The last decision by the leading thinker on decisions | Hacker News Reader

The last decision by the leading thinker on decisions

wsj.com

> His wife had died in 2018 of a stroke after suffering from vascular dementia for a number of years. His mother had also died of cognitive decline years earlier.

Makes sense that he would want to avoid the mental decline he saw with his loved ones. Sounds like he identified some of the early signs in himself and decided to act.

What’s the mechanism of dying of cognitive decline? Cognition doesn’t sound vital to bodily functions.

My mum either forgot she was thirsty, or what to do when she was. Shortly after going to a care home.

We didn't know that at the time, only from the results of the… I assume it was an autopsy?

You can absolutely "forget" how to chew and swallow food.

An example of that mechanism has been in the headlines recently; see the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Gene Hackman and his wife (and their dog).

Maybe not, but if the cognition that makes me what I am is failing, now what?

My deep respect for this decision. There‘s this German saying - you ought to go when things are at their best. The older I grow, the more I‘m believing that quality of life is what we should always optimize for. Not duration, anyway. Or - both, without compromising the other too much?

I do think the point of where quality of life is declining too much is highly individual. And I hope we keep improving prophylaxis and treatments such that most people can turn 100 and still feel like they’re getting something out of life.

I also deeply respect this decision and I wish it was not such a taboo. Having said that, I am also deeply suspicious of easy banalities like "you ought to go when things are at their best". This because we are not great, especially when we're young, of having the perspective to understand that temporary setbacks like lost loves and financial setbacks are not an indication that the best days are past us.

While never supporting such an idea in general, one must fall short of judging such an action, IMO. It's between them and the Almighty.

There is an essay by Roger Scruton, "Dying in Time", in "Confessions of a Heretic"[1] where he wrestles with our modern capacity to outlive our faculties. But I Decline Even Naming examples of that.

The last sentence reads: "The main point, it seems to me, is to maintain a life of active risk and affection, while helping the body along the path to decay, remembering always that the value of life does not consist in its length but its depth."

[1] https://www.google.com/books/edition/Confessions_of_a_Hereti...

> How does his decision fit into the growing debate over the downsides of extreme longevity? How much control do we, and should we, have over our own death?

What is considered as normal is defined by what is normally distributed. That which majority chooses. The following video essay explains that

Why Living Forever Would (Probably) Be Awful

https://youtu.be/PKsARuqxxQk

It doesn't sound like he was a burden on anybody, not in pain himself, and instead was still able to bring joy and insight to other people.

Our society definitely keeps people alive--by default--well into cruelty.

But this? Too early.

> But this? Too early.

Part of me understands this sentiment, which I take to be rooted in a feeling that he was of such value and had so much potential remaining that why would he take himself away from us...

...and those last few words were chosen deliberately, to highlight the selfishness and lack of empathy in the actual statement of "too early".

Part of me wants to apologize for suggesting selfishness and a lack of empathy, and part of absolutely does not: He was 90, he watched his wife die from cognitive decline, he may or may not have been declining, he may or may not have felt he had more to offer, but, most importantly, he chose to die when he could still make a choice.

Ultimately, that is the reason I cast any gainsaying as selfishness and/or lack of empathy: You DO NOT know him. I DO NOT know him. We DO NOT get to speak for him.

I loved his work. Despite all the flaws in Thinking, Fast and Slow, it remains an influential work, if for no other reason than it recast how we think about some of its subjects and themes.

Would I have hoped he would do more? Of course! Should he have stuck around because I wanted him to?

No. Period. Full stop. End of story.

The two best parts of euthanasia are grace and choice. He had both: He chose his time, and I expect, like my MIL, he died with grace and dignity.

For almost as long as I had known my MIL, she was in pain and suffered involuntary movements (inoperable benign tumour). When the pain got too bad, she had the plug pulled. She was almost giddy in the hospital, dressed in her favourite outfit, with two of her favourite people (not me, her daughter and grandson), having spent the day before with her love of 70+ years sharing memories and saying goodbye.

She was so happy that the pain would end, so happy to be going out on her terms.

Mourn Kahneman, but do not disrespect him - or anyone else - by second guessing him.

Autonomy and empathy are our greatest assets. We would do well to remember both.

It's not a lack of empathy -- I saw 2 elderly relatives kept alive much too long. It's not "disrespect" , it's disagreement.

It seems odd, doesn’t it? For those of us living to agree or disagree with someone’s singularly personal choice about the terms and timing of their chosen end. A choice and an ending that in the abstract is theoretically open to all, but that only each person in their own, individual right could possibly understand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com