Edit: and all of this is before the psychological implications of knowing your time is almost up. People would rather have burnt skin removed by a painful grinder than painless maggots because bugs and being eaten are so psychologically scarring most people won’t even consider it until they experience the pain of the flesh grinder work. People won’t think rationally anyways until it’s much too late.
My general understanding is life insurance almost never actually pays out, and if it does it’s after a long fight and for less than you signed up for, and in any case should typically not be the largest portion of your inheritance.
That all aside, taking a risky but possible option that may mean survival, as a conscious and informed decision, even if aware it may void a possibility of a life insurance payout, doesn’t seem like a decision we have more right to make than the person affected by it.
Imagina an evil bank clerk on the door of a cancer center that says:
fake quote> There is a new promising [unverified] treatment that can save the life of your S.O. It's very expensive so you have to take a double mortgage on your home. You are very lucky, because today we are offering it with only a 49.99% interest rate. Do you love him/her?
If you've got a 95% chance of death, take the pain pills and enjoy your final days. Don't bankrupt yourself and spend more time miserable, dying anyways.
The parent comment suggested taking an experimental drug would mean they couldn’t give their children inheritance, implying that the government might seize your assets or something.
I firmly disagree with the “take the death” argument made here, but I do respect the intellectual integrity of committing to your argument at least, and suspect we just hold extremely different moral perspectives.
