For physical illnesses.

It's less likely to be "a certain age" and more surrounding factors: if most of your friends have passed and you don't have much chance to do things that interest you because you could pass at any moment yourself there comes a point where life has limited worth.

Essentially, hope runs out, and when it's run out entirely you either wait for death, or ... don't wait.

> It's fascinating that even for very ill or injured people the will to survive is so strong

Sometimes. Chronic illnesses are a massive contributing factor to suicide rates for instance: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...

I don't think this is fair. I know several people who died with Alzheimer's and although their final years were very difficult for them nobody has a bad opinion of them. It's certainly a strain on the family but intimating that if you have dementia you better kill yourself or your legacy will be ruined is not ok.

  As Barbara Tversky, who is an emerita professor of psychology at Stanford University, wrote in an online essay shortly after [Kahneman's] death, their last days in Paris had been magical...

  One afternoon, according to her online essay, she asked what [Kahneman] would like to do. "I want to learn something," he said.

  Kahneman knew the psychological importance of happy endings. In repeated experiments, he had demonstrated what he called the peak-end rule: Whether we remember an experience as pleasurable or painful doesn't depend on how long it felt good or bad, but rather on the peak and ending intensity of those emotions. "It was a matter of some consternation to Danny's friends and family that he seemed."

But my personal anecdata puts that man in a minority. None of my older relatives with Alzheimer’s have become aggressive or troublesome. Worry, anxiety and confusion seem to be much more common states of mind, which admittedly also doesn’t seem like such a fun way to spend your days.

As we're currently seeing happen: whatever is left unsaid in the body of the law can and will be abused by evil people to concentrate more power (even if the spirit of the law advocates for something kind).

So, we have to normalize some sort of stress tests for laws... because you sure don't want to be dragged against your will because you're poor.

This seems like such an absurd conclusion to this, as though the opinions of other people of you are what matter when you functionally lose your personhood and then die.

Maybe a better focus would be that there often isn't a good way for a community to manage a person who suddenly becomes irrational because of an illness.

I completely agree that the disease is horrible, but your conclusion is bizarre. When you are in that condition, how anyone views you is the least of your worries.

Folks I know who have passed on also wanted to be remembered when they were strong, not when they were ill.

You even literally show that he isn't solely remembered for those last 3 years of his life. We owe people like that care and understanding, not murder framed as mercy.

It's always so painful to see old people around who are clearly living alone, forced to do everything themselves, having to ask strangers for help because they're afraid of being a burden, and their actual children can't find time for them. Only to now see people actually supporting murder because old people become a burden for a couple of years near the end of their life.

If you apply at scale the same logic with more sensibility you will also be able to rationalize a genocide because someone felt bad about something.

What defines demonic inspiration?

And here I don't say "demonic" metaphysically but philosophically.

I find the people who remember him as this guy somewhat contemptible though, so I guess my theory would be he wasn't remembered badly by anyone whose opinion mattered.

But on the other hand I guess that's the way the world works.

I disagree it’s up to you to conclude it would have been better if he had been killed 3 years earlier (which you imply).

In general you don’t have the right to such a statement.

Now, if you were discussing _your own_ condition this would be a totally valid consideration IMHO. But you (almost) _never_ have the right to conclude from someone elses part when it’s their time to go.

Assisted suicide is a humane option but ”I hope he had died with some dignity years ago instead of pissing everyone off” tarnishes the entire concept and is exactly the type of argument which stops assisted suecide becoming a more widely accepted option.

I just could not digest it. I understood the words but I couldn't make whatever message he was trying to convey... it felt too "dense" for me. Maybe im just stupid, but I could not get past I think the first two chapters.

> It is difficult to reconcile that citizens may have the right to do almost anything to and with their own bodies– from participating in extreme sports to having elective plastic surgery– yet a terminal patient cannot choose to avoid experiencing additional months of discomfort or loss of dignity in their final months of life.

During his final days, he became unresponsive, only sleeping. The doctors gave us the option of feeding him through a tube. We made the hard decision of not doing it. Gave him all the medicine to help his body heal, but no invasive procedures.

We stayed by his side for the next 5 days. Playing songs that he enjoyed. Audiobooks that he loved. And just taking care of him.

Finally, his breath became slower and slower until it stopped and he passed away. I had the opportunity of being beside him during his last breath.

The passing of loved ones is always difficult, but I am grateful for how he went. He lived a full life and was incredibly healthy until the end.

Without knowing, we decided on a sallekhana-like process for him. It was the right thing to do.

Thank you for showing me this.

Counter-anecdote, my partners Granddad is 93. Age 90, we said the same as you. Now he's an old, rude, obnoxious liability - he's still great, and I don't hold it against him, he's earned the right. But I've never known anyone naturally age and die without losing their ability to be civil in some way towards the end.

From the article:

> Kahneman knew that many would see his decision as premature. But that was exactly what he intended, he wrote: If you wait until a life is "obviously no longer worth living", it is already too late.

I personally wish my partners final memories of her Granddad were him at 90, and not at 93. I've known for a good 5 - 10 years I will take the same route as Kahneman. I feel the desire to stay alive long enough to be a liability for yourself and those around you is a decision motivated by ego and fear, rather than compassion or logic.

> It’s relatively common for families to push people into nursing homes,

So you are rejected by your family and punished even more by taking away a dignified exit strategy?

She couldn't look after herself was was forced into care by the courts. Since going into a home she's physically never been fitter, but mentally she's not the person she was 10 years ago -- it's not that she's changed personality, it's as if her memory of the last 80 years was wiped.

Where? This is a thing which always pops up in these debates because it is a deep-rooted fear, but are there countries where this is a thing?

That’s my biggest concern about assisted suicide for an otherwise healthy person who just wants to avoid the inevitable decline (as in this case). There is a direct financial incentive for families to push people into this.

The only way I can see to remove that would be to require that your estate can’t go to anyone who potentially has influence over you in the case of assisted suicide for with no terminal illness.

I had a friend that decided to stop treatment (dialysis), when he realized that he'd never get off it (he couldn't get a transplant). He was in his late 60s.

It was both a sad, and joyous experience. He took about a month to pass (renal failure). He was Catholic, and wouldn't do assisted suicide.

During that month, a bunch of us would go over to his house, almost on a daily basis, and we'd just hang out. It was actually a great experience.

I don’t do it, but I’m not sure how that solves the problem of other people doing it.

You can get into a state of living death where the brain is mush and who you were is completely destroyed. That's hell for the family.

I saw my grandmother forget her daughter (my mother) it was heartbreaking. Seeing my mom realize her mom forgot everything about their life together was just painful.

It was just a sad existence to observe as well. Grandma lived for quiet a while with dementia and spent years trying to return to her childhood home. We'd constantly have to trick her into accepting help from us "strangers". Re-convincing her to come inside that these "strangers" wouldn't mind having her for a bit. Watching her read over the same page of a book for hours on end.

That's not an existence I want for myself or my family.

^ Yes, it's "illegal" but it's effectively nulled if the means to it are made legal.

Ironic is the opposite of what you mean, don't you think? By your explanation, Kahneman acted according to his life's work.

> The guy who spent his life researching how to live rationally chooses suicide at age 90, upon seeing “increasing metal lapses”, presumably in order to not ever live irrationally.

That was possibly part of his motivation. But also the pain, suffering (goes broader than physical pain), confusion, and cost -- to him and his family.

I want every second. Even if it’s painful.

I am still alive.