by 1dom | 2025-10-11 14:11:19+00:00
> That would depend on your definition of liability I suppose.

I mean it in the sense of burdening others. Sure we all have to burden others to some extent, but I mean specifically the unique burdens that come with age, like requiring others to do basic things to keep you alive because you've lost the ability to do so.

> Once his capacity to make his own decisions was gone, his family could opt out of that treatment for him.

There is also no medical treatment for old age: there's no medications you can opt out of to end it all if you're just naturally aging and suffering, but we have to see this suffering more now because medicine has stopped other illness killing people before old age. Also, one problem we didn't anticipate is in the UK, legal and medical power of attorney can only be used when a person has lost the ability to make decisions: if they're able to make terrible decisions that are obviously not in their interest, and leading them to be repeatedly hospitalised, those terrible decisions are still respected over the family/power of attorney.

> The issue is I don't care why someone wants to stick around. I want them to feel free to do continue to do so.

I think we agree here. I want people to be free to end their life how they want, including staying around if they want to.

For the 3 problems you mentioned, you see them as problems because you have the perfectly natural underlying fear/ego/entitlement to stay alive, regardless of who else has to suffer for you.

I don't feel I have that, for better or for worse, so none of those 3 points really are problems for me:

1. This is literally what I'm advocating for! If my family think I'm a liability, and I'm causing more harm than good, then I've told them they need to tell me so we can put things in motion. The only reason for the family to be dishonest is through fear of upsetting/offending my feeling of entitlement to life. The way I see it is Kahneman's approach enabled his family to be honest with him!

2. What about the contrary? I want me and my family to have the best life with minimal unnecessary suffering. Yet you're here, trying to pressure me into making them suffer by being a big ol' age burden. I don't want to feel obligated and forced to stay alive and make my family suffer because some people are scared of their inevitable mortality. My approach maximises the choice to allow for minimising inevitable suffering, whereas yours reduces choices for the _chance_ that maybe you'll be the old person who isn't a burden (but you will be a burden, because nature).

3. This is already a problem: the legality or acceptableness of suicide/death isn't going to stop horrible family members finding creative ways to extract inheritance early.

I'm not advocating for people to be able to top themselves on a whim, there needs to be controls and processes in place, like any big/potentially harmful decision, and these controls are in place. FWIW, a bunch of the points you've raised were discussed and concluded as part of the parliamentary discussion into changing these laws in the UK ("Assisted dying bill"). The bill in the UK was specifically for terminally ill adults, but practically, old age is a terminal illness and most of the same arguments apply.