There's a certain danger in framing life continuation in terms of value to society though. I don't say this flippantly because I've wrestled with these things in a very real sense, and appreciate the argument you're trying to make. I'm not trying to trivialize it.

However, it's ethically a slippery slope in the strongest sense:

There's the argument that older people don't have an obligation to live as long as possible because it puts a burden on younger individuals when the older individuals aren't contributing "'much' to society anymore."

But how do you define "much"? Who gets to define that?

Logically, too, that argument can't just apply to the elderly anymore, so now you have to apply it to the population at large. Where do we draw the line at that? People in prison? The severely disabled? The socioeconomically less fortunate? How do you make the distinction between the self-destructive thoughts of the depressed versus others? Is the depressed person always wrong?

I tend to think that the decision to end one's life is the ultimate manifestation of autonomy, and as such should be protected and respected.

But by the same token, sometimes I think these discussions are slightly misguided, in that we should be focused on improving life circumstances rather than on the means by which someone dies. To extend your example a bit, I'd argue that if age burden is a tremendous issue for society, why not invest, in a "moonshot" kind of way, in eliminating old age as a disease state, along with the stereotypes that go with it? Why is there so much focus on preventing suicide rather than improving people's well-being?

Death is inevitable, but sometimes I think we spend too much time focused on whether people should be able to choose to end their lives, and not enough on how to prevent them from being in that state where the decision is even an issue.

Finally, I see a lot of these types of posts on HN, about suicide and euthanasia; I appreciate them but wonder if, and if, so, why, they appear here more than in other places.

> Why is there so much focus on preventing suicide rather than improving people's well-being?

There isn't a focus on merely preventing suicide while not improving well-being. Anyone working in suicide prevention or public health will talk - at length - about the wider determinants of health and mental health.

If it appears that there's a focus on preventing death over other measures that's because the work has focussed streams of activity. General health and well being does get discussed on HN.

>How much of our attitude towards end-of-life is "learned" and result of "we have always done it like that"?

Probably most of it, but there might be a underlying reason for that information to have passed on for thousands of years, across cultures.

Either for practical reasons (like they're a source of the accumulation of information and life experience), or because it's out of fear (let us give the example to younger generations so when it's our turn they won't leave us to die, or just kill us to save resources), or maybe because you have a bond and a moral sense towards elders, or all of these and some more...

Even if they serve the sole purpose of introducing us to death, and to remind us of our brief passage and reframe our perceptions and align our selves and our actions towards something with that end in sight, the fact is that elders are seen as a integral part of the family structure.

This pandemic actually got me a bit worried for the example set to younger generations, that framed the elders as statistics that just die a lot and stripped a lot of the humanity in this situation - and we're the ones that are going to deal with this when it's our turn, that despite your efforts, contributions and value is completely disregarded just because you're old and old people are just numbers that die a lot.

I don't mean to say this as a criticism, but you sound like someone who hasn't been around elders and you might not have much life experience.

End of life care in the last 5 decades is nothing like the previous thousands of years. I have so far had 2 great grandparents live to 100+, 1 great grandparent to 95+, and 2 grandparents to 95+.

All of them did not want medical intervention when their time came. I lived with 2 of the above myself growing up, and one needed dialysis at 93. There was no reason to give them dialysis at that age. It’s brutal for them, the staff, the government spending all this money. Even my grandparent was bewildered at this misplaced priority in society.

I also see many families, especially in traditional ones where the children take care of the parents, spend a ton of their resources on the elderly frequently sacrificing resources that could go to their young. My parents did this, and while I understand they didn’t have a better option for various reasons, but I will not spend a ton of time and energy extending my parents’ lives if it causes me to take away from my kids’. And I wouldn’t want it for myself, obviously.

For now, I hope when the time comes that I have to rely on someone else for basic bodily functions, I will still have the energy (and willpower) to get on a boat and tie a cinderblock to my ankle and go overboard or something.

Well the quality of life improved greatly in the last 50 years, when I was younger people in their 60's and 70's were way older - both mentally and physically.

>Every one of them did not want medical intervention when their time came.

That's their choice, because they have something to chose from. I'm not saying that we should do everything to keep the age ticker ticking - I'm saying they should have the same rights as everyone else, and they should be free to make their choices.

Else, what would be the age threshold that would strip us from rights? Who would decided that?

To clarify, I’m specifically talking about very old people who I think should have the option to take or be given a cocktail and go peacefully, rather than continue to live in a painful state that ties up everyone around them. For example, my grandparent that lost their kidneys at 93, they continued to live through dialysis for a couple years, but if they were offered assisted suicide, they would have taken it. They would not have had to suffer through dialysis, the country could have invested those funds elsewhere, and my parents would have been free to do other things.

But right now, a 93 year old with kidney failure would not qualify for assisted suicide in most states, maybe not even the ones with assisted suicide.

What I also meant was that in decades prior to recent ones, there were no possibilities to extend someone’s life for weeks/months/years with things like dialysis, artificial lungs, etc. So there’s a lot more resources that can be spent on extending someone’s life compared to before.

Whether or not society should refuse to treat a 93 year old with dialysis is a question I am not able to address right now.

>How do you justify that especially if one can't contribute much to society anymore and maybe didn't raise kids on your own?

Interesting point. I do think it is kind of insane that like 70% of our government money goes to old people. Investing in the past instead of the future? Meanwhile everything else is getting cut, because SS and medicare are "mandatory" spending. The reality is that these old folks did not pay high enough taxes and save enough money to justify the money going to them now. Younger generations are getting pillaged.

That’s a pretty gross and ignorant perspective. Try reading a little less Paul Ryan.

Apropos to Medicare, I live a block away the president of a local hospital and healthcare network. I remember just before COVID, he drove by in his Porsche and waved, on his way to go on TV to complain about reimbursements from Medicare falling (because the quality of care in the the hospital sucks) and that state government was “killing” them by reducing an increase in Medicaid.

Meanwhile, he makes $30M for what should be a $200k/year civil service job, is in the middle of a massive, unnecessary hospital expansion, funded by Medicare dollars, and cut the salaries of nurses 20% to be “fair” to the employees of a small hospital they purchased with a big infusion of people debt.

Yes, old people should just go and die.

America has deep issues to solve in this domain. This sounds like a sci-fi movie to people in other countries ... and the other countries are not perfect either.

It will take some kind of amazing leadership to solve which could be a long time coming if current climate is any indicator.

Very hard for friends and allies to watch.

> How much of our attitude towards end-of-life is "learned" and result of "we have always done it like that"?

Just because people generally operate according to convention doesn't mean there isn't a sound basis for the convention.