If you were to lose use of both your arms and legs after a horrific accident, would it be better to live out your life, or end it, so as not to live incapacitated? Most people would agree that it would always be better to live incapacitated, rather than face death. I believe that, in some cases, death would be preferable to life.
If you had a terminal cancer, which caused excruciating pain--pain that no medication could extinguish, it would be better to be dead than to go on living. Nicias brings up the point, in 195c, "?Or don't you think there are many cases in which it would be better not to give up from an illness? Tell me this: do you maintain that in all cases to live is preferable? In many cases, is it not better to die?" (Laches 195c)
Laches agrees with this point, at 195d. Our society is too focused on prolonging life, in all states, whether it be in a normal, vegetative, or comatose. Consider this: If someone is injured in any type of accident, and they are considered "brain-dead", meaning that they have absolutely no brain functions; the only thing keeping them "alive" is the medulla in the brainstem, keeping all their autonomic functions going, i.e., heart, liver, kidneys, liver, etc., are they benefiting from remaining alive, being fed from a tube? Would death not be preferable to this?
Many pro-life advocates say that all human life is precious, and must be preserved in all cases. What exactly constitutes life? Is a person, who has been in a coma for 20+ years alive? Sure, all their organs function normally, but they are not able to experience life, experience, be mentally alert. Many pro-life advocates also say that euthanasia ...