I don't really like the idea of abandoning people suffering from "rare" diseases. ALS sucks so much. It is a horrible thing to be told you have ALS, you'd wish you were diagnosed with cancer or cardiovascular disease instead.
I hope I'm not following the argument, because it sounds like he thinks we should have other people around 'suffering with serious disabilities' so we can be reminded how precious life is. If so, that's cruel to the point of perversity.
Maybe for high functioning, fully self-sufficient autists whose condition is more of a personality trait. But I can't imagine it being the case for those who essentially can't survive without assistance.
It would be like the "net negative" of someone in a wheelchair who can now walk again and therefore lose access to welfare benefits and handicapped parking spots. Now maybe some people in wheelchairs think their handicap is part of how they are and want to keep it, but I would be surprised if it wasn't at best a tiny minority.
If you were advocating for killing them then yeah that feeling would make sense. As it is, you are saying you would like their disability to not exist, which I hope is the case.
The reason people won't like this is that it's essentially a eugenicist argument and this sort of utilitarianism slides easily into straight up eugenics.
Replace the 92-year-old in your hypothetical with a 22-year old blind person in a wheelchair and "most people" would probably withhold treatment in that case. But they would conclude that based on stereotypes and assumptions about what life "must be like" with those disabilities, not on whether or not that person finds their life worth living.
To change this you need to make it so that so that people actively choose, for themselves, less resource-intensive courses. Which is absolutely a thing, most people if well-informed would choose a slightly shorter life with higher quality of life, still part of their families and communities rather than medically segregated from them. There are powerful reasons people don't make these choices right now, and that needs to be addressed, rather than snatching the choice away from them and putting it in the hands of forces that will inevitably use it for atrocities.
As someone who, due to disability, needs an assistive device this is asking me to give up the ability to participate in society, and probably an early grave.
I am all for addressing deficiencies and glad to hear of such successes, but I hope we get better at making such things available, but not mandatory.
I have a serious medical condition. If they wanted to make this mandatory, I would need to campaign against it in order to protect my health and life. It bothers me to see the desire for options tarred as if that desire is mere prejudice and cannot have legitimate concerns behind it.
I don't think the part about his quality of life is not important.
Lots of people have disabilities, only accounting for spina bifida which is physically less disabling that ALS, or muscle atrophy which leaves cognitive capacity intact, already puts them in the thousands. Someone needs to show them they can achieve many of what they dream about, because most of society only gives them pity and consent. We have Olympic Games for disabled people whose dreams are of being athletes, and we need people like Stephen Hawking to show disabled wannabe scientists and hackers (many of whom I believe read HN and ars) that they can also triumph in their geeky endeavours.
It's an easy thing to fear. It's another thing to actually demonstrate this is happening in a measurable, widespread fashion.
FWIW most of the people I've met on disability probably deserved to be on there, including people I've met with severe mental illnesses. I'd posit there's more of an empathy gap here than anything.
This really wasn't my intent. I sincerely apologize for communicating otherwise.
I identify as blind or low-viz and wouldn't want to take away from others who also identify as such or as disabled.
That line was meant to be a response to the fears that it seemed like my family and friends had about my diagnosis. Fears, that I wouldn't be able to remain independent or be successful. You know how loved ones generally fear the worst possible scenario. Anyway, wording it this was was terrible, and I'm sorry. I'll see if I can make an edit and rephrase things.
What about the type that has bad knees, or metabolic issues, or low vision, or seizures, or about a hundred other things? Somehow I think a hard-to-see-in-traffic recumbent bicycle isn't going to be a solution for them. Advocacy is a wonderful thing, but when it turns into ableism it's disgusting.
reply