The Schiavo case, as it presently plays itself out, raises the fundamental question of whether a family’s desire to keep their incapacitated relative alive should over-ride that person’s right to die?
Any thoughts, comments?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If anything, the Schiavo case shows that the idea of a ‘right to life’ is being taken too far – would it not have been better for all parties involved if the patient had simply been allowed to die years ago?
I support right-to-die, but a drug overdose may have been more kind than starvation.
-MP
Presume\ambly starvation is considered an option because it is passive, 'letting' her die rather than activley killing her (not that there seems much between the two in this case). Also I had been led to belive that she is being hevily sedated as during this time. Not that she can feel any of this, as far as any neurologist, other than the one employed by Jeb Bush)can tell.
One lesson to come out of this is to make sure that your wishes for how your life might be ended in a situation like this, are well documented. Tis would at least ensure that your own preferences are taken into account, instead of having various parties with various interests fighting over your vacant shell.
Why is it, then, that euthanasia is considered to be morally repugnant, when any rational person would consider a single 'lethal injection' (trying to avoid the awkward connotations of the term) a more humane option? Why must society, given the claims we make regarding our civility, force individuals to undergo considerable suffering because of an insistence upon a right to life?
As I understand it, a 'right to life', as such, functions in our society simply to prevent us killing each other for no reason. Now, the two times that this 'right' may be flaunted - during abortions, and war (the possible third is capital punishment, but that is frowned upon) - are both instances of there being a reason to flaunt. In the first, killing is allowed on the basis that a mother-to-be would have to have reasons, however personal, to want to terminate her unborn child. In the second, war is considered to allow for individuals to kill each other because that is the nature of war and wars qua wars are not fought without reason. Yet, it is not allowable for a person who is more likely than most to die to kill themselves to prevent their continued suffering. Why is it not possible to consider sever/terminal illness/disability sufficient reason to allow assisted suicide?
Again, so many people base their opinions on the basis of their own religions. Not anyone in these comments, but all over the media.
I, broadly, agree with your position.
Why is it that the discourse that seems to taking place fails to recognise similiar positions generally, and when it does, does so only to dismiss them?
And why is the public discourse not allowing a discussion of the ethics of a right to die to take place? Is it because the ethical discourse that consume the public sphere presently are focused on the commencement of life, in the form of discussions of abortion and stem cells?
Post a Comment