What do you think?
 

Let's suppose you find that you're diagnosed with a heart condition that is reparable, but without surgery you've only got 6-8 months to live. Once the surgery is complete you will return to normal health, with an average life expectancy.

Do you believe that you have a moral obligation to take care of your body by having the surgery performed and extending your life, or would you see nothing wrong with riding it out and letting yourself die in a few months time?

What if you were in your late 70's when you got this news. Would it change your answer?

what's the risk associated with the surgery if you are 70?

If there is a 30% risk of brain damage/stroke when the heart is on bypass, that would change the calculus.

I cannot imagine anyone who has an otherwise nominally healthy and normal lifestyle who would wish to die prematurely. Is this a trick question?

There are so many other variables that would also come into the picture. Late 70's would very much enter into the equation. The other important thing would be is insurance going to pay for it . Lastly how is my mental health.

If my mental health was on the serious declind and insurance wouldn't pay for it, I definitely would not have it.

Nope, lady in my ward said she received personal revelation to just let herself expire rather than having a surgery. It was a heart condition but the surgery wasn't open heart it was that one where they go up through your leg or something. She was 50 something, and last I heard (this was in Utah) she was on the verge of dying.

Minimal

Humans have an amazing will to survive. I would be surprised anyone would opt not to extend their life. Unless they believed the surgery had high risk to die immediately or didn't believe the 6-8 month diagnosis.

My dad speculated that she had a lot of debt and that was a contributing factor. Why he believed that is really not clear to me.