3 ms·
No, not really. Life extension is life saving, after all.
by nkozyra 12y ago
No, not really. Life extension is life saving, after all.
- sigzero 12y agoNo, not really.
- akerl_ 12y agoCan you name a procedure that's actually life-saving, then? As far as I can tell, any medical procedure maxes out at "extending life"
- mikeash 12y agoPersonally, I'd define the difference as being whether or not you ultimately die of the same incidence of the same disease you're treating, or of something else. If you're treated for brain cancer and you live some more years but ultimately die of that brain cancer, it's life extending. If you're treated for brain cancer and die of an unrelated heart condition, it's life saving. I don't know how meaningful that difference ultimately is, but I think that's how I'd use the terms.
- 1ris 12y agoIn the end, we all will die.
- nkozyra 12y agoUnless you know of someone who lives forever, yes it is. Getting another second is all the live-saving we have.
- xyclos 12y agoThere are a million things that could go wrong even with a good match. Potentially extending life even by a second is not a guarantee.
- Bedon292 12y agoI think the difference between the two is a matter of time frame and perspective. While there is not a huge difference between the two, I read life extending as still dieing from the same cause at a later date, but still in the short term (maybe a year or two). Whereas I read life saving as completely beating the current life threatening injury / disease and dieing may years down the line to something completely different.
- skywhopper 12y agoAt the time of the story in question, no one knew how much time Jobs would gain by such a transplant. It might have been two decades rather than two years. Or two months.