And that BIG question is an individual one.
you asked: " . . . should I be happy that I am robbed and not killed though the robber is still in my house hiding somewhere? Live with the hope that I may be able to catch the robber some time in life. Should I be happy that my choices are not between life and death??"

The answer lies in how you view the acronym seen in the doctor's office - or the nurse's entry in the chart on the floor of the long-term residence - or the researcher's findings noted in the published results of a clinical trial - QOL.

QOL - Quality of Life. It is subjective in nature, but science tries to put it into a little box or use it as a label to measure improvement (or degeneration). What YOU perceive as quality of life is how you must answer those questions.. Some would argue that because your friend died, he/she is the loser. Others would say that knowing your life could end up worse than death, the PWP is the loser.

Whatever your answer - and it will vary from person to person - here is my interpretation: I believe in life hereafter. I believe this life is temporal. I am not being punished by having Parkinson's, and it isn't some test of my faith that I do have it. I'm sure you have heard the worn out phrase, "If life hands you lemons, make lemonade." I take it a knotch higher, "If life hands you lemons, hand them out and show others how to make lelmonade, and live with hope that somewhere along the chain of events, the lemons will stop coming. (I like iced tea better anyway.)

How much are you willing to take until you feel life isn't worth it? How can research possibly measure the answer to that in an equitable way? I don't know that answer. I only know that this is the way it is for me for a reason - and I don't think it's to see how much I can take, but how much I can give.