"Death with Dignity"
Well, as I prepare for a weekend trip in Oregon state, I can't help but ponder the supreme court's recent review (starting yesterday) of Oregon's physician-assisted suicide policy (known colloquially as "death with dignity" to supporters). For a brief overview, see this article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4312672.stm
Now, I'm not really concerned with it as a politicial issue, because I'm no expert on who should control what issues (in this case, federal or state laws). I'm more interested in the deeper questions the issue brings up: What constitutes "killing oneself?" What is the purpose of prolonging life?
As for the former question: It's obvious who has agency over death when, for example, someone puts a gun to someone else's head or, in this case, prescribes drugs that will surely kill a patient. But what about the gray areas? If it's statistically proven, for example, that life choices such as having a diet high in saturated fats, smoking, drinking alcohol, and being overweight are all factors that contribute to a shorter life, can we say that people who engage in these activities are "killing themselves?" If, in fact, we are given the freedom every day to make decisions that directly affect our lifespans in less obvious or direct ways, it would seem illogical to say that we should not, in fact, have the freedom to make a decision that affects our lifespan in a direct way. This logic has led me to support the "death with dignity" act (as well as the fact that, if I were in a consistent state of pain with absolutely no hope of getting better, I would want this choice as well).
The second question is a bit tougher ("What is the purpose of prolonging life?"). If I had a very clear idea that a longer life was something that was just objectively better than a shorter life, then I could counter the above logic and say, "No, there is some inherent value in life, even with pain, and thus one should not be allowed to end it." I imagine this would be the case if I had very strong religious convictions. However, I'm still sorting through these issues and am prone to look at it from a historical and anthropological perspective, which makes me ask: is a life lived today to the age of 80 qualitatively "better" than, say, one lived to the age of 30 5,000 years ago (assuming that was the life expectancy then - i'm not sure what the numbers are)? We operate daily under the assumption that quantity of life is good, and I know we all mostly prefer to live rather than not, but at some point it all becomes relative to me, and I must resort to the old cliche that the quality of one's life is more important than it's quantity.
Of course, it does get confusing when I think in specifics; if I'm a "good" person, wouldn't prolonging my life allow for me to do more "good" and thus be better on some objective scale? I agree, but I still don't think that someone should be told whether or not they should be able to continue to do good if they are in pain...I must say, hoewever, that I'm still very open to ideas and suggestions and am in no way immovable in my position.
I just wanted to threse ideas out there and see if anyone else had responses! For now, I'm off to finish packing for my weekend trip to the Oregon Coast with Suraj - be back Sunday night... | posted by Cheryl, 10/06/2005 02:15:00 PM
1 Comments:
Add a comment