Kansas Boy Was Dead
The controversy surrounding the declaration of the death of 14-year-old Michael J. Todd by neuorological criteria is over. The family obtained a second opinion and learned, to their sorrow, that their boy was indeed dead. The allegations of insensitive remarks made by a doctor have been denied by the hospital. In any event, these can be very difficult issues and the obtaining of the second opinion was the right way to go.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:52 PM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
Mr Smith,
Why do you think our society (and the world) is so in love with death?
Saxe
St. Paul, MN
The most succinct explanation I have ever seen came from the pen of Canadian journalist, Andrew Coyne:
"A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured." Thanks for writing.
Are you insinuating that secular and atheistic nations cannot offer arguments against death?
In any case, I wouldn't say that the world is in love with death. The fact is that the world's population is aging, and we all have to deal with death sooner or later. The majority want choice over their own lives. People like Wesley J Smith want people to die a death that is acceptable to him, but not to people as individuals.
Winston, yet again you fail to take notice of the fact that people do not simply choose things so that the results of the choices themselves are all that matter. Those choices and the thoughts and emotions and circumstances that go along with them have greater significance than the immediate results.
Yet again you also have avoided recognizing any distinction between opinion and moral or ethical reasoning. Because of that, you seem to be one of those referred to as the culture of death, in that you are so in love with your ability to choose to avoid pain or discomfort that you embrace death as your great "savior." That is the significance of the phrase culture of death.
Don't forget that you also want people to die deaths that are acceptable to you in some sense. However, Mr. Smith and others of his persuasion on these issues have noted that acceptability to them is not nearly so important as acceptability according to a more foundational moral or ethical standard. Those who reject euthanasia/assisted suicide and related issues do so because they account for the fullness of humanity within the individual, including our very human ability to change our thinking on things. On the other hand, you seem to have resigned yourself and the rest of humanity to a "life" that can't see past pain and discomfort and the pursuit of pleasure, however expensive, to the wisdom and joy that can come from recognizing the significance of all experiences within a proper perspective. In that light, it is not the acceptability of death that is the issue for you; it is neither comprehensible nor acceptable to live life. Welcome to the culture of death.
That's just another illustration of the fundamental difference between what could be called the culture of life and the culture of death. The former seeks to conform to and embraces a stable standard, whereas the latter seeks to eliminate all standards so that there may be as many "standards" as there are people making decisions. In that sense, the majority viewpoint in society should be irrelevant to you, revealing yet another aspect of a culture of death. You are essentially all alone, separated morally and ethically from any standard and from each other.
The former also posits and affirmative human duty to try and alleviate each other's pain. Help people get through the night, as it were. The latter abandons the suffering and despairing to death.
I think that's why compassion is called what it is, because people "suffer with" others. There's something to be embraced in that, but that can only be done with the proper perspective. That's very different from doing away them or with ourselves when pain and discomfort come along.
"Winston, yet again you fail to take notice of the fact that people do not simply choose things so that the results of the choices themselves are all that matter. Those choices and the thoughts and emotions and circumstances that go along with them have greater significance than the immediate results."
This doesn't justify forcing people to live. Take your argument to its logical conclusion and you would have to oppose people refusing treatment, because that would shorten their lives. But doesn't smoking and not exercising do the same?
"Yet again you also have avoided recognizing any distinction between opinion and moral or ethical reasoning. Because of that, you seem to be one of those referred to as the culture of death, in that you are so in love with your ability to choose to avoid pain or discomfort that you embrace death as your great "savior." That is the significance of the phrase culture of death."
The OPTION of death on one's own terms is the savior. The way it is now, doctors have more control than the patient does, and they hide behind the double effect excuse.
"Don't forget that you also want people to die deaths that are acceptable to you in some sense."
How? I'm not limiting their choices and essentially making their decision for them. You ARE.
"However, Mr. Smith and others of his persuasion on these issues have noted that acceptability to them is not nearly so important as acceptability according to a more foundational moral or ethical standard. Those who reject euthanasia/assisted suicide and related issues do so because they account for the fullness of humanity within the individual, including our very human ability to change our thinking on things. "
So what? If people choose to refuse treatment, they have essentially chosen death, and it would also be too late to change their minds. Yes, death is irrevocable, but it is a matter for the individual to decide.
"On the other hand, you seem to have resigned yourself and the rest of humanity to a "life" that can't see past pain and discomfort and the pursuit of pleasure, however expensive, to the wisdom and joy that can come from recognizing the significance of all experiences within a proper perspective."
Where did you get this from? I'm not trying to make anyone 'despair', nor am I advocating a nihilistic worldview.
"In that light, it is not the acceptability of death that is the issue for you; it is neither comprehensible nor acceptable to live life. Welcome to the culture of death."
If that were true, wouldn't every supporter of euthanasia have committed suicide? You're just as extreme as those you tar with your brush.
"That's just another illustration of the fundamental difference between what could be called the culture of life and the culture of death. The former seeks to conform to and embraces a stable standard, whereas the latter seeks to eliminate all standards so that there may be as many "standards" as there are people making decisions."
And people make different decisions on their own lives. What's your point? That people should be forced to live by anti-choice beliefs, even if they don't share those beliefs? If that's not tyranny, I don't know what is.
"In that sense, the majority viewpoint in society should be irrelevant to you, revealing yet another aspect of a culture of death. You are essentially all alone, separated morally and ethically from any standard and from each other."
At least I have the majority on my side in secular, progressive, advanced countries.
"The former also posits and affirmative human duty to try and alleviate each other's pain. Help people get through the night, as it were. The latter abandons the suffering and despairing to death."
Then why are you more concerned with stopping euthanasia than with improving palliative care? If you can stop ALL requests for euthanasia, then perhaps it would be justified to prohibit it.
"I think that's why compassion is called what it is, because people "suffer with" others. "
Does compassion also involve forcing people to live, and keeping them alive to make you "feel better"?
"There's something to be embraced in that, but that can only be done with the proper perspective. That's very different from doing away them or with ourselves when pain and discomfort come along."
Why do you insist on hurting those who don't hurt anyone else with their decision? Doing something "for their own good" isn't a justifiable reason. If it were, child abuse would be allowed.
Winston, a basic tenet of your philosophy is that a person possesses some sort of undefined autonomy and that nothing should interfere with that person's decision in any area. According to you, this seems to legitimize the person's decisions. However, these are the very notions that are under dispute in this and numerous other bioethical issues. The foundations of these notions are what need to be discussed now, which is why I continue to try to call your attention to the unexamined presuppositions you've accepted.
What is the nature of the autonomy you claim to cherish? Is such autonomy even possible? Is there any violation of the autonomy of others in one person's choice for assisted suicide? Is there a moral and ethical standard that transcends the autonomy of individual people? If so, how is autonomy related to it? These and many other similar questions are highly relevant but have conveniently been avoided by you throughout these discussions.
If you do not wish to discuss the answers to these questions, do you at least know why you do not? If they are indeed irrelevant questions, then what common ground can you point to for us to have these discussions? Your comments consistently indicate the inability or unwillingness to consider a perspective other than your own in order to know whether one or the other is to be preferred.
It seems the real issue for you is whether or not one is 'forced' to live under certain circumstances. That is a telling reminder of the idea behind the concept of a culture of death. In a culture of death, living is the imposition when one wants to die. In a culture of life, dying is the imposition when one wants to live. The important point is not that all will one day die; the point is that the culture of life embraces the fullness of life while it is granted, even while trying to alleviate the suffering it entails.
This embrace of life is not irrational. It takes place in a person's life within a context that includes a perspective that touches and defines all of life. You have consistently met such an idea with the response that "people shouldn't be forced to live," but this simply misses the point. For one who possesses such a perspective on life as the one that has been characterized as the culture of life, the issue of being 'forced' to live doesn't even enter the picture. So your objection concerning being 'forced' to live is reducible to the statement that you object because you don't agree. Obviously, that's unhelpful because it doesn't engage the issues.
The fact that you don't remain on one topic long enough to actually discuss presuppositions calls into question the quality of your statements concerning the "logical consequences" of anything.
How is the 'option of death' a savior? It can't possibly remain an option; a choice will be made, even by inaction. Surely, you realize that. Another way to represent this distinction between the cultures of death and life is to say that in the latter death is an enemy. In the former, death seems to be a potential ally against the 'real' enemies of pain and discomfort.
I actually don't see the accusation of 'extremity' as a negative thing, and it hasn't even crossed my mind to label you as such. 'Extremity' is a label applied to indicate some great degree of goodness or evil, depending on the speaker's viewpoint. I could justifiably label you as such if all I mean is that you are in error in your beliefs, which are diametrically opposed (and therefore extreme) to mine. Your accusation is better thought of as an acknowledgment that we disagree, but that much is obvious.
Again, let's talk about our viewpoints and their bases. I continue to ask that you explain your views, not simply state them. If you are right and I am wrong, then I'd like to be told and shown so that I might believe what is right. If the opposite is true, then I expect the same willingness from you. Otherwise, we are not really having a discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home