I wouldn’t have to live with myself afterward, that’s for sure. That’s what the certainty of death brings - a release from responsibility for any action or obligation and the consequences thereof.
And that’s why I believe we need to work towards a world where death is never certain.
I honestly do not understand this all-encompassing fear of death.
By his answer, he showed the craven disregard.
Well until we reach your sci fi utopia maybe we should let people decide their own levels of acceptable suffering.
There is no afterlife. There’s no pearly gates and guys with wings wearing togas and strumming on harps all day.
There’s no pit of fire.
There’s no lurking around in abandoned houses and scaring kids who go in there on a dare.
There’s not even eternal darkness and loneliness.
One day, you just fall asleep and never wake up again.
That terrifies me more than anything I can possibly conceive of and I can’t imagine how anyone else couldn’t find it as terrifying if they stopped to think about it, and I can’t imagine a state of existence to which that would be preferable.
The first part doesn’t answer my question, and the second has fuck-all to do with what has been discussed so far.
It implied the risk was minimal at most – hence the extreme cowardice in your answer.
So anything goes, anyone can kill themselves any time they want for any reason whatsoever?
What exactly is gained by extra suffering if the death is inevitable?
Say you’re surrounded by a raging, 500-acre wide forest fire on all sides. Escape is impossible. Death is guaranteed. You have a gun in your hand. Why exactly would the world, and society, benefit from you roasting alive excruciatingly (but prolonging life for as long as possible) instead of just shooting yourself?
Lol. You are terrified of one of the most fundamental aspects of life. Kind of cowardly, istm.
I believe it does. If as far as I’m concerned, I have a choice between the universe ending in one second or the universe ending in two seconds, what is my motivation to end it sooner?
Sure. What the hell do I care?
I’m sorry. I hope you find peace.
Please recognize that not everyone shares your terrors.
By your own definition – since your choice of what to do in these hypotheticals is surrendering to this fear-- this makes you a coward.
Just as, in your view, Maynard “surrendered” to her fear of suffering, you are “surrendering” to your fear of death in these hypotheticals by choosing prolonged life over the improved quality/quantity of life to others.
Why would you be terrified of it? You’re not there anymore. It makes no sense to claim fear of something you’re not around for, unless, I guess, you’re saying that death happening can have severe negative effects on your mental psyche before it even happens, but you can’t be saying that.
Your legal obligation not to kill anyone?
Yes, complete ignorance of the facts is always a terrific basis for pontificating moral judgments. That explains why it’s diametrically at odds with the views of medical ethicists and the medical profession who actually understand the issues. Even the AMA, despite its notorious conservatism, has established policies where in situations of conflict between a doctor’s obligation to preserve life and a patient’s wishes, a patient’s wishes always take priority. In my experience, responsible doctors will speak to elderly patients and others who are admitted to hospital with serious diseases about DNR declarations if appropriate in their circumstances, just so they’re aware of what the alternatives are if things turn bad.
I’ve had long conversations with acute-care surgeons and palliative care specialists about those kinds of issues. It’s fortunate for most of us that we are blissfully unaware of the kinds of horrors that some diseases can wreak, often when the patient has deteriorated to the point of being completely uncommunicative and utterly helpless. Fortunately, in the majority of cases, a simple DNR will let nature take its course, and let the person die without medical interference, often at home surrounded by family. But some diseases are far more sinister. With any luck most of us may never need to find out that nature can indeed be merciless beyond measure.
You really and truly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and frankly the pontification about what she “should have done” is medically and factually outrageous and an insult to this wonderful and courageous person who lived a spirited life and now, even in death, has helped many to become better informed about the issues of compassionate medicine.
Then you are in no position to talk about her selfishness.
It perhaps makes me a hypothetical coward. Since the scenario described has pretty much a 0% chance of happening, it is unlikely that it will result in me engaging in actual cowardice.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17795751&postcount=202
[Quote=smapti]
I know of no law that obligates a parent to commit suicide by attempting to save the life of a child when they have no confidence that they are able to do so safely.
[/quote]