5 ms·

why not try to cure alzheimer or other mental diseases that show up on the elderly instead?

by tough 1y ago

squigz 1y ago
Are these mutually exclusive ideas? Can we not pursue research in this area while not forcing families to watch their loved ones slowly lose their mind and wither away?
- tough 1y ago
  I guess we can explore both, but I'd ask you to research how these laws are already affecting families too in new ways on places where eutanasia is already legal. It's easy on older -about to die-, people, but what about not such clear cut cases, some families are actually against their beloved ones taking their lifes, and the state allowing it, (Parents suing their offspring, to try and not have them do it, for example) and yes, a judge rules out on such cases, but to me, well, i dont see why the state should -sanction- taking your own life, when is something that shouldn't be natural, there's medical cases for sure, but laws sadly aren't perfect, i'd rather have no one wrongly off themselves
  - squigz 1y ago
    > I guess we can explore both, but I'd ask you to research how these laws are already affecting families too in new ways on places where eutanasia is already legal. Can you provide some reading? Because this doesn't really mean much by itself. > It's easy on older -about to die-, people, but what about not such clear cut cases, some families are actually against their beloved ones taking their lifes, and the state allowing it, (Parents suing their offspring, to try and not have them do it, for example) Then those families can talk about it and the person dying can make their choice. The families who don't like it can do what they want, just like those who do want it. > when is something that shouldn't be natural, Almost nothing about our modern life is "natural", including most of medicine. That said, how is death unnatural?
    - tough 1y ago
      > Almost nothing about our modern life is "natural", including most of medicine. That said, how is death unnatural? only meant having to bear the death of your child before you, usually a parent dies first, although i guess infant mortality rates where much higher until recent times... this recent case what i was thinking specifically https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2025-03-17/justicia-avala-eutanasia-joven-enfrento-padre-derecho-morir_4087609/ https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2025-03-17/justicia-av...
      - squigz 1y ago
        > The young woman has been in a wheelchair for years after falling from the top of a building . > He added that his daughter suffers from mental problems with suicidal tendencies and constant changes of heart, and therefore needed psychological treatment, not assisted death. > "The patient's capacity to make decisions has also been verified," the ruling states, "by the attending physician and the psychologist at the Hospital Residencia . The plaintiff has not presented any evidence that could refute the conclusions of these reports. They show that Noelia retains her capacity to make all types of decisions, including, therefore, the decision to undergo euthanasia." This is a terribly sad situation all around, but I don't see this as evidence for why euthanasia laws are bad. The best I can see is that this highlights that we shouldn't push euthanasia as a solution to every lifelong disability, but that s a social/cultural issue, not a legal one - and one that we will certainly have to adapt to as assisted dying becomes more socially accepted. There will likely be more stories where, arguably, it goes too far, but I don't think there will be an epidemic of people offing themselves for relatively minor things. > only meant having to bear the death of your child before you Of course this is sad, but given the context of the conversation, the other choice being watching a child lose their mind or suffer in a world that is extraordinarily hostile to disabled people, I don't think saving the parents one type of pain (while subjecting them to another) is a really great idea either. Also, isn't it better to have a way for people to kill themselves "cleanly", rather than kill themselves at home (or worse, in public)? Presumably finding one's child like that would be far worse? (Of course, none of this is to say that we shouldn't e.g., make the world more accessible to disabled people, or help people learn to live with their disabilities, or try to cure Alzheimer's and the like - but as said, we can do all of these things at once. In the meantime, before we cure Alzheimer's and make everyone perfectly mentally healthy, we should also deal with the harsh realities that not having done those things entails.)
- 1123581321 1y ago
  It will be mutually exclusive along some class line if we try to pursue both. Additionally, without the desire to preserve life and value of the advantages of aged minds, we will not make as much progress on the disease.
  - squigz 1y ago
    Well, we are not "trying to" pursue both - we actively are. Anyway, there certainly is much discussion to be had about class discrimination in medical care, but that seems out of scope for this thread - not least because of very simple things like some country's healthcare systems being radically different than others. > Additionally, without the desire to preserve life and value of the advantages of aged minds, we will not make as much progress on the disease. I'm not sure why you think that easing end-of-life suffering would lead us to stop preserving life? We're also not talking about "aged minds," we're talking about damaged minds - and even if we were, we're not talking about de-aging or anything like that.
    - 1123581321 1y ago
      I appreciate the response. I said “trying” because neither the disease research or the policy change has broadly succeeded yet, and I don’t think either are certain.
yapyap 1y ago
because assisted suicide is a bit more damn easy than “curing alzheimer” why not cure cancer while you’re at it
- tough 1y ago
  well I didn't ask which one was easier but more worthy to pursue
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
I doubt you can cure these diseases, you can perhaps prevent them, but to cure would mean removing their effects, and if you could remove their effects and say, bring a seriously deteriorated Von Neumann back to his previous mental heights it seems like you should be able to make anyone the equal of Von Neumann - which I agree would be a great thing to be able to do but seems to be a much further along than the words cure or prevent would indicate.
- squigz 1y ago
  > I agree would be a great thing to be able to do but seems to be a much further along than the words cure or prevent would indicate. If the words "cure" or "prevent" don't indicate that, why did you bring it up? :) I think this is being needlessly pedantic. Keeping in mind that one of HN's guidelines is to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of a comment, I think we can assume that GP meant, essentially, "learn enough about these diseases so as to detect and prevent them from causing irreparable damage"
  - ElevenLathe 1y ago
    The "disease" we're talking about here is death. Von Neumann was losing his mental capacity because he was dying. I know some in the silicon valley set think that "curing" death is both feasible and desirable but I disagree on both points.
    - sinenomine 1y ago
      A voice from outside SV (mine): We can extend life and prevent disease in animals and should do the same in human beings. As much as the West has exclusive access to biomedical R&D, it's an ethical imperative for the West to pursue this goal on behalf of humanity as a whole. You invented noblesse oblige and should measure up to it.
    - tough 1y ago
      no death is just part of life, there's no life without death. the disease would be alzheimer, and curing it would mean probably preventing it / being able to edit the genome to nullify whatever gen is making it come up in the first place (if its genetic)
Forgeties79 1y ago
We haven’t yet and likely won’t for a lot of people who, to be blunt about it, would quite literally rather die than lose their mental faculties. Ultimately it’s their choice. Honestly it doesn’t strike me as all too different than a DNR.
mrshadowgoose 1y ago
Do you genuinely believe that this is a binary decision, or is this just anti-euthanasia rhetoric disguised as concern trolling? Offering humane end-of-life options to people suffering today does not prohibit ongoing disease research towards potentially helping people in the future.
- sinenomine 1y ago
  It's not entirely binary, but there is an obvious unpleasant tendency in e.g. Canada, to soft-push MAID onto potentially treatable patients who don't even seek medically assisted death. I wouldn't want my government to have an option of dealing with the problem this way, and if I needed MAID, I'd just self-administer.
  - tough 1y ago
    Yes, it's a slippery slope once a state providing assistant to suicide is law imho. It just doesnt seem something a state should be charged with.

why not try to cure alzheimer or other mental diseases that show up on the elderly instead?

by tough 1y ago

why not try to cure alzheimer or other mental diseases that show up on the elderly instead?

Are these mutually exclusive ideas? Can we not pursue research in this area while not forcing families to watch their loved ones slowly lose their mind and wither away?

tough 1y ago
I guess we can explore both, but I'd ask you to research how these laws are already affecting families too in new ways on places where eutanasia is already legal. It's easy on older -about to die-, people, but what about not such clear cut cases, some families are actually against their beloved ones taking their lifes, and the state allowing it, (Parents suing their offspring, to try and not have them do it, for example) and yes, a judge rules out on such cases, but to me, well, i dont see why the state should -sanction- taking your own life, when is something that shouldn't be natural, there's medical cases for sure, but laws sadly aren't perfect, i'd rather have no one wrongly off themselves
- squigz 1y ago
  > I guess we can explore both, but I'd ask you to research how these laws are already affecting families too in new ways on places where eutanasia is already legal. Can you provide some reading? Because this doesn't really mean much by itself. > It's easy on older -about to die-, people, but what about not such clear cut cases, some families are actually against their beloved ones taking their lifes, and the state allowing it, (Parents suing their offspring, to try and not have them do it, for example) Then those families can talk about it and the person dying can make their choice. The families who don't like it can do what they want, just like those who do want it. > when is something that shouldn't be natural, Almost nothing about our modern life is "natural", including most of medicine. That said, how is death unnatural?
  - tough 1y ago
    > Almost nothing about our modern life is "natural", including most of medicine. That said, how is death unnatural? only meant having to bear the death of your child before you, usually a parent dies first, although i guess infant mortality rates where much higher until recent times... this recent case what i was thinking specifically https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2025-03-17/justicia-avala-eutanasia-joven-enfrento-padre-derecho-morir_4087609/ https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2025-03-17/justicia-av...
    - squigz 1y ago
      > The young woman has been in a wheelchair for years after falling from the top of a building . > He added that his daughter suffers from mental problems with suicidal tendencies and constant changes of heart, and therefore needed psychological treatment, not assisted death. > "The patient's capacity to make decisions has also been verified," the ruling states, "by the attending physician and the psychologist at the Hospital Residencia . The plaintiff has not presented any evidence that could refute the conclusions of these reports. They show that Noelia retains her capacity to make all types of decisions, including, therefore, the decision to undergo euthanasia." This is a terribly sad situation all around, but I don't see this as evidence for why euthanasia laws are bad. The best I can see is that this highlights that we shouldn't push euthanasia as a solution to every lifelong disability, but that s a social/cultural issue, not a legal one - and one that we will certainly have to adapt to as assisted dying becomes more socially accepted. There will likely be more stories where, arguably, it goes too far, but I don't think there will be an epidemic of people offing themselves for relatively minor things. > only meant having to bear the death of your child before you Of course this is sad, but given the context of the conversation, the other choice being watching a child lose their mind or suffer in a world that is extraordinarily hostile to disabled people, I don't think saving the parents one type of pain (while subjecting them to another) is a really great idea either. Also, isn't it better to have a way for people to kill themselves "cleanly", rather than kill themselves at home (or worse, in public)? Presumably finding one's child like that would be far worse? (Of course, none of this is to say that we shouldn't e.g., make the world more accessible to disabled people, or help people learn to live with their disabilities, or try to cure Alzheimer's and the like - but as said, we can do all of these things at once. In the meantime, before we cure Alzheimer's and make everyone perfectly mentally healthy, we should also deal with the harsh realities that not having done those things entails.)
1123581321 1y ago
It will be mutually exclusive along some class line if we try to pursue both. Additionally, without the desire to preserve life and value of the advantages of aged minds, we will not make as much progress on the disease.
- squigz 1y ago
  Well, we are not "trying to" pursue both - we actively are. Anyway, there certainly is much discussion to be had about class discrimination in medical care, but that seems out of scope for this thread - not least because of very simple things like some country's healthcare systems being radically different than others. > Additionally, without the desire to preserve life and value of the advantages of aged minds, we will not make as much progress on the disease. I'm not sure why you think that easing end-of-life suffering would lead us to stop preserving life? We're also not talking about "aged minds," we're talking about damaged minds - and even if we were, we're not talking about de-aging or anything like that.
  - 1123581321 1y ago
    I appreciate the response. I said “trying” because neither the disease research or the policy change has broadly succeeded yet, and I don’t think either are certain.

yapyap 1y ago

because assisted suicide is a bit more damn easy than “curing alzheimer” why not cure cancer while you’re at it

tough 1y ago
well I didn't ask which one was easier but more worthy to pursue

bryanrasmussen 1y ago

I doubt you can cure these diseases, you can perhaps prevent them, but to cure would mean removing their effects, and if you could remove their effects and say, bring a seriously deteriorated Von Neumann back to his previous mental heights it seems like you should be able to make anyone the equal of Von Neumann - which I agree would be a great thing to be able to do but seems to be a much further along than the words cure or prevent would indicate.

squigz 1y ago
> I agree would be a great thing to be able to do but seems to be a much further along than the words cure or prevent would indicate. If the words "cure" or "prevent" don't indicate that, why did you bring it up? :) I think this is being needlessly pedantic. Keeping in mind that one of HN's guidelines is to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of a comment, I think we can assume that GP meant, essentially, "learn enough about these diseases so as to detect and prevent them from causing irreparable damage"
- ElevenLathe 1y ago
  The "disease" we're talking about here is death. Von Neumann was losing his mental capacity because he was dying. I know some in the silicon valley set think that "curing" death is both feasible and desirable but I disagree on both points.
  - sinenomine 1y ago
    A voice from outside SV (mine): We can extend life and prevent disease in animals and should do the same in human beings. As much as the West has exclusive access to biomedical R&D, it's an ethical imperative for the West to pursue this goal on behalf of humanity as a whole. You invented noblesse oblige and should measure up to it.
  - tough 1y ago
    no death is just part of life, there's no life without death. the disease would be alzheimer, and curing it would mean probably preventing it / being able to edit the genome to nullify whatever gen is making it come up in the first place (if its genetic)

Forgeties79 1y ago

We haven’t yet and likely won’t for a lot of people who, to be blunt about it, would quite literally rather die than lose their mental faculties. Ultimately it’s their choice. Honestly it doesn’t strike me as all too different than a DNR.

mrshadowgoose 1y ago

Do you genuinely believe that this is a binary decision, or is this just anti-euthanasia rhetoric disguised as concern trolling? Offering humane end-of-life options to people suffering today does not prohibit ongoing disease research towards potentially helping people in the future.

sinenomine 1y ago
It's not entirely binary, but there is an obvious unpleasant tendency in e.g. Canada, to soft-push MAID onto potentially treatable patients who don't even seek medically assisted death. I wouldn't want my government to have an option of dealing with the problem this way, and if I needed MAID, I'd just self-administer.
- tough 1y ago
  Yes, it's a slippery slope once a state providing assistant to suicide is law imho. It just doesnt seem something a state should be charged with.