.. can be the start of a long trek downhill or off a cliff. A quadraplegic who laments "a living hell" of a life was allowed by the Supreme Court to starve himself to death. I have many objections about this, not least of which is that a judicial or legislative ruling can be easily seen -- or actively promoted -- as a moral statement. It also turns life on its head, with death per se becoming preferred over life, even an extremely difficult one. But this is not a case of a dying man refusing extraordinary care. Not that I have any idea how difficult his life is, but I can imagine how other quadraplegics might see themselves, or may be seen by others, in the light of this ruling. The cynical view of physical disability can be very catching, or can be actively promoted. After all, if there is nothing inherently wrong with suicide for a man who sees life as "a living hell", then there is nothing inherently wrong with terminating the life of anyone in that situation. It becomes, purely, a matter of choice. But the question of who makes such choices is very hard to pin down. How often are one's choices made for them by someone else? The state may take children away from their parents. The state may incarcerate those it considers too dangerous to society. Banks may repossess someone's assets. Family members may choose to pull the plug. Parents may choose to terminate their own child anytime during the pregnancy. If deliberately ending a life is no longer inherently wrong, then the safeguards against unjustly doing so are on wobbly foundations indeed.
"The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread." (1 Cor 10:16-17)
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Please don't starve us to death!
It appears that it has become necessary in the UK to tell doctors what used to be (and should remain) common sense: if a patient is still sustained by food and water, then he or she should continue to receive them. Apparently, the law requires doctors to terminate patients if their "quality of life" -- based on the doctor's judgment -- has become unbearable. The trouble is that doctors can't really tell what's going on inside a person's mind who cannot communicate anymore. They can't even determine for a fact what constitutes a permanent vegetative state. Hey, we're not asking for thousands of dollars in expensive drugs and treatment: just food and water. What's the big deal? Whatever happened to basic human rights?