I can't relate to judgements based on "what about the children"? For some reason everything must revolve around child welfare. Children are
ostensibly incredibly coddled and protected on some levels. Yet the second they reach 18 and put a foot out of line - stuff 'em, let the stupid bastards die (maybe that's 14-16 ... when they become obnoxious teens).
Until we pass that magic line, it's all kindness and care ... ostensibly. Meanwhile most people blithely accept public policy that kills masses of young people and jeopardises their futures so as to satisfy our own greed, gluttony, blood lust or moral peccadilloes.
If you're interested in ethics, parsing the public and personal is difficult so I give people the benefit of the doubt and, as much as possible, accept that stuff happens since we're all flawed humans. That goes for Republicans and incompetent artists alike lol. I guess I see too clearly through the walls of my house to throw too many stones.
In the light of all that, a Dad who's gluttonous / embarrassing and dies early is generally judged harshly based on the premise, "what about the children?". Yet if he's shown love to the child, already secured the family's financial security, and hasn't assaulted, molested, verbally abused, gambled away the family home, etc then he's done better than many other fathers. So IMO Bonzo did okay as a Dad, not great, but okay . That includes Charlie Sheen. Stuff happens, and included in the definition of "stuff" is human frailty. Included in the definition of "human frailty" is the selective judgement we apply to child welfare. So it goes.
No sh**, Sherlock?
Guess you had to say that hehehe
That's definitely how some see it. Most of us fear slowly wasting away more than wearing out through overuse. Yet fear of the immediacy of death usually results in the former outcome.
The hope is always to hang in there for as long as you can and then to fall off the perch relatively quickly and painlessly. That's a nice gig if you can swing it ...