Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdl | Hacker News Reader

I can't imagine not doing #2 unless I'd also be non-functional during the extended life period. If I could read, use the Internet, write, talk to people, etc., it seems like it would be worth pain (which will end when you die, no matter what).

The only case where I could see #1 being a reasonable choice is if #2 puts such hardship on those around you that their lives become much worse.

View on HN

It is easy to say that pain would be worth dealing with but in reality the majority of the healthy public has no understanding of what true chronic pain entails. Ask anyone who has worked in long term or hospice care this question and you will likely find an overwhelming majority choosing option 1. The reality is that in the US death and dying are still anathema.

exactly, bingo! It's like saying u'll stay married forever when your hormones are raging.

>The reality is that in the US death and dying are still anathema.

And thus with the help of the law people are made to live as long as it is possible even when they don't want to. I'm afraid that when the policy is reversed, people would be "encouraged" to quit as soon as possible (and being afraid of such reversal the society clings to the current policy).

Somehow the society just can't understand the simple thing that the decision to quit or stay is personal and not for the society to make/enforce either way.

Agreed, I can think of nothing more personal than having to make that kind of decision. I do think some safeguards are probably necessary to prevent reactionary decisions such as cases where pain or disease are temporary. At the end of the day it comes down to education.

"reality the majority of the healthy public has no understanding of what true chronic pain entails"

Agree. And forget even chronic pain. Simply having a nagging pain, a bad cold, nausea, or a bad headache is certainly enough to take the joy out of many things in life. Even a drip in my throat can kill my buzz.

Nobody gets out alive, so for me it's definitely a question of quality not quantity. It's all very case-by-case however; for example my dad had major surgery to remove most of one of his lungs (cancer) and recovered and had another pretty normal decade of life before the cancer returned, at which point in consultation with his doctors he decided he wanted nothing more done. He could have had more surgery, chemo, radiation, but was clearly in the zone of diminishing returns (enduring a lot of unpleasantness for maybe a bit longer life of uncertain quality).

For me #1 is easy. Screw writing and reading, instead travel around the word, jump from planes, swim with sharks and die in months. 100% better then daily visits to a hospital for a handful of years.

What I, and a lot of people like me, are doing now by not doing #1 is gambling we'll get to do it in the future. This is an easily lost gamble, but oh well.

That sounds great but dying doesn't leave you with a lot of energy to do these things for long.

I think the point is that the treatment leaves you with a ton less energy and hunger and power, etc. Otherwise there really is no point in skipping the treatment.

Then the $19.95 home stem cell kit comes along the week after you die.

I think dhughes made a point here. I would choose option 2 not only because I have a chance to live longer, but also because there might be a treatment for my illness, which will be discovered in the future.

If the treatment allowed you to live over a decade longer then you could live long enough to get another treatment option, this has been true about AIDS drugs.

But if the treatment allowed me to live over a decade longer I'd also choose the treatment even if there was no chance of a new cure.

If the treatment only allows you two or so extra years, unless something is already in the late stages of coming to market, there is just no way any kind of drug or therapy for humans will get through even the earliest stages of approval in that kind of time frame.

At that point, it's probably still too late for you.

In case of chronic diseases like cancer, #2 does put hardship on those around you and their lives will become much worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com