Euthanasia? All life is terminal!

While I appreciate that the Hippocratic Oath in effect stipulates physicians should  “do no harm”, this is not the end of the matter.

To only allow (or disallow) a “terminally” ill person to decide when they wish to end their life is looking at this problem from the wrong end. It is not if they are ill, terminally or otherwise, but a person’s quality of life – their perception of that quality, which should be the main issue.

Recall and understand that all life, repeat ALL life, is terminal – we cannot escape the end. It is terminal! Sooner or later we all die – ill or not. Palliative care, however well administered, will not halt this process. Furthermore it is impossible to accurately determine the exact time or date in the future as to when a person will die. So to stipulate a time or date (following the Victorian “model”, six months is suggested), sometime in the future which may determine whether or not a person is “allowed to die” is regrettable, to say the least. 

Furthermore, why should anyone have to “live” according to another person’s expectations? We have no “right” to interfere. It is not our life; it is not our choice.

We, and by “we” I include all humans, were presumably born to live in the world. Now if a human being decides, because of the status of their health, that the life he or she is currently experiencing in the world is not a “quality life”, who is to say they are wrong? We, you or I, cannot experience that person’s view with all the emotional, stressful or painful events they may have suffered or endured during their life to date. How can anyone, other than the person concerned, determine what level of “quality” is acceptable or unacceptable? 

We can have no idea how this expression of life plays out; or how life events (particularly their health) affect a person’s outlook, towards themselves or others – no one can “know” this except the person concerned. They make a choice based on such experience – good, bad or indifferent. It is their decision. You or I are in no position to say they are wrong. 

Similarly, what evidence, what insight do we have such that we can proclaim that a particular person’s view or expression of life (as currently experienced) is wrong and that we (or at least the “experts”) alone know better? We may not like or approve of their view but - so what! 

Likewise, what evidence is there for the “experts” to state that those who wish to end their life may be suffering from a “mental disorder” (hence the proposed requirement - for a totally subjective - psychiatric assessment on any person wishing to end their life). Disordered from what? From “normal”? As far as I can determine there is no accepted definition of “normal”. Possibly those considered “mentally disordered” react to life’s trials and tribulations differently from those around them. Are they “wrong”? Or are those who condemn euthanasia just being intolerant and lacking in understanding, compassion or empathy? 

Then there is widespread over prescription of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications (remember that, allegedly, one in five people (1 in 5) will, allegedly, suffer from a “mental illness” in their lifetime). There are many reasons why all concerned should be critical about psycho-pharmaceutical drug treatment, such as uncertainty regarding the causes of mental disorders, the problematic accuracy of the few diagnostic tools available, poor understanding regarding the mechanism of drug actions and their many side-effects together with the related problem of publication bias. Then there is commercial conflict of interest, [Note:The reanalysis of the – originally ghost written - GlaxoSmithKline Study 329 relating totheir antidepressant drug formulation paroxetine,Paxil, (also known as Serotax or Aropax) provides an illuminating, if unfortunate, example of these issues]. 

Also there is extreme pain. Anything that results in an actual or perceived loss of personal control will (possibly) bring about a loss of dignity and of “hope” - those most subjective attitudes of mind.

Furthermore for some to say that only God can decide when any person dies is surely a gross over assumption – how do they know? What special insight do they possess? Is it not possible, because (I assume) God gave us free will, that God may have already decided to allow a person who wants to die, to die?

Then what about those who say that the legalization of euthanasia would see the end of compassion? Surely it would be more compassionate to allow someone who wishes to end their life to do so in a private setting of their choice, with (possibly) family and friends in attendance?

Far rather this than, to get their way, forcing a person to take extreme actions – starving, drinking or drugging themselves to death; shooting themselves; jumping off a high rise building or cliff; driving at high speed into the support column of a freeway overpass or into a tree on a country road; consume rat poison or drink some corrosive liquid (such as ammonia) and take four days, in agony, to die.

Recall also that the British philosopher David Hume (1711 –1776) said, “I believe that no man ever threw away Life while it was worth keeping.” 

Finally I will repeat a quote, from the Indian sageJiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), who said, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”. 

There we have it – in a nutshell! 

Perfect verbal abuse? Try Shakespeare

If you think you may have heard some good verbal abuse or takedowns recently (relating to certain politicians) it may be good to brush up on your Shakespeare.

For instance how about this one from King Lear (Act II Scene II):-

Earl of Kent. Fellow I know thee.

Oswald. What dost thou know me for?

Earl of Kent. A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass gazing, super serviceable, finical rogue; one trunk inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in a way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and son and heir of a mongrel bitch; one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition.

Oswald. Why, what a monstrous fellow are thou, thus to rail on one that is neither known to thee or knows thee.

Earl of Kent. What a brazen-faced varlet art thou, to deny thou knowest me! Is it two days ago since I tripped up thy heels, and beat thee before the king? Draw you rogue: for though it be night, yet the moon shines; I’ll make a sop o’ the moonshine of you: draw you whoreson cullionly barber-monger, draw. (Drawing his sword).

Politicians take note!!

A masterful use of English and without vulgarity or a four-letter  “f” word anywhere.

NOTE: Definition of a pandar = a pimp.

            Definition of cullionly = mean or base.

Never touch save out of love.

In today's world with many people, who should know better, being accused of domestic violence and inappropriate sexual behavior it maybe worthwhile to take some time and read what follows:-

Some of my readers may know that I find solace in poetry. Some time ago I “discovered” the American poet Max Ehrmann. He wrote with great depth, pathos and understanding of the human condition.

For instance, take the lines of the title of this post – from a poem called “Her Acceptance” – the last two lines are:

“Still let us both be owners of ourselves,

And never touch save out of love. – Kiss me.”

Those last words are so, so important – “never touch save out of love”. Here a woman accepts a proposal of marriage from a man – but she comes with nothing. No inheritance; nothing except her love (these line were written I think in the early 1900s). And she warns him that there has to be more that attracts him than her youth, which will fade with the years and she reminds him that with young children she will be a burden on him. Seeing him work long hours in sad drudgery will “pierce me to the soul”, and that she will suffer with him because she knows that she “Shall be a weight upon his back”.

Even with all this she understands that love is what will hold them together and advocates that they “never touch save out of love”.

These are wonderful words with a sentiment that, while many adhere to, quite a few, unfortunately and tragically, do not.

.