Well, I can't pretend to have a fully formed policy about it

but - over a long period certainly, such as now being discussed - I would tend to the approach of recommendations and guidelines rather than "rules" - to a substantial extent (and yes, I know there are limits) the degree of risk to which people wish to be exposed engaging in activities which are very important to them - which are a large part of what makes it worth being alive for them - should be up to them.

My father died of lung cancer - and it got a point, as no doubt for many others, when the doctors said, yes, we could bung more treatments at you, and yes, you might well live longer - but basically, it'll be pretty s**t, so the alternative is to live your remaining time, which we can make pain free, and get everything you can from it. Again, I know it's not quite the same, but there's a trade off between mere lifespan and actual life.

So - not really an answer to your question ... but there we are.

Posted By: paulg, Apr 23, 16:23:07