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! 

New Beginings

While recently moving house and “binning” unwanted stuff I came across an old wallet of mine in the back of a drawer. I checked to see if I had left anything in it – there was nothing except a fortune cookie from some long forgotten Christmas past. It read as follows:-

“You will enjoy good health – that will be your form of wealth”.

I was rather taken aback at having this thrown in my face, as it were. It is true that I am fortunate in that I do enjoy good health and I certainly appreciate the fact that no amount of money can “buy” good health but I was surprised to have this presented to me in this manner. It was the last thing I expected but then Nature, at the time and place of its choosing, has its own way of reminding us of important facts.

This last fact – that Nature has its own way of presenting things - led me to reflect on what Al Ghazali said (he was a Muslim jurist, theologian and mystic born in Iran and who lived 1058-1111 CE) - we can learn from everyone!!:

“Punishment is the natural working out of consequences, and not an arbitrary infliction imposed ab extra.”

From this statement, by a somewhat circuitous route, I arrived at a point where I was thinking about current events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (Al Ghazali spent some time in Damascus). If punishment is the result of consequences - the natural flow of events from cause to effect - then the suffering being experienced by the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria (and by extension many of the Allied military) would be, logically, the result of some previous circumstance or circumstances (the cause).

If we examine Afghanistan for example we find that, certainly in recent times, they have had the beliefs and wishes of others imposed on them – first the Russians and now the Americans and their allies.

The Russian incursion into Afghanistan lasted nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. As part of the Cold War (the West vs Soviet Russia) the conflict between Soviet led Afghan troops fighting multi-national insurgent groups (predominantly Muslim but US aided) known as the mujahideen was very violent.

The mujahideen won and the Russians were forced out in 1989.

Now for the Americans and their allies (including Australia) the Taliban are the “enemy” in Afghanistan – but both the mujahedeen and the Taliban had their origins in the original Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and are indirect creations of the US from their attempts to weaken the Soviets during the Cold War.

Also, indirectly, it has been alleged that the early foundations of al-Qaeda stem, at least in part, from the relationships, the weaponry and the billions in US aid that was given to support the mujahedeen in their fight to expel the Soviets.

The Afghan people are a tough and independent lot – they resent any incursion by anyone.

What goes around comes around!

Then there is Iraq. I know the Saddam Hussein was a very unpleasant character but he unified and modernised Iraqi society and facilitated the education of millions of Iraqis (both male and female) to such an extent that he was even given an award by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Everything worked, people had food, employment and a level of social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries in what was an (admittedly enforced) secular country.

Now it is a disaster. Iraq is a mess of sectarian violence. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died as did thousands of Americans and their allies in the invasion of that country. For what? Bombs and general shootings are still killing hundreds of these unfortunate people. And to make matters worse previously reliable electricity and water services are now somewhat problematic and the previously excellent social services are virtually non-existent and there is high unemployment. Also it is not a “Democracy” such as would be approved by the “West”.

Syria is something else again. The current civil war (upward of 40 000 have died and millions have fled their homes) appears to be an extension of the “Arab spring” movement but would seem to have been high-jacked by the “Muslim Brotherhood” which had its origins in Egypt and others apparently affiliated to Muslim extremists and al-Qaeda.

All indications are that Syria will end up as a fragmented failed state despite the efforts of other Arab countries and the “West” who are desperately trying to prevent this.

America and the West cannot hope to impose anything resembling the Western Ideal of Democracy in the Middle East if the peoples concerned are not prepared to embrace it. If they do embrace Democracy it may be a version, a local somewhat altered version, a cherry-picked version. It will be, however, what they choose. Let it be – it will be a “grass roots” from the bottom up movement to allow the local populace a voice in running their country.  It cannot and will not be something imposed by outsiders (and non-Muslims at that).

The West, by trying to interfere in the internal affairs of these countries (something the West would never accept if the roles were reversed) has started a sequence of events that it has no power to control. If the West does not like the results – the consequences – of its interference then the West must look to itself.

As Al-Ghazali said (see my quote above) “Punishment is the natural working out of consequences, and not an arbitrary infliction imposed ab extra.”

The Arabs are not children. They will sort themselves out.  They are an intelligent people some of whom have been caught up in a quasi-religious, quasi-political ideology and, combined with a distorted view of history, are trying to impose their views and to recreate a long lost “golden age” of Arab achievement to match the West. Their “power” comes from a strict interpretation of the Koran and  application of their version of Islamic Law.

Let them be. Leave well alone. The West must learn to take responsibility for, and accept the consequences, of its actions (good or bad).

Remember what goes around comes around!

Rest and Repose

The other day I read some lines which resonated with me, “Every being that acts, acts for the sake of its end, that in its end it may find rest and repose.” Meister Eckhart (1260-1328) a German born philosopher quotes the words.

If you think about those words they are true. We study to learn, we learn so that we can work to earn money to do what? To end up in a position where we “may find rest and repose” – i.e. leisure time, holidays or retirement, either at the end of each day, each week or each year or at the end of our working life. This is what life is for. Anything that gets in the way of this is not only conducive to stress and unhappiness but is really unethical. We are all ‘acting for the sake of our end’, and it is not only us humans. The quote say ‘every being that acts’ – animals, birds – every being, and every being acts for the same end, ‘that it may find rest and repose’. A cow ruminatively chewing the cud, dolphins, a pet dog at the end of a long day playing with children, birds flying home as the evening draws in, all head home from their ‘work’, as do we.

Now this is not to say that we do not find pleasure and fulfilment in helping or giving pleasure to others, doctors, nurses, carers and social workers immediately come to mind as do artists and sportsmen and women. But ultimately we will all find rest and repose at the end of our day.

Anything that gets in the way of this must then be questionable. This is why ethics is so important. Ethics teaches us that anything which is not based on the principle of treating others the way we would like to be treated is not a good idea. Any exploitative action by others which affects the well-being of any life form needs to be questioned and reviewed. All unethical conduct will have the effect of upsetting or preventing a person’s or other being’s rest and repose. Why should we wish to do this? It will only ever be for the purpose of some perceived personal gain – financial or power. But what is generally overlooked in the immediate ‘excitement’ of the perceived gain is that this will immediately trigger the law of cause and effect, the law of consequences, the law that states there is no such thing as a ‘free lunch’. Someone has to pay and ultimately it is always the person who perpetrates the unethical conduct who will pay in some way or another. This law is not codified in that any breach of Sect 4 (b) sub sect 22, para 8 will mean a penalty of X, Y or Z. But the Fates in the guise of Nemesis always work their will in some form or other. It has to be that way – I did not invent it – it just is. It must be so, life being common to all beings ( and we do not know what the Life ‘essence’ actually is). Our genes – many of which we share with all life forms – also tell us of our shared heritage.

Therefore let us so order our lives that we interfere as little as possible and bear as lightly as we can on the lives of all other beings so allowing them to reach their rightful state of ‘rest and repose’ at the end each day.