3 ms·

Lots of people will take any treatment offered. Indeed I would. That's a perfectly acceptable approach. Yes, medical treatments are improving and hanging on is

Lots of people will take any treatment offered. Indeed I would. That's a perfectly acceptable approach. Yes, medical treatments are improving and hanging on is a good approach cause something may be around the corner. I don't think the article is advocating for no treatment ever. I think it is advocating for a balanced understanding of what treatment looks like, and balances that with quality of life. And indeed balances your age as well. If I'm 80, I'm (somewhat) less concerned with length of life, and more concerned with quality. If I'm 50 that's a different equation. It's very much a personal choice, but to make a choice you have to have information. And it's helpful if you can make the choice in a calm relaxed environment. Both can be missing immediately after hearing a diagnosis. The point is that medical intervention is usually desired. But equally there's a place for acceptance and contentment.

zemvpferreira 3mo ago
The father of a good friend passed away recently from a brain cancer. He was a doctor, but atypically accepted every treatment available. His last 3 years were spent in surgery or sick from chemo, did not have one good day after his initial diagnosis. If he could have gone back I'm sure he would have decided not to be treated.
- xandrius 3mo ago
  Unless going back gets you to re-roll your dice then I'm sure they would still have done it.
  - zemvpferreira 3mo ago
    You might not want it for yourself but many people, especially health professionals in my experience, will take a smaller but less painful lifespan over a chance to live longer through horrible treatments.
teiferer 3mo ago
Agreeing with your overall sentiment, but this caught my eye: > If I'm 80, I'm (somewhat) less concerned with length of life, and more concerned with quality. If I'm 50 that's a different equation Why is that? Is quality less important at 50? Would you be more willing to endure suffering if you are younger? Why? I'm thinking that no matter age, people would generally like to avoid a painful death. Maybe it's because it feels more likely to "beat this thing" when you are younger, and then still potentially have decades ahead of you?
- sleepychu 3mo ago
  I think you've got it exactly right: - what is the expected gain? Years+Quality - what is the maximum gain? Years+Quality The older you are the smaller your maximum gain of Years can be.
- buran77 3mo ago
  > Why is that? By 80 most people have reconciled with the idea that they don't have too many years left even in the best of conditions. There's no hope of extending life, and there's little to look forward to, they already lived through all the important milestones they could realistically see. Quality is all that's left to hope for. At 50 they still can still hope for recovery and a life beyond that. They have a lot of moments and milestones ahead of them, at least with family and loved ones - see their kids graduate, get married, or have their own children. So if the hope is stronger than the pain, they'll sacrifice the quality of life.
  - Someone 3mo ago
    > By 80 most people have […] already lived through all the important milestones they could realistically see. That’s at least partially culturally determined. As the healthy live expectancy creeps up slowly, I expect that idea to change. There’s some truth in the saying “50 is the new 40”
    - yunwal 3mo ago
      This doesn’t really make a difference in the argument. You can sub 80 with 90 and the point remains the same. There is some age where you stop caring about trying to be cured, and just care about the quality of life in the immediate future
inglor_cz 3mo ago
Yeah, it is a big difference to undergo aggressive treatment at 50 vs. 80. Not just because of the potential years or months gained, but also because older bodies don't heal that well, or at all. This is something that may be revolutionized through regenerative medicine, but hasn't so far.

zemvpferreira 3mo ago

The father of a good friend passed away recently from a brain cancer. He was a doctor, but atypically accepted every treatment available. His last 3 years were spent in surgery or sick from chemo, did not have one good day after his initial diagnosis. If he could have gone back I'm sure he would have decided not to be treated.

xandrius 3mo ago
Unless going back gets you to re-roll your dice then I'm sure they would still have done it.
- zemvpferreira 3mo ago
  You might not want it for yourself but many people, especially health professionals in my experience, will take a smaller but less painful lifespan over a chance to live longer through horrible treatments.

teiferer 3mo ago

Agreeing with your overall sentiment, but this caught my eye: > If I'm 80, I'm (somewhat) less concerned with length of life, and more concerned with quality. If I'm 50 that's a different equation Why is that? Is quality less important at 50? Would you be more willing to endure suffering if you are younger? Why? I'm thinking that no matter age, people would generally like to avoid a painful death. Maybe it's because it feels more likely to "beat this thing" when you are younger, and then still potentially have decades ahead of you?

sleepychu 3mo ago
I think you've got it exactly right: - what is the expected gain? Years+Quality - what is the maximum gain? Years+Quality The older you are the smaller your maximum gain of Years can be.
buran77 3mo ago
> Why is that? By 80 most people have reconciled with the idea that they don't have too many years left even in the best of conditions. There's no hope of extending life, and there's little to look forward to, they already lived through all the important milestones they could realistically see. Quality is all that's left to hope for. At 50 they still can still hope for recovery and a life beyond that. They have a lot of moments and milestones ahead of them, at least with family and loved ones - see their kids graduate, get married, or have their own children. So if the hope is stronger than the pain, they'll sacrifice the quality of life.
- Someone 3mo ago
  > By 80 most people have […] already lived through all the important milestones they could realistically see. That’s at least partially culturally determined. As the healthy live expectancy creeps up slowly, I expect that idea to change. There’s some truth in the saying “50 is the new 40”
  - yunwal 3mo ago
    This doesn’t really make a difference in the argument. You can sub 80 with 90 and the point remains the same. There is some age where you stop caring about trying to be cured, and just care about the quality of life in the immediate future

inglor_cz 3mo ago

Yeah, it is a big difference to undergo aggressive treatment at 50 vs. 80. Not just because of the potential years or months gained, but also because older bodies don't heal that well, or at all. This is something that may be revolutionized through regenerative medicine, but hasn't so far.