Grim, a question you might have come across before:
Would you rather lose a loved one in a sudden unexpected accident, or through a long-running terminal disease?
Unlike a philosopher’s dilemma, this is not a quandary that one considers in order to develop some understanding of ethical or moral considerations. Personally I think it is a dumb question, don’t waste your time with it: you simply don’t get to choose such things.
Surely both simply suck.
It’s a question on the same level as the lamest of “what if…” questions. Things happen as they happen, it is up to us to deal with whatever life chooses to throw at us, and simply do so as best we can.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Wim Conradie // Oct 7, 2011 at 3:01 pm
I would guess something in between.
This is based on the negative effects I observed in family and close friends going through these:
Having to support someone who have a long term disease can drive weak hearted people into depression. The longer the suffering, the worst the emotional pressure.
On the other hand loosing somebody suddenly with whom you should have made peace on certain quarrels, can cause long term regret and feelings of guilt, which can also have depressing effects for the not that strong hearted.
2 thinker // Oct 27, 2011 at 10:57 am
A rather “mean trick” played on us was that the effect of pain killers took us completely by surprise. Consequently we feel we missed out on one of the benefits of having time – it feels like there were still many things we wanted to discuss and talk about.
Something I would recommend to those dealing with a long-term terminal disease: don’t let “numerous years” make you complacent. In the end, things can still go much quicker than you or the doctors expect. And be aware that once you start with painkillers, it could spell the end of real conversations. Don’t delay on the grounds of “we’ll have more time next week”.
Leave a Comment