ok so a bit of backstory to the question first. im watching river monsters and a child got eaten by piranhas (piranhas theyre from the amazon (sorry for the nemo reference it just kinda popped in my head))
anyway my question: if someone is dying and you have the chance to save them, do you?
morally the answer is well yeah duh. but if they are dying they will most likely (depending on the cause obviously) will be really messed up, either physically mentally or both. is letting them live the rest of their life like that really better then leaving them for dead?
7 comments
It’s a split second choice. I dont think a lot of laypeople know what they’d do* unless they trained for it or cared deeply about someone/like a child.
/putting themselves in front of a bullet
/being hit by a car in place of someone else
I’ll tell you, though. It’s something special when a stranger does it for someone else.
I would like to think I would but when in the face of tragedy I tend to freeze up, some kid was brought to the dock drowned one time while I was there and while a handful of people ran to help I just stared and stayed out of the way. The kid didn’t make it and my help wouldn’t have made a difference. I was also present when my neighbor died of cancer and was zero help. I don’t do personal space we’ll enough to save someone I don’t think. I guess it could be different depending on the circumstances.
I’ve wondered this myselfvmany times. And I still don’t know
I kinda saved someone’s life once. I was on antipsychotics back then, I was a different person. I don’t know if I’d be as effective if it had happened now.
Actually, I am pretty sure I wouldn’t be. I failed to save a dog’s life more recently. I had an idea about how it might be possible to save it, but I was too scared to try, so I tried something less risky and less effective. And the dog died.
In the midst of my humble bragging, I forgot to address the second part of your question. I think you do save them. But then it should be up to them whether they wish to live on given the suffering they are in. But what if they literally can’t make that decision, because e.g. they are in a coma? I’m afraid I can’t answer that, but I would probably err on the side of keeping them alive. Suffering is temporary. Death is permanent.
I personally would rather die. Take where I got the question, a piranha attack, at least you know you’re going to die and the pain will stop. If someone saves you then you get to live with the pain for God knows how long because the doctors have to get there or you to them and then they have to fix you up. And then when the pains all better you’d still have to live with it your whole life because you physically and mentally aren’t the same. I’m just saying it seems a bit more peaceful to know it’s going to be over soon.
I see your point. To me it’s more about who gets to make that call? The person themself? Or the would-be rescuer/healer/doctor/family?