.
3. Social. According to observations, people during a period of physical inferiority either lock themselves up (for example, because they do not want to be a burden) or plunge into "whining" (continuously describing how bad they are28), accusations29 (they say that they are not good, do not respect, do not appreciate the old man, do not care, do not cherish, do not pamper). That is, a person himself creates such an "aura" when being with him for any length of time is fraught with a nervous breakdown. We will all leave someday, but how we do it depends on us30. Communication is extremely important (we believe it is unnecessary to dwell on why it is important), and this is precisely a question of communication, its quality, its humanity, mutual enrichment in it and a mega level – if it takes place at least at times in an atmosphere of spirituality.
4. Spiritual. There is such a terrible expletive in terms of semantic content – "soulless". Denoting something like the following: devoid of humanity, kindness, robotic, insensitive, morally empty, cold, "dead". Probably, this is the most terrible death that happens with (selected by) person during lifetime. We do not know what happens to a person's soul when he becomes a "vegetable"; but we again assume (with greater certainty) that when spiritual death occurs (dissolution, or more correctly, betrayal of the noetic dimension), the soul experiences inhuman suffering. In addition to the person himself, we can talk about Bushichumai31, in the aspect of psychological support, it is a "struggle" for the spiritual: a quiet offer to "pray" at the end of life, a kind of reminder by oneself of the priority of the spiritual32.
Separately, we will focus on the issue of freedom to leave life. This freedom itself does not objectively belong entirely to man himself, in the sense that it is subject to the outside world. Actually, that's why there are two camps in the world "for" and "against", who are at war and give their arguments, half-truths. We will not express our intention to maintain this separation, including due to the fact that whatever position (pole) you do not occupy, you will still turn out to be an enemy and continue the war.
In general, we can say that, for example, children are not obliged to agree with their parent's choice to do euthanasia, but also not to recognize such a right to freedom, how is that too? I will cite here the dry residue of my living experience with which I had the happiness-misfortune to come into contact and pass. There is no desire to give examples with people, because it feels like it exposes them, and there is no need to ask for permission; so I will not disturb them. But my conscience will allow me to give a very, very revealing analogy with a hamster. Somehow the beloved and dear to the heart of the hostess pet hamster got sick. Of course, they treated him, took him to the vet, fed him pills, gave him injections… but it didn't help. And the poor hamster experienced such torments, such pains that it gnawed off two paws. Let's feel it please… how brutally much it hurt the animal, how unbearable the suffering was that he bit his paws… Why did the hostess so unwilling to let him go, did not dare to put him to sleep? Was it love and caring for an animal? Or is it attachment, a selfish desire to realize a hopelessly elusive opportunity to once again experience joy and tenderness with an amazingly recovered hamster?.. And if animal advocates intervened, what would be the torment: to leave the hamster alive or to put it to sleep and stop the suffering?