
Dr David Goodall Ends His Life at 104 with a Powerful Statement on Euthanasia - blue_devil
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-10/david-goodall-ends-life-in-a-powerful-statement-on-euthanasia/9742528
======
blunte
Outside of people with religious beliefs, I don’t understand why people object
to an individual being responsible to choose if their life ends on their terms
(early).

And with regards to religious beliefs, I’m not aware of modern popular
religions having a concept of collective judgement. Thus, if someone else
makes a choice that “damns” them, why would that be a concern to some other
believer.

In other words, why are people so caught up in dictating what is reasonable
and natural while at the same time partaking of human efforts to alter nature
for their personal benefit?

~~~
gnode
I think many / most people simply have a negative emotional reaction to ideas
of suicide or euthanasia; death is fearsome. People have to reconcile their
feelings with knowledge to avoid cognitive dissonance. Religion often provides
that validation to people's existing emotional prejudice, and gives them a
pass on accepting uncomfortable ideas.

Looking beyond religion, one can have reasons for opposing euthanasia, such
as:

\- acceptance of voluntary euthanasia may lead to accepting non-voluntary and
involuntary euthanasia and mental illness-based suicide.

\- consent may be fabricated for a variety of motivations.

\- doctors may be obliged to kill patients, placing them in a moral dilemma.

\- people may be coerced into euthanasia by inheritors.

------
blue_devil
Goodall was very active in his work and hobbies until almost his death and he
said he wanted to end his life because he became unable to do any of the
things he loved. To me, he tested the limits of the human will.

------
7373737373
I wonder if he would have preferred cryonics instead.

~~~
gnode
Something I consider related to euthanasia, but distinct from it, is the right
to cryo-preservation before natural death. Currently, cryonics is simply
viewed as death causing, with no recognised therapeutic worth, so can only
begin after legal death. The ability to resuscitate or reconstruct the mind of
a preserved person seems highly dependent on the level of age or disease
related degradation. Being able to carry out a cryo-preserving procedure
promptly also improves the plausibility of resuscitation.

With regard to neuro-degenerative disease, waiting until a person's death may
mean that the person's mind is permanently lost, or not faithfully
reconstructable.

~~~
7373737373
I agree, the probability of reversing damage and restoring consciousness seems
to be much higher this way.

Noticably, at current prices, most people seem to choose only
neuropreservation
([https://alcor.org/cases.html](https://alcor.org/cases.html)).

