[lII1lIlI11ll]

> For all we know, the more likely scenario is that Charlie, like a sizeable percentage of his doctor peers, was burnt out, tired, and depressed, did not really have an overwhelming (some might say "healthy") desire to survive (in fact, perhaps quite the opposite), and saw the cancer as a non-undignified quick "way out".

Why do you consider it "more likely"?

> Doctors (and medical professionals more generally) rank among the highest in occupational risk of mental health disease, especially for things like addiction, alcoholism, generalised anxiety, ptsd, depression and suicide.

You are suggesting that majority of doctors are depressed with suicidal ideation (hence "more likely")? Care to provide a link to research/data?

[tpoacher]

It was widely known that doctors are at a considerably increased risk when I was studying medicine, enough to warn us and have professional wellbeing modules in the curriculum. Plus, it's a special population in having significantly different access to relatively covert means, making it more likely to go through with said ideation.

I have seen academic references in the past confirm it. I'm not about to waste time on a scholar deep-dive just to defend my comment but I'm sure you'll find such references easily if you look. Having said that, if "you" have time and you do decide to look and find conflicting evidence that you care to share, I'd be interested to hear more.

> You are suggesting that majority of doctors are depressed with suicidal ideation?

No. I'm suggesting they rank among the highest in occupational risk. In Bayesian terms, the difference between the two is the distinction between a prior and a posterior statement.

> Why do you consider it more likely?

Because, subjectively, the likelihood (low drive for survival given mental disease) should be overwhelmingly higher than the prior (low drive for survival given average person) in this case. Hence more likely.