Hacker News Reader

Comment by larsiusprime | Hacker News Reader

And to anyone who feels like telling me what a bad person I am for drawing the line in a slightly different place than you do on Euthanasia — go read Four Magic Words before you post something glib assuming you know anything about my reasoning and motivations.

Go ahead and have a reasoned debate about euthanasia if you want — I’ve never subscribed to “the person who is suffering the most this second gets to be right about everything.”

Just know five things:

1) I respect you if you would make a different decision than I would.

2) I landed in about the most controversial edge case imaginable.

3) You don’t know me

4) It has not been sentimental, romantic, or spiritually invigorating. It’s been horrible.

5) I don’t do this because I can’t emotionally bear to be parted with what’s left of him. It’s the opposite if anything.

View on HN

Hey man, I don't know you and you don't know me, but if I may I'd like to point out that you don't have to explain your feelings or thoughts to a bunch of strangers on the Internet. Just getting them out there, in this form, is a gift for anyone willing to receive it.

Thank you.

I don't disagree with you, but it actually seems like a great strategy to avoid internet arguments... My grandfather used to tell a story about how when he was a child he'd get beat up on the way home by the bullies on the corner (circa 1950).

He resolved it with a similar approach - run in headfirst, fists flying, clobber everybody before they knew what hit em, and bounce. Seems a good idea to quash the trolls before they even get started.

> 4) It has not been sentimental, romantic, or spiritually invigorating. It’s been horrible.

I've been reading everything you've posted and this is my favorite line. Nothing about what's happened with my son has made me better.

It seems you are following the ethical course, and this is commendable. As you may already know, in ethics we distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary (or disproportionate) care. But while we may licitly refuse disproportionate care, at least in many cases, we cannot intentionally cause the death of anyone (ourselves or another; the "self-ownership" thesis is likely responsible for the view that we can licitly do anything to ourselves as if we were some kind of property, but we are not objects, and what is morally good is objective and not fully accounted for by consent, or utility). We may not purposefully speed up anyone's death, but we can, in some cases, where proportionality is preserved, permit treatment or refuse treatment, knowing that an unintended side effect is the hastening of death (like, perhaps, alleviation of pain).

In any case, know that such circumstances as yours, if we respond to them rightly, perfect us in the virtue of charity, the highest and greatest of virtues.

I wish your son, you, and your family comfort and joy. Do not despair. Fear not. Pax vobiscum.

I find your comment very distasteful. It is written as if you know The One True Path, and anyone who strays from Your Path is unethical.

I find your comment particularly distasteful in light of the fact that you were replying to a comment by the writer in which he acknowledged that people might make different choices if placed in the same situation that he was in.

Finally, some of the things you wrote are obviously wrong. For example:

>We may not purposefully speed up anyone’s death

Nonsense. If someone is trying to kill me, I may be justified in killing them.

> what is morally good is objective and not fully accounted for by consent, or utility.

Could you elaborate here? I'm curious what is meant by this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com