Hacker News Reader

That sounds far better than dying at 45 unless you have an extraordinarily unpleasant life in the interim

I don't think I want to die in excruciating pain and confusion at any age, personally.

I think the original point was that cancer 80+ is better than cancer at 45, so you should still try to avoid habits that make it more likely earlier, even if the chances remain 100% at sufficient time scales

Of course not. But if you are given the choice of it at 45 or 80, which are you taking?

If I had to die like what I saw, to live to 80? I'd take quickly at 45, I think.

Fortunately this is a false choice.

I think 78 and fine is better than 45 and 80 in pain.

But in this country we are so adverse to giving someone agency over how their life ends.

Because it’s not good Business.

I don't understand what you think this conversation is about. It's not "die quick and painless at 45 or excruciatingly painfully at 80" it's just 45 or 80. Nobody said anything about excruciating pain except you.

Do you think your dad would prefer to die exactly the same way at 45 instead? No? Great, conversation over.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com