 Many cases of late preemption are cases in which the cause hastens the effect. That is, had the cause been absent, the effect—or, in any case, something very similar to the effect—would have happened later than it actually did. But this isn’t an essential feature of the case. Consider the following: Quentin is given chemotherapy to fight his cancer. The chemotherapy compromises his immune system, and after catching a flu, Quentin dies from pneumonia. It is easy to suppose that the chemotherapy prolonged Quentin’s life. Suppose that, had he not received chemo, the cancer would have killed him in January. And suppose that the pneumonia killed him in February. So the chemotherapy did not hasten Quentin’s death; it delayed it. Nonetheless, this could easily be a case of late preemption. The chemotherapy prevented the cancer from killing Quentin, but we may easily suppose that there is no time prior to his death at which removing the chemotherapy, or the flu, or the pneumonia, would have prevented him from dying. We may easily suppose that the cancer remained deadly throughout. (For more on causes, hasteners, and delayers, see Bennett 1987; Lombard 1990; P. Mackie 1992; Paul 1998a; Sartorio 2006; Hitchcock 2012; and Touborg 2018.) The case of Quentin can easily be modified so that, had he not received chemo, he would have died at exactly the same time that he actually died. This version gives us a case of late preemption in which, had the cause been absent, the effect—or, in any case, something very similar to the effect—would have happened at the very same time that it actually did.