Life-and-death discussions do involve moral considerations. Moral considerations do come with a level of bias (i.e. when is really a “good time” to die, and judgments about this will differ culturally and socially).

Maybe this is why medicine keeps going back to the “quality of life” argument. You can fight and be kept alive at age 45-50, but what if you are bed-ridden, need constant care, and in constant pain? On the same lines, there are some clinicians who are now advocating aggressively treating some cancers even when the patient is 70 years old and considered “elderly” because the patient may easily have another 10 good years ahead of him or her.

Not sure if this is veering way off the pRB genetic baby post – interesting topic though

true. but then again, if i was 80 and have lived life, i’d probably be more than ready to die. BUT what about if you’re still young (around 45-50)—should we just give-up to the sickness just like that?

hmmm, death and the right to live? take for ex. life insurances. why do we take it? it’s not because we want to protect ourselves, but its to protect those whom we’ll leave one day and live. why isn’t anyone against that concept wherein somebody dies for someone to continue living?

sorry jane, just my scattered thoughts. i just think that sometimes, morality has to back-up a bit.

Technically we can argue that by natural selection some of us are meant to die of heart attacks and cancers, and it would be “against nature” to try to prolong our lives by means of treatment, surgery, or other interventions.

Although my argument may be overly simplistic in these emotionally charged controversies.