Honestly that question itself is just trying to change the subject into a "who is worse A or B?" debate that I refuse to take part in. Both A and B are making the situation worse and neither A nor B are repealing this stuff. Debating who is making the situation worse faster is really besides the point.
Or it is the entire point. People can die slowly from natural causes or quickly from organ failures. Your argument would imply that we shouldn’t bother treating organ failures because we will all die of natural causes eventually anyways. One is objectively better than the other, it’s OK to admit it.
> Debating who is making the situation worse faster is really besides the point.
Wait a second, are you sure this logic really works? Assuming the goal is to do "what's best", then making the situation worse slower is surely better than doing so faster.
