Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> All preventable deaths should be prevented - this is the gold standard.

It absolutely isn't; it is complete nonsense.

Firstly, it directly conflicts with right to die; it asserts that if we can intervene in any suicide, then we should. How can stepping on the right to die be elevated to a gold standard?

Some people take risks, and those risks are fatal. Deaths in dangerous sports and other activities are easily preventable: just forcibly take away the right to engage in them. Closing off Mt. Everest to climbers will certainly prevent deaths. By your gold standard, that must be what should be done.

Preventing some deaths may even require lives to to be imperiled; someone has to be asked to risk their own life to save others.

No, no, no; live and let die is the gold standard.

People should be sometimes left to the consequences of their actions and circumstances and that includes dying. Obviously not always, and not as a rule, but sometimes. Often enough that "all preventable deaths should be prevented" is utterly preposterous.



There is no right to die in most countries in the world. Got horrible painfull and untreatable disease, but a few years left on the clock? In most places you are doomed to suffer through it. The only exception i am aware of is netherlands.

Secondly, most of your post conflates me engangering myself my choice ( i choose a dangerous sport and suffer) vs someone else endangering me (unsafe building collapses on my head).


Note that, normally, a writer can't conflate A and B, if they don't make even the slightest reference to B. That said, I've pulled off "the impossible" before.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: