[fnordpiglet]

In this specific case the authors state of mind is important to consider. Being far along in dementia his will and thoughts are not necessarily reliably indicative of their unimpaired will and thoughts. His children struggled with his instructions and as they reflected over a non trivial period of time and reread the work they felt he had made a mistake, which is plausible given advanced dementia, and falls within the realm of their judgement as his caretaker. I think this is an entirely legitimate decision on their part, and not really up to us to second guess.

There’s also the point parallel comments make that public figures private works are often of general interest. The will and desires of the deceased carry weight - but it decreases over time as they are in fact dead. If we found Julius Caesar’s private diary with admonitions to not read it, would we honor that?

[freetanga]

This is not a life or death decision, or that Gabo left his house to a cult: this is an unnecessary cash grab from his kids to go against his father memory.

Even if he was out of his proper mind, choosing not to publish was the elegant thing to do. They already milked their father for years, now they should earn their own money.

Giving away the novel to a national university for academic discussion would also be more elegant than this.

[jhgb]

"Giving away the novel to a national university for academic discussion"

Except a national university will almost certainly buy a copy, so your desired academic discussion will be unimpeded.

[benj111]

I think the profit motive is the dividing line for me.

If they think it's important to release the work, they shouldn't be profiting from it.

[pests]

I agree and take it a bit further with buildings and such being designed historical places and all the restrictions that comes with.

Fine, great, they were once something awesome - but do we really need to rob every future generation of that building or use? It must forever be a memory of distant past?

[zvmaz]

> In this specific case the authors state of mind is important to consider. Being far along in dementia his will and thoughts are not necessarily reliably indicative of their unimpaired will and thoughts

An argument can be made to the effect that he could not give his full consent given that he probably lost his capacities to make an informed decision.

A moral quandary nonetheless.

[lukan]

"If we found Julius Caesar’s private diary with admonitions to not read it, would we honor that?"

Judging by modern morals, Julius Caesar would be guilty of multiple genocidal war crimes. His private diaries would be rather evidence.

"that public figures private works are often of general interest."

This argument is basically, that if only enough people want something, they get the right. Which is not something I am a huge fan about. And Garcia was no Imperator, deciding the fate of millions, but a private writer.

And the argument about dementia, if he would have been so far away in dementia, while making the decision, I do not think his sons would have judged so harshly about themself:

"We did think about it for about three seconds - was it a betrayal to my parents, to my father's [wishes]?

"And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for."

I think this is mainly a internal familiy thing if his sons decide to publish and ignore their fathers wish. But I probably won't read it.

And it is a different case with Kafka:

"Before author Franz Kafka died from tuberculosis in 1924, he told friend Max Brod to burn all of his work. However, between 1925 and 1935 Brod published his collection of works including The Trial, The Castle and Amerika."

Because he told his friend Brod before, that he will ask him to destroy his works once he dies - and Brod told him clearly, that if he will do that, he will refuse and publish it anyway. So rather a kafkaesk joke all in all and no betrayal. If Kafka really would have wanted someone destroy his works, he could have asked someone else.

[lynx23]

Wow, so you just need to be old enough, and then people like you will come along and declare that you're no longer cognitively able to decide anything, and therefore everything you said is moot? Disrespectful paragraphs like yours are one of the reasons why I would prefer the ability to die on demand, inst4ead of being subjected to whatever other people deem appropriate because I am supposedly no longer able to decide for my own. I'd really prefer to go, instead of being subjected to people like you.

[brandall10]

Dementia made my Richard Dawkins idolizing, ethnically Jewish grandfather convert to Christianity at the end of his life… because his girlfriend’s family was that way. He had 4 strokes over a 2 year period and lived the last 4 years of his life as a smiley vegetable with advanced Alzheimer’s. The prior 76 years had been spent as a cynic who would go on hour long rants about the damage religion had done to the world. It was such an odd situation that I had to correct the record at his funeral.

[tgv]

Dementia is no joke. It becomes quite clear when people start losing their judgement. But from your reaction, it seems you have some misconceptions. My mother had dementia (and other problems). When it became too hard for her to bear, she indeed chose euthanasia, a choice she had made long before she started suffering from it, and died with dignity, surrounded by her loved ones. It is an opportunity I truly wish to be available to everyone who suffers from a deterioting condition.

[egeozcan]

My uncle has dementia and he wants to spend all his money on getting his car washed (he cannot drive anymore). Should his children honor his wishes or try to use his money for his own good?

I think you are being too aggressive in your cause for personal freedom and justice. I mean, I do understand where you are coming from but perhaps saying "I'd really prefer to go, instead of being subjected to people like you" goes a bit too far.

[lynx23]

I have a disability. Independence is a much more important topic to me then for most people that have independence as a given. Even though you might not like my attitude, I feel that way. The day I loose my independence, and other people are allowed to decide for me, I'd prefer to end it there. I realize this might feel very strange to you, but as said, you probably dont know what it means to fight for your independence and to be allowed to take your own decisions.

[squigz]

As someone with a disability as well, and who has had family members fall apart with dementia, I don't think this is a very good take.

Do you understand that most people, even in a stable state of mind, can't reasonably decide to just "end it there"? Let alone someone with advanced dementia... Maybe one day if society stops putting so much value on empty life and we can peacefully end it when it's time, but that day is likely far away.

[Beldin]

I think your uncle's case is a bit different of that from a world-famous author who has writings that he didn't publish, who wants those not published after he's gone.

As others have pointed out, if his children really thought this was important for his legacy and he only had the destructive wish due to dementia, they could have made the writings available without profiting from that.

[paxcoder]

From the article:

>We did think about it for about three seconds - was it a betrayal to my parents, to my father's [wishes]? And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for.