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

How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

archive.cancerworld.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 300 posts

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#251

Post by sudobash1 »

slim wrote: post #156
raptorraver wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due religious reasons I'm contemplating my death quite often. Not daily but I try to do it at least weekly. I don't say it has made me comfortable about being mortal but compared to people around me I seem to have more casual relationship to it. Like the other day my boss asked me if I'll come to the office next week and with smile on my face I answered, that yes I'll come if I won't die during weekend. He got quite…

What you said to your boss is actually a common expression in my country. To say "I hope so" about some event in the future, we say "If we live".

In America I sometimes hear a similar saying of "Lord willing" which is a shortening of a verse from James: "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that."

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#252

Post by eurasiantiger »

selimthegrim wrote: post #240
eurasiantiger wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am basing my characterization on hundreds of associates, acquaintances and encounters, as well as second-hand anecdotes, from a time span of three decades.

None other than the founder of EWTN, as well as Mother Teresa agreed with him.

They made her a SAINT!

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#253

Post by Chris2048 »

liamwire wrote: post #232
Chris2048 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the justification of abortion is bodily autonomy then why do so many pro-choicers also hate vaxxers? And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!"

> And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!" Preempting the flaw in your strawman doesn’t invalidate it. A woman choosing to abort a pregnancy has no bearing on anyone but her. In contrast, the anti-vaccine crowd both directly, and indirectly, contribute to the propagation of disease. Your right to bodily autonomy stops at society’s doorstep, which is broadly agreeing that the unvaccinated don’…

So what's the strawman? That many pro-choicers also hate vaxxers?

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#254

Post by dragonwriter »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #249
dragonwriter wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't the baby also affected by that choice? Legally, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses (like spermatazoa and ova, and unlike babies which are not involved in this) are not persons.

Legally (currently). But... A zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are genetically fully human, and are distinct individuals from the mother. So saying "has no bearing on anyone but [the mother]" is... legally correct, but morally much more grey. And saying "it only affects one person" is also pre-empting the objection to the strawman.

> A zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are genetically fully human, and are distinct individuals from the mother

Define “genetically fully human” and “distinct individuals” and provide an argument as to why each is ethically relevant.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#255

Post by spywaregorilla »

pochekailov wrote: post #72
spywaregorilla wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your mental image of people who support the notion of death is people who are just apathetically suicidal, then you're missing the point.

No, my point is that I personally am very afraid of death, and would fight death from the selfish reasons. People who support the notion of death seem not to constantly fear it themselves, but view it as something hypothetical, that they wouldn't have to face themselves in the near future (likely several decades).

I don't think I particular fear death. Fear of death is a monkey brain thing. I don't want to die because I enjoy living. But if I had the choice between dying immediately or living for a few more minutes while being pushed through a meat grinder, I think I, and everyone alive, would choose to die immediately. It's not too difficult to imagine torture and pain so horrific that even monkey brain prefers death.

Human brain can make that judgment wherever it wants. I think the general case that shitty medical routes are just not worth it is often true.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#256

Post by spywaregorilla »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #208
spywaregorilla wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are a thousand downsides and challenges that come with a solution to old age, but that doesn't mean leaving aging in place is better. Sure, not by default, but on the merits of those downside, you probably should conclude that it is in fact better to have people age. Especially if it serves to only be available to the rich and powerful. That's just a shortcut to utter dystopia.

Should you? I think most people would think that a poor person under the rule of a despotic king is still better off alive than dead. So how come that, if the king were to live for hundreds of years, that poor person would suddenly be better off dead? I feel this line of reasoning boils down to, "if we can't have perfect equality, everyone should die".

You're assuming that the poor person gets immortality too. That's generous. Or even if they do, that they live in conditions that don't result in them dying from unnatural causes. Or just kill themselves because life is awful.

Better 100 good years than 500 bad ones.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#257

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

kelnos wrote: post #171
ZephyrBlu wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aging is natural the same way heart disease and cancer are natural How are heart disease and cancer not natural? Aging is also slightly different in that it's how our bodies are supposed to work as far as I understand it, which is not very well (Possibly as a cancer prevention mechanism). Telomeres and Aging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Association_with_agin... Telomeres and Cancer prevention: https://en…

> How are heart disease and cancer not natural? The parent isn't claiming that; they are pointing out that heart disease and cancer are just as natural as aging. We spend a lot of effort to cure heart disease and cancer, so why not do the same with aging?

Because aging is not a disorder. No one expects heart disease or cancer. everyone expects to get older… regardless if you’d like this or not.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#258

Post by supperburg »

maccard wrote: post #194
supperburg wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a person who has never been in the very unfortunate position of needing to die. That’s why suicide will never be accepted. Because so few people ever get stuck in that situation.

I'm very on the fence on this topic; I've watched family members/friends pass in varying degrees of pain, and at least in those cases I'm not sure having assisted suicide would have helped that much. What _definitely would_ have helped would have been better end of life care. > who has never been in the very unfortunate position of needing to die. Defining that line is very, very, tricky. People only reach this point…

The line is not difficult to draw. Again, you’ve never experienced it. There are states of existence where it becomes a simple and plain object in your mind that you must die because of the objective and real factors of your circumstances and not because of a feeling or notion. Until you experience that, it will all be fuzzy, grey, wushu washy fluff in the sky. Because it’s never been real to you.

You know how people will sometimes change their mind when confronted with reality? You know how some men scoff at a dangerous activity until they are pushed out from the crowd to do it themselves? The reality of the situation sets in. All of a sudden your mind is revealing to you things that you had not considered before. Revealing intuitions and details that it had not performed for you because your brain doesn’t consider things in detail until they are perceived as important to you — until they are in front of you. This also happens for death. All of a sudden, details fill in that have never been emphasized in the idiot internet threads. All the details of how a suicide attempt can go wrong, where the line of death really is, all the ways that you might feel pain. It’s completely overwhelming if you are suddenly in desperate need of death. It’s the experience of the most marginalized and abused group of people to ever exist. Forced to die in gruesome and terrible ways and in horrific home made contraptions that very often create a huge amount of pain before fulfilling their purpose.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#259

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dragonwriter wrote: post #254
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally (currently). But... A zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are genetically fully human, and are distinct individuals from the mother. So saying "has no bearing on anyone but [the mother]" is... legally correct, but morally much more grey. And saying "it only affects one person" is also pre-empting the objection to the strawman.

> A zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are genetically fully human, and are distinct individuals from the mother Define “genetically fully human” and “distinct individuals” and provide an argument as to why each is ethically relevant.

"Genetically fully human": having 2x23 chromosomes with the full complement of DNA that normal human cells contain; that is, not haploid like spermatozoa or ova.

"Distinct individual": Genetically different from the parent, and not just different with a transcription error.

Why it's relevant: Because "it's her body" and "it affects nobody else" aren't relevant arguments when it's not just her body, when there's another individual there. Now we have to have a real moral/ethical discussion, and we can't short-circuit it with dismissive strawmen.

But I'm fairly sure you knew all of that. I suspect that you just want to keep using the strawmen to avoid having the actual ethical/moral discussion.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#260

Post by anthonypasq »

Chris2048 wrote: post #227
scotty79 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Becomming pregnant is not being forced to give birth but being forced to carrying pregnancy to term and giving birth is being forced to give birth. But you are right. This distinction is meaningless by itself. What actually has meaning is if what we are forcing/forbidding you to do with your body puts your health and life at risk for some other benefit, for example for benefit of a single new other human. Forcing som…

But it's a little different - I'm not responsible for someone needing a kidney, but a person who becomes pregnant is (in most cases) responsible for that. That doesn't mean anyone should be "forced to carrying pregnancy to term", but it also doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for not doing so.

if you decide to for example continually give blood to another person to keep them alive, you are allowed at any point to revoke your consent for this procedure even if it makes the other person die.

it doesnt matter that the women entered the pregnancy knowing the consequences, she is allowed to revoke the babies privilege to use her body whenever she wants.

Post reply on HN