By that logic we should invoke the death penalty for everyone who has been sentenced to life in prison and has exhausted all their appeals, or any seniors convicted of a crime.
Their life probably won't improve anymore, and in the latter case they're going to die in a few years anyway, so might as well just lighten the load on society?
I've known at least 2 old persons who were literally looking forward to their death because of chronic pain and general boredom and frustration of requiring 24h/7 assistance and not being able to live the way they used to.
They would have likely used assisted suicide if it had been an option back then.
On the contrary, I urge you to consider whether it is your statement that is overly dismissive. Is there perhaps some existing conditioning, maybe in the form of religious upbringing that is driving your reaction to this? Many of us in fact find OP's a very thoughtful comment than a "silly statement".
> By your logic we should kill everyone at their peak.
No, they suggested that the old and ailing whose quality of life has deteriorated to the point where there is no hope or no more joy in living, ought to be given the choice.
Let me end by quoting my favourite lines from the HN guidelines:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
In medical research on treatments the outcome is often measured in quality adjusted years of life, because just keping people alive at any cost is a bad metric.
That's literally a one-dimensional analysis. Are you sure you're not missing any other relevant factors?I find it hard to believe you uncritically think 'more = better' in every context.
A beautiful woman dies twice as the old saying goes.
While what you say is extreme there is a point in the decline past which there is no point of living. If you have something worth living for - cling to life and to 107 if you like. But if the only thing that waits you is to slowly decay and fade and lose yourself - what is the point?
bhl|4 months ago
dotnet00|4 months ago
Their life probably won't improve anymore, and in the latter case they're going to die in a few years anyway, so might as well just lighten the load on society?
esafak|4 months ago
account42|4 months ago
ipaddr|4 months ago
By your logic we should kill everyone at their peak.
prmoustache|4 months ago
They would have likely used assisted suicide if it had been an option back then.
hannofcart|4 months ago
> By your logic we should kill everyone at their peak.
No, they suggested that the old and ailing whose quality of life has deteriorated to the point where there is no hope or no more joy in living, ought to be given the choice.
Let me end by quoting my favourite lines from the HN guidelines:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
procaryote|4 months ago
raw_anon_1111|4 months ago
anigbrowl|4 months ago
ReptileMan|4 months ago
While what you say is extreme there is a point in the decline past which there is no point of living. If you have something worth living for - cling to life and to 107 if you like. But if the only thing that waits you is to slowly decay and fade and lose yourself - what is the point?