3 ms·
Never heard of "put them out of their misery"? Not acting and letting them destroy themselves can be worse in many ways to them and others around them rather t
by SigmundA 5y ago
Never heard of "put them out of their misery"?
Not acting and letting them destroy themselves can be worse in many ways to them and others around them rather than "acting to kill them".
This is a hard truth, I am not advocated mercy killings but doing nothing to help them can be worse in many than doing something for all involved, which is why most advocate for doing something to help even is it seem futile, sometimes its as much for everyone else than the person receiving help.
- anonporridge 5y agoI think it really depends. Ultimately there's a never ending ethical conversation of when or if one ever has a duty to act to help others. I'm inclined to be believe there's a lot of cases where you ethically do have a duty to act, but we're not going to resolve the debate of where that line is here. But there does exist a practical limitations to what you can do to save someone. A key rule of any kind of emergency response is to always prioritize your own safety first, because if you don't you risk creating an additional victim and making the situation worse for everyone. That can be an incredibly hard thing to accept when you see someone suffering and dying, but it's the truth. If you jump in the water to save a drowning person, there's a high chance in their panic, they drag you down and you both drown.
- csunbird 5y agoI always remember this phrase, from Harry Potter, when thinking about death: "You are the true master of death, because the true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts that he must die, and understands that there are far, far worse things in the living world than dying.” A little bit pessimistic, but lifelong suffering might be worser than dying outright.