Hm. I wonder your age. Young folk seem to think death impossibly foreign, and fear it / ignore it all equally. Older folk, that have had more first-hand experience with the decline of the flesh in themselves and those they grew up with, have more an appreciation for the difference between an abrupt death in a car accident, and a slow dissolution like cancer. Quite a lot of people fear dying more than they do death.
The only thing actually on my radar is being aware I have limited time, and am past half-way.
For those who die slowly, or lose faculties, the process seems unfair. For those who have a sudden exit the event seems unfair and can leave much unresolved and unsaid.
Euthanasia, to me, seems to be the least worst option if I should ever find myself facing a drawn out exit. I get a bit frustrated those professing relgion like to play the "you must not" card. It's not their business unless I share their belief, which I don't.
So I'll get the exit the universe decides. One day I'll be part of a star.
I entirely agree - prolonged suffering is not life, it's misery. That decision should belong to people going through this, and not anyone else (they can discuss with those they feel appropriate).
One of the most memorable transports I ever did was for a woman with terminal metastatic cancer, taking her home where her husband had set up a bed in the living room so she could watch the sunrise.
To understand the amount of pain she was in - the movement of the ambulance driving her home about 20 miles exacerbated her pain such that her morphine dose which was already at 450mg/day was pushed to 600mg/day.
For comparison, if you're a 200lb person with a broken bone, you will likely get 15mg.
I have seen the prolonged suffering patients, and their families. Whatever happens, it's not easy.
And even if you do share it, it's not.
Another option that most people are not aware of (that I personally consider the best way to die), is to simply fast (i.e., no food but with water) for the 30 or so days.
Thought this might not be an option 100% of the time - given the circumstances of the ailment.
This process allows you to meditate on the self, and to let go in a steady way, instead of ending in an abrupt halt.
It has been known to produce a sense of immense relief and oneness with everything.
It may be hokey but I believe the only way to win is to play excessively ;-)
I think "death" is just another condition like disease or disability that will eventually be defeated through technology. Someday we will have medical immortality and maybe even mind-backups, to "restore" a person (or a very close approximation of them) in the case of accident/violence.
We should be looking at death as something surpassable and not necessarily grim or morbid.
Backing up your brain does not prevent you to die. Your organic form will die anyway and you will have to go through death, it's just that a copy of you will continue without you. That's not defeating death at all.
Even without such "resurrection", medical immortality in the form of immunity to aging and disease and disability could be considered as "defeating" nonviolent death.
One of the things that are necessary to attain the next level of civilization, or perish. Yes, achieving a post-scarcity industry/economy is also necessary, and goes hand-in-hand with sustainable immortality.
At a certain scale, those that don't have these technologies may be seen as primitive.
I suppose there'll some kinds of biologies where immortality won't be necessary, like a insect-like hive-mind species, where each member is more or less already a copy of each other, but in species that have concepts of individuality and value them, achieving immortality is inevitable.
I've seen too many relatives and those close to me perish in various of ways before old age not to care about it. To me all forms of it ... just feel equally bad in the end from the point of fearing some personal fate or another. My view is not of someone oblivious to life's hardship. Life hits you, you take the punches, and stand as long as you can.
"Cancer" in general does not mean a slow death. Some forms can kill within weeks of a diagnosis due to quickly arising medical complications.
My intent was certainly not to be dismissive of the fate of Pieter and other cancer victims.
Depending on the type of cancer, you can go in a few weeks, months, or fight the battle for years.
Even if you endure and persist, which gets progressively easier for a lot of cancers thanks to more advanced therapies, you have to fear recurrence.
I'm not at all opposed to ending one s own life if done without severe psychological issues and done thoughtfully after plenty consideration.
Of course, if you regulate assisted suicide, as some countries in Europe have done, it leads down a very slippery slope. Who makes the decision on whether you are allowed to end your own life?
Most current religions frown upon suicide as a sin. Life is god given and not yours to decide upon (Islam, Christianity). Or suicide is viewed as an unjustified interference in the natural order (Hinduism). And therefore most of our societies reject it.
Admittedly, most suicides that are not connected to terminal illness manifest due to psychological / neurological illness and despair that might be cured or managed with proper therapy and medication, making a return to a happy life possible.
It's a fascinating and very multi-facetted issue to think about.
And granted, when talking about mental illnesses that are considered treatable, like depression, you can't expect assistance for suicide. But when talking terminal illnesses, like cancer or dementia, then not legalizing assisted deaths is not only dangerous to others, but also an act of extreme selfishness.
We're basically condemning people to suffer extreme physical pain and/or insanity until their last breath. And as a non-practicing Christian, I suspect the reason has less to do with God and more to do with not wanting to take on some fucking responsibility for others.
I'm even mixed with psychological issues on this. We can help a lot of depression; some folks with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and a slew of others. But some, help is just barely help. If they've been trying treatment for 15-20 years as an adult, and have found life to be agonizing for the most part, and they've talked it over with a psychiatrist (who could have proceedures for due consideration)... yeah, I can't say I oppose it.
This does lead back to: Who is allowed to decide whether you live or die? The slippery slope you were speaking of : To me, those are simply beginnings. It is a step above complete illegality.
A young person generally hasn't seen (many or any of) their close friends grow infirm and die, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that they don't see life through that lens yet.
I wonder your age. Old folk tend to assume they have some sort of wisdom and that they can't possibly be wrong simply because of extra years spent on Earth.
Young people tend to assume they know a lot about things they have never experienced.
Rest assured, what misconceptions time does not fix for us, death certainly will.
edit: changed 'you' to 'us', none get out alive.
I'm not "old folk," but I do work in medicine. I may have seen a bit more death and death-fear than you. Then again, maybe not; I don't know you.
Hell yes. Kids are grown. Fat life insurance policy. I can accept having a fatal heart attack under the right circumstances :) The slow, painful fade is the thing that scares me. It's better to "burn out, than fade away."
