Although I draw my line a bit further down (and am pro-cybernetics for various reasons), I can see why invasive augmentation is where some people do. I don't plan on surviving some treatable cancers if I get diagnosed simply because merely existing as a worn out husk from the strain of the treatment is not worth the burden on my family and myself. Other cancers have a treatment that is worth trying to fight through. Managing a pacemaker is just not a fight they want to have.
Many people don't have a reference point for what it's like to not be afraid of death.
Is this a good example of the philosophy of "My Body, My Choice" that should pervade health care today?
If you critically read the thread, my astonishment is the stated reason: a distrust in the technology. There's nothing "informed" about that choice, especially if you're looking at the data (I'm not sure how else you can be informed about such a choice).
Getting a pacemaker is also arguably NOT an invasive surgery. Many people who get them leave the hospital the same day. As far as emergency surgeries go, it's very low on the ladder. A routine appendectomy is more invasive.
However, what baffles me is that the problem you see with a pacemaker is the fact that it could malfunction and kill you. Is that the right understanding? And if so, why is that worse than your body malfunctioning and dieing on its own?
