First Things First
Amputation is inevitable
The patient is losing his limbs to gangrene. Amputation is inevitable. The doctor has it done.
A few months later, the patient sues the doctor for he is responsible for patient's losing the limbs.
Conclusion 1: The right thing to do may not be pleasant.
Conclusion 2: When judging an action, look for possible necessities dictating it. In this case, ends justify means as nothing is lost via the means (amputation), except useless (gangrenous) already, whereas the ends benefit largely.
Conclusion 3: The patient is logical in his arguments! Unfortunately, being logical is not enough (contrary, to everyday claims: "Please, be logical!", "Let us logically decompose the argument.", "To defy logic", etc…; see also Logico-Empirical chains)
Understanding the problem of death is that painful amputation needed to remove gangrenous delusion about life in order to live a logically congruent and empirically solid life.
(To be continued)…