Comment by anexprogrammer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anexprogrammer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The only way to win is not to play. I'm past 50. I'm not overly fussed about dying, it's not like it's avoidable. I'm not overly fussed about how either as I'll get what I'm given. Of course I'd prefer a pain-free exit rather than a 2 year painful decline to incoherent as my father had. Unless you go in your sleep I suspect all routes have pain as the final memory. I have no fear of any of it.

The only thing actually on my radar is being aware I have limited time, and am past half-way.

For those who die slowly, or lose faculties, the process seems unfair. For those who have a sudden exit the event seems unfair and can leave much unresolved and unsaid.

Euthanasia, to me, seems to be the least worst option if I should ever find myself facing a drawn out exit. I get a bit frustrated those professing relgion like to play the "you must not" card. It's not their business unless I share their belief, which I don't.

So I'll get the exit the universe decides. One day I'll be part of a star.

I'm a geek, and a paramedic.

I entirely agree - prolonged suffering is not life, it's misery. That decision should belong to people going through this, and not anyone else (they can discuss with those they feel appropriate).

One of the most memorable transports I ever did was for a woman with terminal metastatic cancer, taking her home where her husband had set up a bed in the living room so she could watch the sunrise.

To understand the amount of pain she was in - the movement of the ambulance driving her home about 20 miles exacerbated her pain such that her morphine dose which was already at 450mg/day was pushed to 600mg/day.

For comparison, if you're a 200lb person with a broken bone, you will likely get 15mg.

I have seen the prolonged suffering patients, and their families. Whatever happens, it's not easy.

It's pretty obvious to me most people debating how unethical euthanasia is have no exposure to needlessly prolonged suffering or just favor dogmatic cruelty over humane treatment of people. The kind of folks who think mother Theresa was a saint with her horror houses of suffering.

It amazes me how many people will favor putting a suffering animal out of its misery, then fight tooth and nail against offering that same mercy to their fellow human beings.

In many cases, it's social virtue signalling, with no real sapience behind the actions.

See how virtuous I am empathizing with lower-order animals' suffering.

See how virtuous I am championing the sanctity of human life.

A lot of the latter can be mitigated: make those who want human life preserved "at all costs" pay cash-over-the-barrel into that "at all costs" effort, on an individual basis. Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts. They either withdraw their opinion immediately when they can no longer externalize their social virtue signalling choice's costs onto everyone else, or they go broke very soon and those who are suffering can make a free choice.

Or we can pursue the sane choice and legislate elective assisted euthanasia with safeguards like Switzerland's or other rationally-chosen parameters. It is long past time to recognize that our medical technology has far outstripped our ability to reliably deliver an acceptably high quality of life.

"Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts."

Generally euthanasia is considered an ethical option when medicine can't help anymore, and any prolonging of life would either be useless (patient is braindead) or unable to mitigate the pain of the patient.

Personally I think bringing economics in wil obfuscate the moral discussion.

In the US, officially-sanctioned euthanasia that I was personally acquainted with in a hospice took the form of death by dehydration and starvation. Both are barbaric, considered war crimes in a different context. In the case I was personally acquainted with, asphyxiation by rapid flooding of CO2 into the patient's airspace was prohibited.

It's because (correctly, in my view) we value human life more than animal life. Killing an animal in a humane way is not morally wrong; killing a human usually is.

Some of the biggest critics of euthanasia are the disabled.

For example: http://notdeadyet.com

https://dredf.org/assisted_suicide/assistedsuicide.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/disability...

Doh. That meant to be http://notdeadyet.org not .com

There's an unsettling undercurrent of thought in the disabled community: "What if society decides I'm more trouble than I'm worth?" Some of their opposition to legalized euthanasia probably comes from that, and some from religious motivation.

Obviously neither justification is valid as a basis for making laws that apply to us all, but on the other hand, how do you tell them their concerns aren't worth listening to? Some cultures have practiced selective involuntary euthanasia in the recent past, so you can't say "It'll never happen."

The fact that some doctors will readily offer it is also a concern. Without strict oversight to ensure patients aren't unduly affected by medical professionals in their choice is something that bothers me greatly. I'm all for euthanasia but it must be done in a way where the patient is of sound mind and knows there's alternatives to it like assisted living if the condition itself isn't fatal.

> It's not their business unless I share their belief, which I don't.

And even if you do share it, it's not.

> Euthanasia, to me, seems to be the least worst option if I should ever find myself facing a drawn out exit.

Another option that most people are not aware of (that I personally consider the best way to die), is to simply fast (i.e., no food but with water) for the 30 or so days.

Thought this might not be an option 100% of the time - given the circumstances of the ailment.

This process allows you to meditate on the self, and to let go in a steady way, instead of ending in an abrupt halt.

It has been known to produce a sense of immense relief and oneness with everything.

The only way to win is not to play

It may be hokey but I believe the only way to win is to play excessively ;-)

Yeah, that works too. Not playing is better for global thermonuclear war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com