I agree. But that still doesn't mean they should have had me at the time they did, in the state they were in.
Discussion
If not for their illnesses, I would say it was immoral and unethical. But it just was. Given you seem to be of sound mind and body, cheering them on would have been immoral and unethical, according to my position.
I'm glad you're here too, but that doesn't mean I don't think your position is any less arrogant and out of touch with reality.
If them having you resulted in a good thing then it was a good thing
And this is the fundamental disagreement that we have. I do not think an act is good simply because the victims of it happen to survive, and rarely, thrive.
I don't think it was good that someone kidnapped Adam Walsh from his father simply because his father went on to do good things after. The original wrong was still wrong. John is still a victim. Adam is still a victim. There are still consequences of the evil even if the people involved did something you consider good. You're idea here is basically the underpinning of the idea that it's okay to crack a few eggs for the greater or "common" good. It's an unpredictable and dangerous path to take, even of someone at some point just happens to benefit from it. You can't negate your mess and its consequences simply because someone else chose to clean it up.