Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Protocol for Dying

hintjens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 347 posts

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#201

Post by bsandert »

jawilson2 wrote: post #133
bsandert wrote: post #16

From personal experience, I can very much relate to and agree with this piece. My father went through a similar process: cancer (melanoma) – two years of treatment and coming to terms with the facts – euthanasia. As a family, we have been very matter-of-fact about it, which was definitely something he encouraged and participated in. We frequently talked about all aspects of his disease, the future, how it affected hi…

Out of curiosity do you live in the US?

I am from the Netherlands. Euthanasia is legal here, although strictly regulated (as I think it should be by the way, this is not the sort of choice that should be taken or approved lightly by anyone involved). Several doctors had to sign off on it, and they were thorough in making sure that this was his decision alone and that nobody around him was "pushing" him into it. Fortunately (if you can call it that), his medical situation was a textbook case of unbearable and hopeless suffering, and also he still had a clear enough mind to express his wishes. That made the approval process fairly straightforward in his case.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#202

Post by code4life »

cpburns2009 wrote: post #195
minionslave wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds beautiful. I guess part of us wants to continue to exist, even after our death. I must point out, as much as I agree with the sentiment, many people give up a happy life on earth (forbidden food, no premarital sex, tithes etc..) for the sake of religion.

A happy life and religion are not mutually exclusive. Oh the horror of controlling your impulses and donating a little bit of money.

Many people throughout history realize that a happy life only comes from knowing God, who is the source of joy.

For instance, consider the famous mathematician and physicist, Leonhard Euler, who wrote in "A Defense of the Revelation Against the Objections of Freethinkers",

XVII. Proportional to the measure of knowledge that a reasoning creature can acquire, he cannot be happier than when he guides his will in a manner that conforms perfectly to the duties known to him and when he tames the affectations that could oppose them with so much success that there are none left that do not conform to these duties. Any man who has reached this state enjoys true tranquility of soul, and there is no longer anything capable of altering his tranquility. Nor can anything increase it, since it is only when understanding reaches the most perfect knowledge that the will also improves because of this knowledge and submits itself more and more to the will of God.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#203

Post by laotzu »

aninhumer wrote: post #196
alanwatts wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Death is not a part of life, it is its destruction. Life and death are part of the same simultaneous process. For a living thing to grow, it must die at the same time. Death is life's change agent. "Controlled death of cells is as much a part of embryonal development as is cell proliferation and differentiation." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8801138

But we're not talking about cell death. We're talking about the death of sentient entities.

Define sentient entities

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#204

Post by cr1895 »

Neslit wrote: post #183
cr1895 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think you can state as an absolute truth that death is bad and we would be better off if no one died. That may be your view, but this is a massively complex philosophical question for which I get the impression you have too hastily answered.

>we would be better off if no one died (Clarification: I think we'd obviously be better off if no one involuntarily died.) I don't think I've been hasty in my thinking. What is the most central concern that you have about life as a good thing? There are deep unsolved problems around long life. E.g., how do you grow as a mind that has existed for 4,000 years? A normal human mind would probably not be able to handle th…

I'm struggling to think of how to reply. This topic is both hard if not impossible to grapple and fascinating to think about. I keep going off into mental tangents about our place (and insignifigance) in the incomprehensibly huge cosmos and how you can so easily say that we humans, who have been dieing along with every other living thing for all of our collective existence, that somehow we should strive to eradicate death and live for thousands of years, much less eternity.

I don't know if hasty was the right word; I don't mean to just dismiss what you're saying. Clearly you've considered this at length.

I cannot easily accept that perpetual life is a good thing and death is something which should be avoided (obviously, in a grander sense). I don't have a concern about life as a good thing in the same way I don't have a concern about death being a bad thing. Life and death are complementary. I can't fathom anything else.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#205

Post by doug1001 »

thank you for sharing this; thank you for your extraordinary contribution to the open source community; thank you for writing so candidly and so eloquently about the process of building software; and thank you for making we want to be a better developer.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#206

Post by lemonade »

Hi Pieter,

I'm not sure how long you'll keep on reading stuff, but rest assured me and many others will cherish the very fond memories of collaborating with you - you've always had a sharp wit and a practical sort of unconventionalism that gets things done. We have much to thank you for.

We worked together on Digistan and the "The Hague Declaration", which I helped host in The Hague - and I think it still is a strong statement that is worth repeating. People can sign that declaration:

http://www.digistan.org

I'm very much saddened to hear about your disease - and deep respect for the way you handle this unannounced change of plan. I hope your remaining time will be spent with those you love looking back on a rich life where you've left the world better than it is - and got the max out of it. I'll send you an email, so that when your kids are older and want to know about the things you've done they can contact me. Take care, my friend.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#207

Post by simplify »

fsloth wrote: post #192
code4life wrote: post #174

Another perspective, adopted by millions is simpler, and more joyful to explain. This life is temporary, but a life with Christ in heaven is eternal. Our christian funerals are often celebrations about a journey on earth well fought.

I would offer an inverse to Pascal's wager as a counterpoint. If there is any chance that our life on earth is the only chance gets on existence, then one should spend it contemplating good life here on earth and not concentrating on a plausibly false hope.

That's the problem, though; such a life is unfulfilling to the soul, even without mentioning the question of what a "good life" even is.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#208

Post by anonymous779 »

tptacek wrote: post #152
anonymous777 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO extremely wrong comments are the ones accepting the death and even celebrating how "strong" a person dying against his will is.

As the parent of two teenagers and a former 15 year old myself, let me just acknowledge that it's tough being 15 years old, but it does get better, and one day you will stop writing things like this.

I'm quite older than that and I don't plan to stop neither now nor in the future.

>it's tough being 15 years old

Being 15 years old in the west is a fairy tale. Try being that in my country.

Really, I don't see how anything I write is wrong. To me it looks like you westerners are wrong by declaring human life as a highest value, and then silently unanimously approving (by distributing your attention, capital and forming your attitude) of the status quo where every human has his/her life taken away by something he/she didn't choose.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#209

Post by emodendroket »

anonymous779 wrote: post #170
emodendroket wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like if every person who has ever lived were still alive today we'd had some issues.

If you gave modern-age people a choice: to live a short life or live a long life while limiting their rate of childbirth (or ceasing reproduction altogether), I think many would choose the former. Having a choice is always better than having none. Also note that your current (probably?) western lifestyle puts several times more load on the environment than mine 3rd world-like one. It is the wasteful lifestyle choices…

Well, yes, but even if everyone lived a third-world lifestyle I don't think we could realistically support 108 billion people today.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#210

Post by mordocai »

lemonade wrote: post #206

Hi Pieter, I'm not sure how long you'll keep on reading stuff, but rest assured me and many others will cherish the very fond memories of collaborating with you - you've always had a sharp wit and a practical sort of unconventionalism that gets things done. We have much to thank you for. We worked together on Digistan and the "The Hague Declaration", which I helped host in The Hague - and I think it still is a strong…

Don't forget to comment on the article as well like he requests at the end.
Post reply on HN