I don't think the author understands the pain of terminal cancer. There's often no desire for a cure, only release from the pain. People have their own feelings, values and desires, they should be respected, especially as they near death. Try not to be so selfish.
Dying sooner than one would like is a form of severe disutility just like pain is. While I do accept that prolonging misery can be a bad trade-off (especially for a cancer patient where near-term demise is inevitable), adding a possibility of extended life with little or no cost in added pain should be considered a very good trade-off by the exact same logic.
Cryonics doesn't involve any additional pain, so it should be an easy decision even to someone who just wants it all to end. Hitchens made a mistake in not accepting this option.
We can know it was a mistake rather than a rational decision to end his life due to a lack of desire for life, because he did in fact want to live longer -- he underwent a very painful cancer treatment towards that end, and wrote that the option of not existing had no appeal to him on a rational level.
He was also very sharp in his last days, had plenty of money to do it, and would have been respected for his decision by the vast majority of his friends and following.
3 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 16.7 ms ] threadCryonics doesn't involve any additional pain, so it should be an easy decision even to someone who just wants it all to end. Hitchens made a mistake in not accepting this option.
We can know it was a mistake rather than a rational decision to end his life due to a lack of desire for life, because he did in fact want to live longer -- he underwent a very painful cancer treatment towards that end, and wrote that the option of not existing had no appeal to him on a rational level.
He was also very sharp in his last days, had plenty of money to do it, and would have been respected for his decision by the vast majority of his friends and following.