Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible? • Hacker News Board

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#41

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, May 01, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

libertine wrote: post #30

lotsofpulp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

End of life care in the last 5 decades is nothing like the previous thousands of years. I have so far had 2 great grandparents live to 100+, 1 great grandparent to 95+, and 2 grandparents to 95+. All of them did not want medical intervention when their time came. I lived with 2 of the above myself growing up, and one needed dialysis at 93. There was no reason to give them dialysis at that age. It’s brutal for them, t…

Well the quality of life improved greatly in the last 50 years, when I was younger people in their 60's and 70's were way older - both mentally and physically. >Every one of them did not want medical intervention when their time came. That's their choice, because they have something to chose from. I'm not saying that we should do everything to keep the age ticker ticking - I'm saying they should have the same rights…

To clarify, I’m specifically talking about very old people who I think should have the option to take or be given a cocktail and go peacefully, rather than continue to live in a painful state that ties up everyone around them. For example, my grandparent that lost their kidneys at 93, they continued to live through dialysis for a couple years, but if they were offered assisted suicide, they would have taken it. They would not have had to suffer through dialysis, the country could have invested those funds elsewhere, and my parents would have been free to do other things.

But right now, a 93 year old with kidney failure would not qualify for assisted suicide in most states, maybe not even the ones with assisted suicide.

What I also meant was that in decades prior to recent ones, there were no possibilities to extend someone’s life for weeks/months/years with things like dialysis, artificial lungs, etc. So there’s a lot more resources that can be spent on extending someone’s life compared to before.

Whether or not society should refuse to treat a 93 year old with dialysis is a question I am not able to address right now.

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#42

Post by achillesheels » Sat, May 01, 2021, 2:28 PM UTC

oleander73 wrote: post #17

As someone for whom this is a real life practical issue, not some idle philosophizing, even asking the question is repugnant to me. I have incurable cancer and at some point I will decide "enough is enough" and I'd like to be euthanized by a doctor. The doctor will then have to decide if my suffering is sufficiently unbearable and only if he comes to that conclusion is he allowed to do it. He'll have to justify his j…

Sir, that is the social contract you agreed to when living your life - that it is good to live it. Please do not disparage the legitimate consideration of human life as precious with corruptible bureaucracy which presupposes you are too stupid to make decisions about your health. I, for one, believe it is your body ergo your natural right!

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#43

Post by mynameisash » Sat, May 01, 2021, 2:30 PM UTC

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #8

I read an article about this, written by a doctor, about how doctors do it, he writes his colleagues mostly don't choose the longer but miserable life extension. I tried to DDG the phrase "how doctors choose to die" to find the link, I didn't find it, but the search results tells me it's not a new topic.

Not sure if this is the same thing, but RadioLab had a piece about how doctors think about end of life care for themselves: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/end-l...

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#44

Post by ExcavateGrandMa » Sat, May 01, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

"Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?"

This is wrong in some way...

the right understanding is => "Do we have a moral obligation to profit for as long as possible?"

usually because your perpetual environ is ok "for" you...

Human has bad habits :)

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#45

Post by Brian_K_White » Sat, May 01, 2021, 2:39 PM UTC

oleander73 wrote: post #17

As someone for whom this is a real life practical issue, not some idle philosophizing, even asking the question is repugnant to me. I have incurable cancer and at some point I will decide "enough is enough" and I'd like to be euthanized by a doctor. The doctor will then have to decide if my suffering is sufficiently unbearable and only if he comes to that conclusion is he allowed to do it. He'll have to justify his j…

And it's a real life practical issue for me that there be no wiggle room or ambiguity, ever, in any context, about whether it's OK to kill me. Even if the doctor on the scene doesn't know me personally and I'm not capable of making my arguments to him and defend my self from his, say, religious belief that I'll be in a better place or have outlived his concept of usefulness or worth.

It makes sense to me that this is not something that can be done conveniently. It makes sense to me for the system to be rigged such that errors always result in "did not kill when should have" rather than "killed when should not have".

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#46

Post by achillesheels » Sat, May 01, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #16

wanda wrote: post #7

define first exactly what we mean by a “moral obligation”. A moral obligation or a moral duty is a morally required form of conduct. This defines the word obligation. The word "moral" and "morally" remains undefined. Let's be frank, moral means good and evil, right and wrong, already antiquated concepts these days where money matters more than truth, and goodness/righteousness are interpretations that can more or les…

The whole concept that we can specify a universal judgment on whether a given act is moral or not relies on the idea that there is an inherent and universal morality (which I define as "what ought to be done"). This is a left over notion from the days when there was some reason to believe in a higher authority. For most folks who think about these issues seriously today, the question posed in the title can only be an…

That is not correct. Cicero in his Laws Book I emphatically states right and wrong as attributable what is proper and improper vis-a-vis Nature. That is to say, what is consistent or what is contradictory to natural action. This is in no way related to believing in a higher (and I suppose you mean) personal authority - and which he uses to demonstrate the wonderful idea of “Natural Law” as that which is supreme to any man.

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#47

Post by Brian_K_White » Sat, May 01, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

oleander73 wrote: post #39

refurb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it’s not solely based off that. It’s also based off our knowledge of people who feel suicidal who later go on to lead happy and productive lives. Assisting every person who feels suicidal is likely to assist in the death of plenty of people who would later have happy lives.

If the people that remain behind are at peace with the decision it doesn't really matter 'what might have been'. Also, taking away the 'easy' option means that a large number of people will do it in a way that is more gruesome and much harder for the people left behind.

So what? This is unfortunate but in no way implies that a valid response is "might as well just help them instead". That's not better.

Hearing someone even present this sort if argument makes me wish I could turn their lack of empathy back on themselves. How about we have psyche tests and anyone who would so lightly let other people die, are killed themselves?

Somehow I bet you would say that's immoral and outrageous.

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#48

Post by lebuffon » Sat, May 01, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

bobthechef wrote: post #11

No human being wants to die technically. You want release from a bad situation. People who commit suicide are trying to free themselves not from living, but from some kind of suffering. They imagine it will give them rest. It won't. This points to a fundamental principle, that we will the preservation of our own being. No one wants nonexistence. We are constitutionally unable to will that, to will nothing. In order t…

"No one wants nonexistence. We are constitutionally unable to will that, to will nothing."

I am not convinced that this is true. I should think someone who is suicidal wills exactly that.

Non-existence to ease the suffering of existence.

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#49

Post by Deinos » Sat, May 01, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #37

Deinos wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony being... isn't euthanasia the ultimate freedom? If it is our body, and we have full autonomy as long as we aren't causing direct harm, the "American Way" should be to allow the freedom of choice as to what happens to said body.

And you are free to commit suicide in the US. From what i understand most laws making suicide and attempted suicide are no longer enforced or were changed. What’s we don’t do is make it easy for someone else to assist in your death . That opens up an entirely different can of worms and anyone who thinks that’s an easy change to make is delusional. It’s fraught with issues and one needs to tread carefully.

That's a fair distinction. I did some digging, and it appears unassisted suicide only has common law implications in most states since the 90's; however, as of 2019, only 8 states have laws on the books legalizing assisted suicide (https://apnews.com/article/7f0fe9d789294a02852c1669c892f382).

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#50

Post by oleander73 » Sat, May 01, 2021, 3:01 PM UTC

Brian_K_White wrote: post #45

oleander73 wrote: post #17

As someone for whom this is a real life practical issue, not some idle philosophizing, even asking the question is repugnant to me. I have incurable cancer and at some point I will decide "enough is enough" and I'd like to be euthanized by a doctor. The doctor will then have to decide if my suffering is sufficiently unbearable and only if he comes to that conclusion is he allowed to do it. He'll have to justify his j…

And it's a real life practical issue for me that there be no wiggle room or ambiguity, ever, in any context, about whether it's OK to kill me. Even if the doctor on the scene doesn't know me personally and I'm not capable of making my arguments to him and defend my self from his, say, religious belief that I'll be in a better place or have outlived his concept of usefulness or worth. It makes sense to me that this is…

One of the rules is that two independent doctors need to be sure that you want to be euthanized, so this is already covered and has nothing to do with the ridiculous judgment of whether I am suffering enough.