Hacker News Reader

Comment by darkmighty | Hacker News Reader

It's not like life stops when someone (with a grave an irreversible condition that causes suffering) dies. It goes on with the young generations (i.e. the billions of them!). I think too much clinging to a single life causes the whole (which is more important) to suffer. That's not to say we shouldn't value and respect elders, but clinging to life excessively is ignorant and potentially cruel, in my humble opinion. I defend the right to die in the face of incurable diseases that cause a lot of anguish and suffering.

I think clinging to life is partially rooted in an egoist/solipsistic metaphysics that you yourself are all that matters (to yourself at least, of course). Relax, we're just a small part of the cosmos. Ancient and immortal :)

View on HN

The alternative being when someone becomes inconvenient to others we should encourage their death? What good is compassion or empathy when the lesser in society could just go off and die, right? Why stop at incurable diseases? Political opponents, coworkers, nasty service workers, double parkers, lawyers, and many other groups cause a lot of anguish and suffering.

No. But I think that people should be able to decide when they want to end their lives if it is because of pain that won’t get any better, a terminal illness that causes pain etc. while they have all of their cognitive functions.

But we should put guardrails around if the reason for assisted suicide is not pressure from relatives, depression, etc.

How many “legitimate” assisted suicides are worth one questionable case? There are no foolproof guardrails, and you’re inviting moral hazard.

Doctor to a high degree of certainty know which diseases are terminal or cause a deteriorating condition that will cause pain where the person has all of their cognitive ability. That’s why I carved out Alzheimer’s or dementia.

They should. But also, the easier you make it, the more social pressure they'll feel to just do it.

And that's what makes it a hard topic. Because you need to draw a line, and everybody will have opinions about the line's position. Rightfully.

But it being a hard topic does not imply the easy solution of banning it.

I would argue that banning it is not an “easy solution” but in fact the hardest solution.

Nobody's saying that anyone should be encouraged to die. That is an evil thing. But that does not mean that people should not be permitted to choose to die vs suffer.

The thread topic was about terminating the life of someone suffering from dementia who likely didn’t have advanced directive. I read this comment in that context - that it would nto be voluntary, but in cases where the person couldn’t choose for themselves.

You are assuming no advance directive. We are talking about cases where there are advanced directives.

(Although there are cases I would be ok with it without--to me, what's important is the mind. To me personhood extends from first consciousness to last consciousness. Once you are sure the last consciousness has passed I attach no value to the body that remains.)

There’s no bright line. Suffering is a subjective experience. Lack of prohibition is tantamount to encouragement.

I'm afraid that's a logical leap too far. To allow does not equate with to encourage.

Right now, the political party in power openly wants undesirables, especially homeless people, to simply drop dead and stop bothering everyone else.

The relevant word during our fascist rise is schadenfreude. People not only want to see them drop dead for having the audacity to be dirty and unhoused - they want to see them suffer, hard, the entire time.

You gotta find a way to stop making the inflicting of pain on others pleasurable.

Ancient and immortal? So eternal return?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com