Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is an accurate summary. One thing I'd like to add is that there was nothing that the receiver did that provoked the regret. I read this assuming that something happened that caused it to not be worth it.

While this is a good view on this situation, the article is basically a guy saying that his comfort and security to have a long life is more important than the other guy's life. So I assumed that the other guy had done something to bring this to light but that is not the case. The donator had simply researched more and decided he was nervous.

To be clear: His interest in being secure in his life is fine and expected and I'm not judging him by what I said.



"...the article is basically a guy saying that his comfort and security to have a long life is more important than the other guy's life. So I assumed that the other guy had done something to bring this to light but that is not the case."

This is how I went into the article as well. I expected seeing something about the recipient being a substance abuser or otherwise not careful with his gift, or some related drama. But it's really some light hypochondria and the recklessness of youth on display.

I don't begrudge his regret; I don't know if I would have donated in the first place if I had been in his shoes. I'm just not entirely convinced of the overall worth of the article.


I thought the article has overall worth because it's an honest reflection about something we usually think of as a simple feel-good story. We pay attention to selfless deeds when they happen, but usually don't follow up with the aftermath. Apparently, according to the author, neither do hospitals, which means there's a lack of data to do more longitudinal study.


He's also saying it would be nice to have long term data on donors, which no one is going to disagree with.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: