) rash decision to kill themself. We should work to prevent these rash decision type suicides, but many are carefully and methodically considered and if someone genuinely wishes to exit this place, why should society prevent them from having a chance to communicate that openly, to choose the time, and not leave a giant mess of brain matter that someone else has to clean up? We allow our dogs to have a better end of life experience (and I’m not suggesting that we’d make the decision in humans quite as early as we do for our beloved pets, though if we could communicate verbally with them, perhaps we should).
- zigzag312 6y ago
  > Perhaps rather than inadvertently sending a message, it acknowledges the reality that some life isn’t worth living. Or perhaps we are jumping to conclusions. Without knowing what is the purpose of life (if there is such a thing), we cannot objectively know what life is or isn't worth living. We just have opinions that we try to rationalize one way or another. We have to realize that we cannot build an ideal law without unwanted side effects. Best we can do is choose a system with less adverse side effects. A system where it is a bit harder to commit suicide (but not impossible) has IMO less adverse negative side effects that a system where it is easy to commit suicide, but also possible to manipulate and brainwash people into thinking their life isn't worth living. Yes, sometimes suffering of a person is prolonged a bit and sometimes there is a bit more mess to clean. But there is also some small upside. We can observe, collect data and learn more about these diseases, ageing, depression etc., and maybe that helps us to faster discover new improvements that benefit future generations. Also, compare living in pain for relatively short amount of time (as terminally ill don't live very long on average) with euthanasia abuse cases. Which is worse, unwarranted killing of a person or suffering of a person?
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Absent an objective standard (which I agree we'll never have), it seems to me that whether life is worth living should be primarily decided by the liver of that life. I'm not sure if the unwarranted killing of a person is worse than permitting their torture for months or years on end. I also don't know if that answer changes if for every 1 person who would be killed in an undesirable way that we had to torture 1000 people for an average of 6 months to avoid it. That's the essence of this debate and it will never find an objective answer that will satisfy all, which is why I default to allowing people to choose, even if some will choose in a way that I would not. (After watching two of our beloved elderly family members struggle for many years and watching another two struggle for weeks in one case and months in the other, our family has expressed our thoughts to each other. We're not universally in agreement, but I'll support each of them in their choices.)
    - zigzag312 6y ago
      I'm sorry for your loss. It is hard to watch beloved person struggle and not be able to help. We had multiple loses in the past few years. One was a longer struggle. However, it wasn't torture the whole time. I admit, some days were pretty bad, but there were also good days. And there were also joyful new experiences, like meeting newly born family members. Thing is that while quality of life may look terrible from healthy persons perspective, body adapts to that state and combined together with moderen pain medication person is not in constant physical pain. Point being that it's usually not constant physical torture for years until person dies. Another issue is psychological pain. This is where we can make a difference. Allowing people to not be perfect or the best, but still be equally worthy can do wonders. > whether life is worth living should be primarily decided by the liver of that life I find it that people can have quite significant change of heart. And it is not rare at all to have one.

sokoloff 6y ago

Perhaps rather than inadvertently sending a message, it acknowledges the reality that some life isn’t worth living. I’ve seen the agony it puts on family members when someone makes the (in their mind) rash decision to kill themself. We should work to prevent these rash decision type suicides, but many are carefully and methodically considered and if someone genuinely wishes to exit this place, why should society prevent them from having a chance to communicate that openly, to choose the time, and not leave a giant mess of brain matter that someone else has to clean up? We allow our dogs to have a better end of life experience (and I’m not suggesting that we’d make the decision in humans quite as early as we do for our beloved pets, though if we could communicate verbally with them, perhaps we should).

zigzag312 6y ago
> Perhaps rather than inadvertently sending a message, it acknowledges the reality that some life isn’t worth living. Or perhaps we are jumping to conclusions. Without knowing what is the purpose of life (if there is such a thing), we cannot objectively know what life is or isn't worth living. We just have opinions that we try to rationalize one way or another. We have to realize that we cannot build an ideal law without unwanted side effects. Best we can do is choose a system with less adverse side effects. A system where it is a bit harder to commit suicide (but not impossible) has IMO less adverse negative side effects that a system where it is easy to commit suicide, but also possible to manipulate and brainwash people into thinking their life isn't worth living. Yes, sometimes suffering of a person is prolonged a bit and sometimes there is a bit more mess to clean. But there is also some small upside. We can observe, collect data and learn more about these diseases, ageing, depression etc., and maybe that helps us to faster discover new improvements that benefit future generations. Also, compare living in pain for relatively short amount of time (as terminally ill don't live very long on average) with euthanasia abuse cases. Which is worse, unwarranted killing of a person or suffering of a person?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Absent an objective standard (which I agree we'll never have), it seems to me that whether life is worth living should be primarily decided by the liver of that life. I'm not sure if the unwarranted killing of a person is worse than permitting their torture for months or years on end. I also don't know if that answer changes if for every 1 person who would be killed in an undesirable way that we had to torture 1000 people for an average of 6 months to avoid it. That's the essence of this debate and it will never find an objective answer that will satisfy all, which is why I default to allowing people to choose, even if some will choose in a way that I would not. (After watching two of our beloved elderly family members struggle for many years and watching another two struggle for weeks in one case and months in the other, our family has expressed our thoughts to each other. We're not universally in agreement, but I'll support each of them in their choices.)
  - zigzag312 6y ago
    I'm sorry for your loss. It is hard to watch beloved person struggle and not be able to help. We had multiple loses in the past few years. One was a longer struggle. However, it wasn't torture the whole time. I admit, some days were pretty bad, but there were also good days. And there were also joyful new experiences, like meeting newly born family members. Thing is that while quality of life may look terrible from healthy persons perspective, body adapts to that state and combined together with moderen pain medication person is not in constant physical pain. Point being that it's usually not constant physical torture for years until person dies. Another issue is psychological pain. This is where we can make a difference. Allowing people to not be perfect or the best, but still be equally worthy can do wonders. > whether life is worth living should be primarily decided by the liver of that life I find it that people can have quite significant change of heart. And it is not rare at all to have one.