Well, do ya? Punk?!?!
Here is your link for the day.
Everyone has to die. That is as much a part of life as birth is. But, to prolong the agony and the inevitable for fractions of a year at an exorbitant cost is asinine at best, I think. If reasonable measures can't help bring me back or extend my life, I'm ready to go. No persistent vegetative state for me, thank you very much.
1 year is a long time, but putting my family into a financial hole that they may never climb out of just so I can hang around and spend more money on pain medications or whatever is grossly selfish. And, there is absolutely no guarantee that I will be one of those lucky ones who even make it a year. I'd prolly kick the bucket after 3 months, after putting the fam into a $30k hole.
No thanks. I'll just die, OK?
Besides, if I live correctly, I should be ready to buy the farm at any time. It doesn't mean I won't be scared, or sad, but the cost to myself and those I love isn't worth it.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
You gotta ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky?
Posted by Daishi at 11:42 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What if it gave you a year and a day? How about a year and a week? What about a year and a half? Two years? Two years and a month?
At what point is it grossly selfish for a person to try to stay alive? At what point do you tell a family member they should let go and die?
Is the value of a person's life inversely proportional to the cost incurred through longevity? To have a child incurs financial burden - does that mean the child was of greater value prior to being born?
What if you had a child who could live another six months, tops, but to do so would put you in the hole? Is it grossly selfish for that child to hope you'd do it, anyway? If you say no, because the child hasn't experienced life yet (as opposed to an adult) at what age does the reverse hold true? 18? 30? 30 and a day? What about 29 and 364 days? If one day doesn't matter, why does two? Or seven? Or thirty?
I'm playing with both pathos and logos, but there's a reason for it; you make your case as though it were purely rational, yet there's a strong emotive element to the way you wrote it.
I respect your desire not to impose a financial burden on your family, but to impugn the choices of others seems a bit callous. The decision to live or to die should not be judged as exclusively correlative to or contingent upon economics, in my mind.
You should know that debts are not necessarily inherited. When a person dies any debts owed are repaid to the extent that remaining assets can be liquidated.
For example, a person owes $200,000 in debt. Their total assets (savings, car, house) are valued at $160,000. All assets would be liquidated and disbursed to pay off creditors. Once all assets are dissolved, the remaining debt ($40,000) is absorbed by their creditors. It is not passed on to surviving family members.
Now, if your family were already in such a financial situation that they were relying upon the inheritance they would receive, the liquidation of your assets to repay creditors wouldn't go over so well - but they wouldn't be put further into debt than they were before you became ill or died.
There can be exceptions, of course. If a family member were to inherit a car that is under lien, the family member would be responsible for the remaining payments (they could always foreclose the loan, however, just as they could with a mortgage, rather than accept the inheritance).
If you have a surviving spouse they might hold co-ownership of your debt, depending upon the state in which you live. Common-Law states require your spouse to assume both your debts and assets, regardless of whether their name is on the mortgage, loan, lien, etc.
I shouldn't continue to pile on, but I have to ask - how do you define "reasonable measures"? Would you say your definition applies to everyone?
Obviously, I cannot place a value on another persons life. However, I can place one on my own. I wrote this post entirely in the first person since I understood that distinction.
I believe that if it were my own child I would do almost anything to save them. But, if you will notice, I made no statements as to the worth of anothers life, and I don't dare impugn the choices of others. This is my own opinion of myself and what I would do.
Besides, reasonable to me isn't necessarily reasonable to someone else. I know that.
You know me. Since when do I dictate to others what they should do?
Again, this is my own opinion as to what I would do. Not what someone else should do.
I suppose it was this paragraph that gave me the impression you were referring to something someone else had done:
"1 year is a long time, but putting my family into a financial hole that they may never climb out of just so I can hang around and spend more money on pain medications or whatever is grossly selfish."
It came across as a very judgmental statement, so I made the mistake of thinking you wrote it in response to someone else. I'm sorry I made that mistake.
I've never known you to tell others what to do - but you have mentioned on a number of occasions that you struggle with judging the choices of others. That might give some insight into why I interpreted this as I did. I'm sorry Jordan.
Perfectly all right.
I would consider it selfish if I did that, which is why I wouldn't do it. But, that is right now. Maybe, if that ever happened to me, I would feel differently. I hope it doesn't.
For the record, I am quite judgemental, but not this time. I am trying to change, but it sure is difficult.
Post a Comment