What's the right age for us to start decrying someone's continued existence? Is it wrong for people with chronic health conditions to seek treatment rather than just dying?
>What's the right age for us to start decrying someone's continued existence?
Either 22 or 30. There was a great movie about this, based on a novel. In the movie, it was 30, but in the novel the age was 22. When your lifespan is up, you go to a show called "Carousel" where all your friends watch you being killed.
Anyway, I think the OP, plus almost everyone here on HN, is overdue for Carousel.
> What's the right age for us to start decrying someone's continued existence?
It's not about age, it's about the cost of living vs the quality of life. These "miracle treatments" are often anything but. In many cases, they are a million-dollar ticket to a tortured existence.
If I live 60+ years, I've had a good run... if I need a $1MM treatment, my body is likely in a very bad state. My quality of life can't be very good at that point.
So when I think of my options:
- Extend my medical-torture hell for another 2 years
- Buy a home for both of my children
- Do a LOT of cocaine for 3 months
I'm really not inclined to go with the medical-torture hell.
I'm not afraid of death, we are all going to die, and in a finite universe, I consider it morally wrong to use limited resources on a project with awful diminishing returns. Especially when the project doesn't even make me feel good.
So what does it get me? 2 more years of talking to my children? If I've lived 60 years, I've taught them enough. My life is enough, and enough is enough. No need to be greedy about it when your life is already good.
> Is it wrong for people with chronic health conditions to seek treatment rather than just dying?
I don't think so, personally. The same arguments do not apply, this is a completely different situation.
Old age medical care costs $1M+. I know the morally correct thing to do when I get old - give that money to kids instead.
Vampires.