It's hard. If you knew you are doomed that would be a valid option. But you can't know that even though it's likely. And on a slim chance you are not doomed, choosing to do nothing is pretty much impossible unless you already wanted to die and suffer unitl then. As I said, usually you don't randomly find out about tumor in your brain. Usually you learn about it because of some progressing symptoms. So you decide on a treatment based on those symptoms. Doing nothing when you suffer and something can be done to help with that is very hard despite risks involved and even ultimate pointlessness. You don't make decisions in those situations based on some theoretical existential framework. You make them on practical grounds. And "do nothing" is almost never a result. "Do nothing" is just an option you might regret not takin with hindsight or an option you might consider ahead of time entirely theoretically. In practice this option is almost never chosen and it's not because of doctors comunicate badly and could do better. It's because of practicality and need for maintaining illusion of agency over your life. It's very hard to belive your life will really end even though you know it's true. Doing something really is no brainer, bacause alternative is not really do nothing. It's lie down, suffer and most likely die suffering progressively more and you would have to consciously choose that. Rarely anone does.

> What is this even supposed to mean? Statistics is a useful tool. You're denying it with no argument. "I don't like statistics."

I love statistics. But statistics by its very nature can't predict what will be an outcome of a single coin toss you are about to do. There's nothing that can't predict that singular result. The only thing you really know is that neither head, nor tails is impossible. You life for you isn't a statistic. It's singular.