Would you rather have a potentially fatal disease such as cancer with a 50/50 chance of survival, or would you rather suffer from a debilitating, but nonlifethreatening disease for the rest of your life?
Would you rather have a potentially fatal disease such as cancer with a 50/50 chance of survival, or would you rather suffer from a debilitating, but nonlifethreatening disease for the rest of your life?
well, they both ruin your life so...
what's the non-life threatening disease?
I have one that is both. Moreso the latter, but complications can be fatal as I nearly discovered about 7 weeks ago after emergency surgery.
When I was in College, my father was diagnosed with Lou Gerig's disease. This is fatal and we were devistated. Not to long after, they rediagnosed him with Multiple Sclerosis. This is not fatal. At first we were grateful and relieved. Now, several years later he is completely paralyzed from the neck down. We tried for a long time to help him live at home but once it became medically necessary for a cathator and adult diapers and a shunt in his abdomen to help nurish him, we had to find the best nursing home we could near by. His life is awful. Some days he is too weak to hold his eyes open long or speak loud enough for you to hear him. It is heart breaking for all of us. As awful as having him die of Lou Gerig's disease so many years ago, I sometimes wonder if it would have really been a blessing for him. He is only 72 but looks at least 20 years older. Both choices are horrible. But I definitely would not want to end up like my Dad.
It would depend on how debilitating. I want to live, not just exist.