Mahesh,
Musings on musings.
The term "persistent vegetative state" is misleading as are comparisons to vegetables. Persons in deep coma or PVSs often have more than their autonomous functions in tact.
Pro-life protagonists argue that the current tests do not reveal the full extent of brain-function. Recent cases have emerged where people have recovered fully from deep coma after years. Others report patients being cognizant of the environment but unable to respond to stimuli -- recent British study.
Are we then putting to sleep merely paralyzed individuals? Can we next progress to quadraplegics and similarly disabled who are a drain on society? What if Stephen Hawkings were not a genius?
We execute persons perceived to be a threat to society. We cull animals ( which have all their brain functions intact and are as different from vegetables as we are) to "protect" the eco-systems.
The ethical basis for these is the greatest good of the greatest number (mostly of human beings).
Where the terminally ill ( or increasingly the mentally degeneratively disabled) wish to end their life "voluntarily" - there is dispute as to the extent of volition in these mercy killings.
Societal and familial pressures often drive these decisions (" not wishing to be a burden"); Dutch studies, where euthanasia is legalized, suggest extensive depression preceding these decisions. Cases are reported where individuals opt out ( of suicide) if offered an alternative exit with dignity (hospice).
Legalizing euthanasia raises the specter of convenience killings. Society cannot provide safeguards against this -- and that should be the hallmark of civilization.
ksheer3
Discussion on Euthanasia
Discussion on Euthanasia
My thoughts and comments on this topic...
1. Is it murder if one shoots a dead person? Is a person capable of breathing but with a dead brain dead? How do we define dead?
It is not murder when a dead person is shot, however I guess there are laws against pre-meditated desecration of a dead person in all societies
...What if they do not want the "life" of their near and dear one to be ended from the vegetable state? Should they have a say? If yes, then who pays for sustaining the vegetable?
The near and dear ones definitely should have a major say along w/ the medical ethics committees as well as the governing bodies.
Who picks the tab? There are a number of options including the families, private players (insurance), society (special taxes), non-profits etc...
2. A person suffering terribly and wants to end his / her life - should he / she be able to avail services of a medical profesional.
Yes. Decision should be made by a panel of experts.
Suicide - should a person who wants to commit suicide be allowed to do so?
...What if the person is evaluated and deemed fully sane? Should then he / she be allowed to - now I know some might argue that a person who wants to commit suicide can never be fully sane.
Yes, in special circumstances based on the mental health of the person making the decision. The person seeking suicide must go thru' a support, guidance, evaluation system and finally be allowed to go - w/ dignity, support and understanding.
I wouldn't let a young kid who did not make the grades in the entrance exam end his/her life. But would not have a problem if a chronically ill person sticks to his/her unwavering decision, over a period of time, to end it all!
Doesn't the Indian society even let seemingly perfect men/women commit suicide?
How can governments really stop someone who is bent upon commiting suicide? Is there a fail proof plan to stop one from taking his/her own life?
If one wants to end ones life - alone and in the privacy of his/her home, w/o causing any disturbance and wishes to go w/ dignity, why not?
Should a physician assist suicide actively or provide the means so that the person can kill themselves at a place and time of their own choosing?
Absolutely, yes. (should then medicines be on prescription or all medications over the counter - hmm - revolutionary thought!!!)
Physicians should not be prosecuted, IMO. If I remember correctly they are not prosecuted in parts of Europe.
1. Is it murder if one shoots a dead person? Is a person capable of breathing but with a dead brain dead? How do we define dead?
It is not murder when a dead person is shot, however I guess there are laws against pre-meditated desecration of a dead person in all societies
...What if they do not want the "life" of their near and dear one to be ended from the vegetable state? Should they have a say? If yes, then who pays for sustaining the vegetable?
The near and dear ones definitely should have a major say along w/ the medical ethics committees as well as the governing bodies.
Who picks the tab? There are a number of options including the families, private players (insurance), society (special taxes), non-profits etc...
2. A person suffering terribly and wants to end his / her life - should he / she be able to avail services of a medical profesional.
Yes. Decision should be made by a panel of experts.
Suicide - should a person who wants to commit suicide be allowed to do so?
...What if the person is evaluated and deemed fully sane? Should then he / she be allowed to - now I know some might argue that a person who wants to commit suicide can never be fully sane.
Yes, in special circumstances based on the mental health of the person making the decision. The person seeking suicide must go thru' a support, guidance, evaluation system and finally be allowed to go - w/ dignity, support and understanding.
I wouldn't let a young kid who did not make the grades in the entrance exam end his/her life. But would not have a problem if a chronically ill person sticks to his/her unwavering decision, over a period of time, to end it all!
Doesn't the Indian society even let seemingly perfect men/women commit suicide?
How can governments really stop someone who is bent upon commiting suicide? Is there a fail proof plan to stop one from taking his/her own life?
If one wants to end ones life - alone and in the privacy of his/her home, w/o causing any disturbance and wishes to go w/ dignity, why not?
Should a physician assist suicide actively or provide the means so that the person can kill themselves at a place and time of their own choosing?
Absolutely, yes. (should then medicines be on prescription or all medications over the counter - hmm - revolutionary thought!!!)
Physicians should not be prosecuted, IMO. If I remember correctly they are not prosecuted in parts of Europe.
Discussion on Euthanasia
Some more thoughts and comments on suicide.
Is suicide a criminal act in India? Was it a criminal act in the days of the yore?
If it is a criminal act, why are people even allowed to even go on a "fast on to death"? Throw the fat neta in to jail the minute he announces a public weight reduction program! Was MK wrong in going on many of his numeruous fasts?
A revered sadhu/sant person (I don't remember the name) commited suicide a few years ago (mind 1990s) by simply fasting to death. Many a saintly persons have entered tombs while still living/breathing. Are they criminals?
Governments around the world have resorted to the easier option of making laws against birthing and dying instead of educating the masses and letting them make their own decisions.
It's one big mess - there are laws that prevent you from procreating, there are laws against suicide. There are norms/mores that celebrate those who commit suicide etc. etc.
The government prevents a death row inmate from commiting suicide so that it can put him to death!
Why can't a guy on death row commit suicide after exhausting the appeals process?
In the end these laws are made to suit the beliefs of ones religious beliefs or for the greater good of the society. IMO, this does not consider the basic right of an individual.
Is suicide a criminal act in India? Was it a criminal act in the days of the yore?
If it is a criminal act, why are people even allowed to even go on a "fast on to death"? Throw the fat neta in to jail the minute he announces a public weight reduction program! Was MK wrong in going on many of his numeruous fasts?
A revered sadhu/sant person (I don't remember the name) commited suicide a few years ago (mind 1990s) by simply fasting to death. Many a saintly persons have entered tombs while still living/breathing. Are they criminals?
Governments around the world have resorted to the easier option of making laws against birthing and dying instead of educating the masses and letting them make their own decisions.
It's one big mess - there are laws that prevent you from procreating, there are laws against suicide. There are norms/mores that celebrate those who commit suicide etc. etc.
The government prevents a death row inmate from commiting suicide so that it can put him to death!
Why can't a guy on death row commit suicide after exhausting the appeals process?
In the end these laws are made to suit the beliefs of ones religious beliefs or for the greater good of the society. IMO, this does not consider the basic right of an individual.
Discussion on Euthanasia
My life is my life. Society had no role in my being and society does not take care of my basic needs, what right does it have to dictate on how I choose to end my life? My life is my life, but alas Bible has ordained suicide is a crime, and the entire Judeo-Christian laws kow tows it.
Discussion on Euthanasia
While suicide is pretty easy to argue for, euthanasia is a toughie.
There is no black and white as far as euthanasia goes. It's all grey.
euthanasia should not be allowed under normal circumstances and w/o the existence of a strong and well drafted living will etc.
Drawing a comparison between jurisprudence and euthanasia, let's focus on the benefit of doubt argument. The law would rather let any number of guilty go scot free in the interest of not punishing an innocent. Similarly even if one person has come out of a "certified/declared" vegetative state, the benefit of doubt extends to all of the "brain dead".
Medical science will continue to learn->unlearn->relearn only to start the process all over again. "Miracles" do happen all the time. Many a few have risen from the "dead".
Does one have a right to prevent a possible miracle by jumping the gun and euthanizing another person? Many a guilty are let go under the smallest benefit of doubt clause, shouldn't the same benefit be extended to the living also?
The Barbero (horse) incident and DB's post reminded me of an incident I'd well like to forget... One day when I was a teenager, a dog that was crossing a main road near my house was hit by a truck. It broke the dogs back but did not kill it -there was no blood!
The dog dragged itself on its hindquaters into the roadside ditch, wailing pitifully all the time. The pain made the dog snap at its hindqrts. It's agony was unbearable to watch.
On that day I had seriously considered putting the dog out of its misery w/ a boulder. However I did not do it! I believed at that time that I did not do it because there was a crowd and there were no boulders lying around.
Looking back w/o pretense, I think that even if there was a boulder lying around and no crowd, I doubt I'd have had the stomach to drop a boulder on the dogs head, even if it was to end its pain.
There is no black and white as far as euthanasia goes. It's all grey.
euthanasia should not be allowed under normal circumstances and w/o the existence of a strong and well drafted living will etc.
Drawing a comparison between jurisprudence and euthanasia, let's focus on the benefit of doubt argument. The law would rather let any number of guilty go scot free in the interest of not punishing an innocent. Similarly even if one person has come out of a "certified/declared" vegetative state, the benefit of doubt extends to all of the "brain dead".
Medical science will continue to learn->unlearn->relearn only to start the process all over again. "Miracles" do happen all the time. Many a few have risen from the "dead".
Does one have a right to prevent a possible miracle by jumping the gun and euthanizing another person? Many a guilty are let go under the smallest benefit of doubt clause, shouldn't the same benefit be extended to the living also?
The Barbero (horse) incident and DB's post reminded me of an incident I'd well like to forget... One day when I was a teenager, a dog that was crossing a main road near my house was hit by a truck. It broke the dogs back but did not kill it -there was no blood!
The dog dragged itself on its hindquaters into the roadside ditch, wailing pitifully all the time. The pain made the dog snap at its hindqrts. It's agony was unbearable to watch.
On that day I had seriously considered putting the dog out of its misery w/ a boulder. However I did not do it! I believed at that time that I did not do it because there was a crowd and there were no boulders lying around.
Looking back w/o pretense, I think that even if there was a boulder lying around and no crowd, I doubt I'd have had the stomach to drop a boulder on the dogs head, even if it was to end its pain.
Discussion on Euthanasia
VS007 raises an interesting question-- to what extent does society have a say on our lives and lifestyles? Does Ayn Rand type individualism harm organizes societies?
In urban societies -- my neighbor does not care if I work or am laid off; if I eat or starve. What right does he / she have to tell me how tall the grass on my lawn can be? Where does my contract with the home-owners' assocn. end?
Next step: What right does S/he have to regulate who I consort with ( subversives, prostitution, homosexuality, sex with minors etc)?
Next step: What gives him the right to dictate how I live or die ( capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion)?
The debate among sociologists / philosophers have centered on the issue of free will and choice.
By electing to live in a society a person enters into a covenant with that society and follow the norms of the group. Can we choose which norms we will / not follow? The arguments being -- if you don't like it move to your own bohemia/shangrila or wherever your utopian world lies.
The counter argument being do modern individuals really have a choice? Are all societies majoritarian and thereby implicitly fascist? Thus my observation on another thread ( Should India be one country) that the shared values are adhesives which bind individuals to societies. The elasticity or plasticity of the group is determined by the codification, rigidity and enforcement of those norms.
My observation has been that the societies based on Judeo-Christian ethics have well-codified norms based on their scriptures; the codes tend to be inelastic and more strictly enforced to the letter. Homogeneity is one characteristic of these societies.
Societies that have evolved from natural organic belief-systems tend to have informal codes and often variable/context sensitive interpretation of the codes. Hence they tend to be more heterogenous yet plastic ( and even chaotic). Like the coalition govts of India--- one is required to adhere to the " Common Minimum Programme". Everything else is negotiable.
Anyone remember the Jane Fonda movie " They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"
ksheer3
In urban societies -- my neighbor does not care if I work or am laid off; if I eat or starve. What right does he / she have to tell me how tall the grass on my lawn can be? Where does my contract with the home-owners' assocn. end?
Next step: What right does S/he have to regulate who I consort with ( subversives, prostitution, homosexuality, sex with minors etc)?
Next step: What gives him the right to dictate how I live or die ( capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion)?
The debate among sociologists / philosophers have centered on the issue of free will and choice.
By electing to live in a society a person enters into a covenant with that society and follow the norms of the group. Can we choose which norms we will / not follow? The arguments being -- if you don't like it move to your own bohemia/shangrila or wherever your utopian world lies.
The counter argument being do modern individuals really have a choice? Are all societies majoritarian and thereby implicitly fascist? Thus my observation on another thread ( Should India be one country) that the shared values are adhesives which bind individuals to societies. The elasticity or plasticity of the group is determined by the codification, rigidity and enforcement of those norms.
My observation has been that the societies based on Judeo-Christian ethics have well-codified norms based on their scriptures; the codes tend to be inelastic and more strictly enforced to the letter. Homogeneity is one characteristic of these societies.
Societies that have evolved from natural organic belief-systems tend to have informal codes and often variable/context sensitive interpretation of the codes. Hence they tend to be more heterogenous yet plastic ( and even chaotic). Like the coalition govts of India--- one is required to adhere to the " Common Minimum Programme". Everything else is negotiable.
Anyone remember the Jane Fonda movie " They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"
ksheer3
Discussion on Euthanasia
Follow up on the last post:
pardon my typos.
Consider the Russellian(?) paradox of forming a society with the cardinal rule that there shall be no rules in this society!!!:) :) :)
ksheer3
pardon my typos.
Consider the Russellian(?) paradox of forming a society with the cardinal rule that there shall be no rules in this society!!!:) :) :)
ksheer3
Discussion on Euthanasia
[QUOTE]The debate among sociologists / philosophers have centered on the issue of free will and choice.
By electing to live in a society a person enters into a covenant with that society and follow the norms of the group. Can we choose which norms we will / not follow? The arguments being -- if you don't like it move to your own bohemia/shangrila or wherever your utopian world lies.
I don't think the solution lies in packing your bed and baggage to your own Shangrila if there is ever a one. The solution I think is in molding of one's own opinion not as driven by the majority but by an intercourse on thought with a variety of differing opinions as a first step. The next step is to take that convinced stand and attempt to convince others. This is how to mold the opinions. Plato did not need to walk away to a Shangrila but still could mold other's opinions well beyond his time.
We are minnows as they say, at least I am compared to the likes of Plato - "compared " did I day - the likes of me cannot even be compared, I am so far down, but none the less, it is the thought of the esteemed members I am after on this subject and my own views are very malleable or so I like to think, if presented with some good irrefutable arguments.
By electing to live in a society a person enters into a covenant with that society and follow the norms of the group. Can we choose which norms we will / not follow? The arguments being -- if you don't like it move to your own bohemia/shangrila or wherever your utopian world lies.
I don't think the solution lies in packing your bed and baggage to your own Shangrila if there is ever a one. The solution I think is in molding of one's own opinion not as driven by the majority but by an intercourse on thought with a variety of differing opinions as a first step. The next step is to take that convinced stand and attempt to convince others. This is how to mold the opinions. Plato did not need to walk away to a Shangrila but still could mold other's opinions well beyond his time.
We are minnows as they say, at least I am compared to the likes of Plato - "compared " did I day - the likes of me cannot even be compared, I am so far down, but none the less, it is the thought of the esteemed members I am after on this subject and my own views are very malleable or so I like to think, if presented with some good irrefutable arguments.
Discussion on Euthanasia
[quote]
Anyone remember the Jane Fonda movie " They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"
[/quote]
I saw that movie over 35 years back (and you thought I was just 35) at Aurora theater in Bombay - Damn, I remember zilch about it.
Desi
Anyone remember the Jane Fonda movie " They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"
[/quote]
I saw that movie over 35 years back (and you thought I was just 35) at Aurora theater in Bombay - Damn, I remember zilch about it.
Desi
Discussion on Euthanasia
"They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" is a gripping tale of just how desperate people were for money during the most difficult years of the Depression. Jane Fonda gives one of her greatest performances as Gloria, one of the many people who struggles during a dance marathon to gain some money. This is a great character study, and one of the most memorable movies of the 1960's. While it's very depressing, it's a powerful movie that's not to be missed. I strongly recommend "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" to any film fan!
A quick search got me the above.
Here is the relevance:
Gloria is a depressed young lady who in the end persuades her partner in the dance marathon to shoot her; and Michael Sarrazin is led away (by the police?). One of my early Fonda movies with lasting impression.
Most voluntary terminations are carried out in a state of deep mental depresssion.
Ksheer3
A quick search got me the above.
Here is the relevance:
Gloria is a depressed young lady who in the end persuades her partner in the dance marathon to shoot her; and Michael Sarrazin is led away (by the police?). One of my early Fonda movies with lasting impression.
Most voluntary terminations are carried out in a state of deep mental depresssion.
Ksheer3