> So if you're one of the 28 percent of the respondents who choose the third option, what does it mean to you?

This is probably my fault. You thought this through further than I did. I put up the question, then answered it with this third option. Yet if I developed a life-threatening condition reliably treatable, of course I would opt for treatment.

The question should have made this clear, but by living and dying "naturally" I wasn't intending to rule out routine medical treatment -- simply some kind of theoretical magic device that would delay natural death due to old age (or a car accident, or *anything*, really) by some arbitrary number of years, in the same way that a theoretical magic device would rule out death altogether.

Even neglecting the fact that the difference between such a device and ordinary advances in medical technology probably involves some gray area, the fact that the poll question did not make this distinction clear undoubtedly skews the results. But this is where I was coming from when *I* answered the question, and I expect this is where a large portion of the others were coming from as well.