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

331–340 of 347 posts

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#331

Post by Udo »

flashman wrote: post #329
Udo wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am stealing this. You shouldn't. I have seen this ideology come up on HN a lot (strangely almost never anywhere else), as an argument against human life extension. If this is your ideology, it's of course not productive to argue against it, but if your mind isn't made up yet, allow me to very briefly present some bullet point-like counter arguments: Returning a couple of kilograms of mostly-carbon to the environm…

My primary motivation is to explain death at a four-year-old's level.

I know, but I worry about giving children misleading information. Especially given the possibility that they might grow into a world where radical life extension may become available for the first time, I believe we shouldn't give them our thousands-year-old mantra of "dead is good" with all the fantasies and rationalisations that entails.

In my experience, children want to know very specific things about death, and I think we can answer them more truthfully and let them make up their own minds about the other things as they grow older. They usually want to know two things: why we die and what death will feel like for a person, which are totally reasonable questions.

The why can be answered by explaining that all things break, and when living beings break, they are no longer alive.

When my nephew recently asked what it's like being dead, I said to him for the people who died it's exactly like the time before they were born. That seemed to satisfy his concerns, and I hope this way of thinking will spare him the literal nightmares I had about death when I was 4, where people had told me I would spend eternity somewhere without a body.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#332

Post by Retric »

paxcoder wrote: post #330
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…

Revolting. I protest against suicide, the "assistance", the approval, and the very idea that it could somehow be eu (good).

I suspect you vastly underestimate the suffering in the last few weeks of cancer. you are literally being slowly eaten alive until there is not enough left to keep up basic bodily functions and pain medications generally stop being effective. You can be in chemical induced sleep or unimaginable pain.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#333

Post by nickpsecurity »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #325

Tribute to Hintjens' great work and ideas. Man is like the Bernstein of enterprise software with great balance of unconventional design, correctness, performance, and innovation. Here's a list of some of his work for those interested: A great write-up on his theory of model-driven development and the tech that underpinned most of iMatix: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c... . Their website…

No idea how the first link turned into Google nonsense. Here's the MOP link:

http://download.imatix.com/mop/introduction.html

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#334

Post by Ironchefpython »

paxcoder wrote: post #330
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…

Revolting. I protest against suicide, the "assistance", the approval, and the very idea that it could somehow be eu (good).

That's an opinion that is perfectly valid for an individual to have.

However, when you express this opinion in an expressly negative way, it makes it sound like you are attempting to invalidate the opinions of people who might hold contrasting beliefs. And history has shown this to be one of the top 10 causes for conflict and wars.

Perhaps you might find a more positive way to express your personal beliefs? Perhaps you could say, "I wish we lived in a world without pain or terminal illness, so nobody would have to make the choice between pointless suffering and death".

If you find some way to contribute to the conversation without calling a man dying of cancer "revolting", you would have a better chance of finding common ground and reaching consensus.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#335

Post by rabeeshkumar »

The truth, is modern medicine treating about cancer (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, ..) is putting a bandage on a real underneath problem. It will comes again, may be take some years. One of good actor from my place is passed away with cancer few weeks before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jishnu. He also did chemotherapy few years before.

We should care about these deadly diseases, or DNA mutation, what causing it. Any bug happens, we can resolve it, but losing a person we can't recover.

I am the one of person who also suffering from autoimmune disease.

Sorry for my English.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#336

Post by emodendroket »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #319
emodendroket wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, do they "not understand it" or do they just have a different way of being religious?

That "different way of being religious" is stretching the meaning of the word "religious" quite a lot. Kind of like calling yourself a 2nd-level vegetarian - "cows eat grass, I eat cows...".

I don't know; a lot of churches emphasize the role of reason in interpreting doctrines and scripture and I don't think they should all be considered false churches for failing to just unswervingly adhere to whatever is handed down without consideration for what has changed since it was written.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#337

Post by throwaway324324 »

Ironchefpython wrote: post #334
paxcoder wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revolting. I protest against suicide, the "assistance", the approval, and the very idea that it could somehow be eu (good).

That's an opinion that is perfectly valid for an individual to have. However, when you express this opinion in an expressly negative way, it makes it sound like you are attempting to invalidate the opinions of people who might hold contrasting beliefs. And history has shown this to be one of the top 10 causes for conflict and wars. Perhaps you might find a more positive way to express your personal beliefs? Perhaps y…

To disagree is to try to invalidate contrasting beliefs. They aren't saying "people who commit suicide are revolting", nor "I wish we never had to make tough choices that tested our moral constitution" (like you suggest). They're saying "saccharine suicide-endorsement is revolting".

There's no consensus arising from softening and "adjusting" each other's views. We're better off describing things clearly.

What is euthanasia, except killing yourself because you have no hope for your remaining life, like every other suicide? Is it justified because you had your family and your doctor agree with you?

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#338

Post by throwaway324324 »

entilzha wrote: post #312
nihonde wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just spent over a year with someone who died of cancer on Tuesday. I don't know if she would have opted for suicide if it had been legal here, but I do know that the last few weeks were extremely difficult for everyone involved. I have a very clear image of how cancer kills a person now. We did our best to maintain her dignity, but the body is not on your side. It's humbling, to say the least, which is a profound l…

I think that euthanasia is very different from suicide. Euthanasia is an acceptance of very probable death in a way that reduces both the person's suffering, but also the suffering of those who love them (much as the beautifully written articles talks about). Suicide in contrast can devastate the lives of the people who loved them.

No, that's not euthanasia. On that account, sedation without death would count. Euthanasia is when you ask (or in some cases, force, against their conscience) someone to kill you. Compare with "suicide by cop".

We are going to die. Some of us are going to die on the street after decades of physical pain, alienation, emotional abandonment, mental illness, and alcoholism/drug abuse. Many of these have less true hope for a good life than a cancer patient like Pieter, but it would be insane if there were dozens of comments lamenting the lack of voluntary suicide services in homeless shelters (though maybe we're a bit sensitive about that sort of thing not working out too well the last time we tried it).

Humans have something that puts us above being put down like an animal. And we have to suffer for it - like we do for many of the other things that make us human.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#339

Post by PieterH »

throwaway324324 wrote: post #338
entilzha wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that euthanasia is very different from suicide. Euthanasia is an acceptance of very probable death in a way that reduces both the person's suffering, but also the suffering of those who love them (much as the beautifully written articles talks about). Suicide in contrast can devastate the lives of the people who loved them.

No, that's not euthanasia. On that account, sedation without death would count. Euthanasia is when you ask (or in some cases, force, against their conscience) someone to kill you. Compare with "suicide by cop". We are going to die. Some of us are going to die on the street after decades of physical pain, alienation, emotional abandonment, mental illness, and alcoholism/drug abuse. Many of these have less true hope fo…

This is not accurate. Euthanasia in Belgium (as in all countries where it's a legal act) has nothing to do with suicide and everything to do with removing pain and criminality from what is a fairly widespread act.

* Doctors who wish to help their suffering patients can do so without fear of criminal prosecution.

* Terminal patients can control their own deaths without family demanding expensive, painful treatments that have little or no chance of success.

* Such patients are protected from punishments such as loss of insurance.

* Family and friends can be shielded from extended stress and trauma.

Given that cancer is a majority cause of death in the West, and tends to be incurable in most cases, and tends to lead to massive suffering, euthanasia is IMO one of the most fundamental human rights.

You are of course free to reject such a course based on your own beliefs. However to argue that suffering and pain are the cost of being human is... invalid.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#340

Post by throwaway324324 »

PieterH wrote: post #339
throwaway324324 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not euthanasia. On that account, sedation without death would count. Euthanasia is when you ask (or in some cases, force, against their conscience) someone to kill you. Compare with "suicide by cop". We are going to die. Some of us are going to die on the street after decades of physical pain, alienation, emotional abandonment, mental illness, and alcoholism/drug abuse. Many of these have less true hope fo…

This is not accurate. Euthanasia in Belgium (as in all countries where it's a legal act) has nothing to do with suicide and everything to do with removing pain and criminality from what is a fairly widespread act. * Doctors who wish to help their suffering patients can do so without fear of criminal prosecution. * Terminal patients can control their own deaths without family demanding expensive, painful treatments th…

I think we at least agree on suicide. Suicide is a desperate act: we must feel deep sympathy for its victims and contempt for its promotion. But what you plan to undertake - euthanasia - is not suicide, but just something that reduces pain, stress, and financial loss.

Those are the goals, but to attain them you plan to ask someone to sedate you and then kill you by stopping your heart. The evil of suicide isn't that it's a violent or unexpected death, but that it is a planned death, the victim trading her life for benefits like reduced suffering (or in even sadder cases, life insurance payoffs, a ufo trip, honor for the emperor, whatever). The person's remaining life seems worthless, so they plan, make their decision, feel at peace and begin to put their affairs in order - I read this in a "suicide prevention" pamphlet. Please tell me what the difference is to you, since I no longer have the opportunity to ask someone in that position. I see the following answers:

* It is not suicide because I really am better off dead.

* It is not suicide because numerous doctors judge that I really am better off dead.

* It is not suicide because cancer is worse than depression and an injection is better than a rope.

* It is not suicide because my loved ones also feel at peace with my decision.

Can you tell me plainly how what you plan is different from suicide?

And sure, I agree that humans are rational animals, not suffering animals. But the world is not perfect, so there are still some times where we must endure even intense suffering to maintain our human dignity. You are fortunate enough to have access to sedation until natural death, why not take advantage of that instead?

Post reply on HN