Hypothetical Situation (Again!)

[aimeeandbeatles]

Your doctor informs you that you have a rare and fatal, but treatable disease. However, the treatment is very unpleasant (involving choking down horrible-tasting drinks and vomiting and pain), and you will have mild side effects for the rest of your life. Without treatment, you won't live more than 6 months, however these 6 months will be relatively pain-free.

Would you take the treatment?

Poll coming.

 

[Dachs]

There is not much I'm more afraid of than death, if anything. I'd go with the treatment.

 

[PeteAtoms]

I'd go with the treatment. But if you were to ask me the same exact thing when I'm over 70, I would answer differently.

 

[Kennigit]

Only if I could live long enough to go on a date with tom petty.

 

[general_kill]

I'm not trying to be cynical at all, but what is the objective of these hypothetical situations? Do they really have psychological importance and gauge how we think?

 

[eastsidebagel]

I'm not trying to be cynical at all, but what is the objective of these hypothetical situations? Do they really have psychological importance and gauge how we think?

You betcha! And I'd go with the same what Pete Atoms said.

 

[choxorn]

That depends. If I'm really old and probably won't live much longer anyway, screw the treatment. Also, define "Mild side effects".

 

[azzaman333]

I'd rather 6 months free of sufferring than however long I lived with the treatment.

 

[Narz]

Your doctor informs you that you have a rare and fatal, but treatable disease. However, the treatment is very unpleasant (involving choking down horrible-tasting drinks and vomiting and pain), and you will have mild side effects for the rest of your life.

Time for a second opinion.

The correct answer, BTW, (assuming the doctor is omniscient) is to live 5 months & 29 days without the treatment & then start taking it.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I'm not selfish enough to choose the painless death over the treatment. Besides that, I'd kinda like to see how the rest of my life would go.

(assuming the doctor is omniscient)

Have you ever met a doctor who was?

 

[Souron]

It would be a poor character who could not endure "choking down horrible-tasting drinks and vomiting and pain" for a short period of time for the sake of their friends and loved ones, who would miss them when they died.

 

[Narz]

It would be a poor character who could not endure "choking down horrible-tasting drinks and vomiting and pain" for a short period of time for the sake of their friends and loved ones, who would miss them when they died.

Depends. If you're in enough pain people may miss "you" though you still live. Chronic pain changes a person.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

It would be a poor character who could not endure "choking down horrible-tasting drinks and vomiting and pain" for a short period of time for the sake of their friends and loved ones, who would miss them when they died.

except other's opinions shouldnt have any bearing on your life. it is your life after all, whatever you want to do with it, you can.

 

[LucyDuke]

Also, define "Mild side effects".

What he said.

The correct answer, BTW, (assuming the doctor is omniscient) is to live 5 months & 29 days without the treatment & then start taking it.

Only if it'll still work at that point.

 

[Souron]

except other's opinions shouldnt have any bearing on your life. it is your life after all, whatever you want to do with it, you can.

That would be selfish. Your life has an impact on those who care for you.

 

[Bill3000]

Already seems to be far less worse than chemo, so hell yeah.

 

[Souron]

Depends. If you're in enough pain people may miss "you" though you still live. Chronic pain changes a person.

While that may prove true, that doesn't make a good argument in favor of six months of life. They may miss you if you change, but they will surely miss you if you die.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

That would be selfish. Your life has an impact on those who care for you.

or selfish of them.

it goes both ways, so in this case i say that it is solely the individuals choice. just like how you don't let friends or family pick your religion.

 

[Narz]

While that may prove true, that doesn't make a good argument in favor of six months of life. They may miss you if you change, but they will surely miss you if you die.

Maybe but maybe my wife (hypothetical) would be happier if she had a wonderful (though bittersweet) six months & then eventually remarried after my death rather than living with a grouchy, sickly man in a lot of pain for the rest of her life.

Maybe it would be more humane to one's loved ones to die under such circumstances.

 

[Souron]

or selfish of them.

it goes both ways, so in this case i say that it is solely the individuals choice. just like how you don't let friends or family pick your religion.

How can it be selfish of them if you make the choice?

I am not denying that you should have the right to choose to not go for the treatment. I am saying that in most cases you should choose to go through with it, for your loved ones sake if for no other reason.

You don't generally let family choose religion, because you should be free to choose what you believe and how you define yourself. That said it is no fault to follow family customs including religion.