Live data from Hacker News

How Doctors Die

zocalopublicsquare.org

181–184 of 184 posts

Re: How Doctors Die

#181

So, couple of things. Just had my wife read this (she is a doc) and we chatted about this. We are in our mid-30s and several years ago she was admitted to the ER and then ICU for 7 days for an obviously life threatening situation. (She has a near blanket NO CODE, FYI). She recovered, but there was at least 48 hours where her odds were "much worse than a coin flip" as on of her colleagues told me. So people distinguis…

Is there a good way to phrase (i.e. "Doctor Speak") for something like "No Code unless a probably positive outcome with intervention"?

If there isn't, can I suggest "No Code++"?

Tech humor/references aside, this is actually an effective way to explain intentions if it becomes ubiquitous enough.

Re: How Doctors Die

#182
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pascal's Wager isn't comparable here for a number of reasons. Please provide them. > Hence my own estimate of at least 5%. (I believe I originally got that figure in my head back from http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/break-cryonics-down.ht... . -- I don't think it's an unreasonable one.) I guess if you invent a few data figures and then do math on them, you can get an aggregate of your own opinion. It's like t…

The main reason: the decision matrix for Pascal's Wager introduces infinities; the many various ones you can construct for cryonics to win do not. (I suppose you could construct one with infinities, though I can't say I've ever seen one, and I don't think that construction would be tenable anyway.) Another: the fact that there are many constructs for cryonics decision matrices--Pascal's Wager is static in time, a "Cr…

> The main reason: the decision matrix for Pascal's Wager introduces infinities; the many various ones you can construct for cryonics to win do not. (I suppose you could construct one with infinities, though I can't say I've ever seen one, and I don't think that construction would be tenable anyway.) Another: the fact that there are many constructs for cryonics decision matrices--Pascal's Wager is static in time, a "Cryonic's Wager" would be dynamic in time. Another: cryonics doesn't suppose anything supernatural--if cryonics can or can't work, there are physical reasons why, we don't just have to suppose the outcomes as baseless entities. Perhaps you should explain why you think Pascal's Wager is analogous here.

Not only is it analogous, but by your own reckoning it is in many ways weaker. I don't think there's any useful meaning or distinction in describing the Christian afterlife as "supernatural", incidentally--either it's the case or it isn't. In any case, the decision matrix for Pascal's Wager is something like:

                 Believe        Disbelieve
  Christianity   Heaven            Hell
     True        (+ inf.)        (- inf.)

  Christianity   No sinning          0
     False       (- fin. net loss)
And the decision matrix for cryonics:

                Get Frozen         Don't Get Frozen
   Can Be       Get Resurrected    0
   Resurrected   (+ fin. net gain)

   Cannot Be    Waste Money        0
   Resurrected   (- fin. net loss)
Interestingly, in some formulations of Christianity, hell consists of ordinary death rather than eternal torment, which would make the Pascal matrix even more similar to the cryonics matrix. In any case, Pascal's Wager is strictly stronger than the decision matrix for cryonics, depending on how much you value being able to sin.

> Yes... and? Every dollar you pay for "X" fits that.

Well, it rather puts the lie to the claim that you have nothing to lose by having your corpse frozen in liquid nitrogen rather than buried or cremated. You do have something to lose. $40k-$125k is a lot of money that might actually be needed by your survivors. If you are ridiculously wealthy or have no children it might be different.

> Regarding your horrid comment, I'll explicitly say it's horrid and most likely untrue (but feel free to factor it into your uncertainty about "cryonics working"). If you're not going to bother defending that one, I'm not going to bother arguing against that one.

I would be glad to defend that statement: for one small example, you can just refer to demographic polling on the subject of gay marriage. Support for gay marriage is dependent upon age more than any other variable, which suggests that the passing of older generations will push the question into almost universal consensus within our lifetimes.

Now, let's be clear: this argument is against the wholesale cryonic preservation of large numbers of dead people. As long as cryonics remains restricted to a small number of eccentrics, there's no gain or loss either way; Ted Williams' severed head will not revert the far future back to 20th century social norms all by itself. If there are only a few frozen people, they will probably serve more as figures of curiosity and academic study. In fact, cryogenic preservation might provide useful information to people of the far future even in the absence of effective resurrection--by analogy, we would probably be very interested, today, to examine a well-preserved physical specimen of centuries past, just as we've been interested in dissecting mummies and ice men. But if we take the pro-cryonics viewpoint to its natural conclusion, there are probably going to be millions of contemporary people resurrected possibly centuries from now. At that point, we will have either a very large politically disenfranchised population of 21st century people or a severe shock of regressive ultraconservatism. It would be the moral equivalent of colonialism, except in time rather than in space.

From what I've seen from cryonics proponents, yourself and "Luke" included, your basic method of argument is to make wild, largely unsubstantiated claims about life after death and then condemn all disagreement as "horrid" or "evil". If that's not religion, what is?

(If you want to continue this, feel free to email me. My address is in my profile.)

Re: How Doctors Die

#183
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the money is just as wasted no matter who pays it.

This statement is both true, and irrelevant, because who bears the burden is very important for the individual making the decision. What's being weighed is not "are the resources used to keep me alive being efficiently allocated," but rather, "will my spouse and children be irrevocably bankrupted."

What a strange thing to say. It is irrelevant from the myopic point of view of a patient receiving care, at the moment they are receiving the care. It is far from irrelevant as a matter of social policy, because society has to pay the cost even if a particular individual gets off free. Cf. negative externality [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative].

Re: How Doctors Die

#184
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me #1 is easy. Screw writing and reading, instead travel around the word, jump from planes, swim with sharks and die in months. 100% better then daily visits to a hospital for a handful of years. What I, and a lot of people like me, are doing now by not doing #1 is gambling we'll get to do it in the future. This is an easily lost gamble, but oh well.

Then the $19.95 home stem cell kit comes along the week after you die.

At that point, it's probably still too late for you.
Post reply on HN