Moto - Music - Miscellany - Politics
Death With Dignity
Linking here is a must read from Dan Savage that not only will put tears in your eyes, it should give you a better understanding to I-1000 and what it means to the individual vs. well… the individual! You see, that’s what it’s really about. Argue all you want about “God’s will” or what precedent this will set. Those arguments are subjective to the group think that has enveloped the anti I-1000 mantra and ignore the fundamental and individual desire for choice.
Choices.
Exactly. If I-1000 is approved by Washington State voters, the widow opposed to the initiative will not be compelled to end her life with the assistance of a physician. She can choose pain meds and the love of caregivers and die a “natural” death. (What’s so “natural” about pain management anyway?) But if I-1000 is rejected, the widow who plans to vote in favor of it will not have the same choice. She will not be able to choose to end her life, and end her suffering, if the pain becomes too much for her to bear.
That’s what the debate about I-1000 is really all about: your body, your death, your choice. The passage of I-1000 doesn’t impose anything on terminally ill people who reject physician-assisted suicide for religious reasons. But the rejection of I-1000 imposes the values of others on terminally ill people who would like to make that choice for themselves, who should have a right to make that choice for themselves.
Comments are closed.
October 12, 2008 - 3:07 am
I think this is an astute point. The complication of course being agency. One is not able to act on choice, except in anticipation of the choice (a living will or medical directive).
I would extend it further to say this is a fight for preserving freedom even when our freedom has been removed by circumstance. The true irony is that in a very real existential sense we are capable of this extreme freedom (the will to suicide) most of our lives and up until the very point that we might most want to exercise this freedom, the point of total incapacitation.
I think the subjective question that needs to be address is where from comes this will to impose life at all costs? By what right de we allow others to usurp this freedom? In the past this was not a question that needed to be addressed as often. Most people lead nasty, brutish and short lives. It is primarily through the advancement of technology that we have been able to extend life in situations that were previously not possible. This advancement of technology has the unintended consequence of erasing human freedom. As the existentialists tell us this freedom is absolute. Sartre famously declared “Freedom is what you do with what’s been done to you.” To take away this right is a contradiction.
Despite the so called “culture of life” rhetoric I think the political question is fundamental. You either believe in freedom or you don’t. You either believe your life is yours OR that it is somehow the prerogative of others. Which is it? If you except that life (including and especially one’s own) is somehow the prerogative of others then you should have no quandary about abortion because the fetus even if conceived as “life” at conception has no self autonomy, by virtue of this prerogative reserved for others. If however, one believes in the sanctity of the individual then one has to except that the freedom of the individual is absolute. The existentialists go so far as to suggest that this absolute freedom is a fact of reality. We make choices every moment of every day and we always reserve that ultimate choice of suicide. That is something that in practical terms cannot be taken away from us by most any other force in society even by the State. You can imprison me, force a feed tube down my throat, but you cannot remove completely my self determination or will to death. Except, and this is a large exception, in the fringe case of a terminal illness or any other situation where one is truly and utterly incapacitated but kept alive by technological means. In these cases my ability to secure my ultimate choice of death is removed and mediated through technology and the agency of others. A scenario where we have lost the fundamental existentialist freedom. And at that point we are left to the will of others completely. We have no say in the matter. We only have as much freedom as others are willing to extend to us. And so the political question becomes are we willing as a society to extend freedom as a courtesy to the individual who lost the ability to assert their own agency? A truly political question if I have ever seen one. Anyone who says but it is “god’s will”, is just presenting a meaningless smoke screen to obscure the fact that we (the “others” to the death bed patient) have taken up an obligation of grave profundity. The care of the faltering and fragile self. In these solemn moments we much act with a profound respect if we have any pretension of behaving like civilized beings. To disrespect the solemnity of this moment is plain and simple barbarism.
October 15, 2008 - 6:06 am
“You believe in freedom or you don’t.”
Hmmm. I believe in freedom from stupidity, Does this mean that I can remove stupid people from my life? Like lockstep progressives? Odd. I believe there is a legal restriction in place there. Can’t kill stupid people, or even imprison them.
It is not one of untrammelled freedom. It is one of discipline, of living and acting within our means. This applies to finance. This applies to pro-life issues. But as usual, the progressives are on the wrong side of the line here.
October 15, 2008 - 8:07 am
Hoody, is that really a rational response to a serious debate? To opine against the prohibition to kill and imprison those that you deem “stupid”?
Of course there is not “untrammeled freedom”, reality is one of consequence for action. If I punch you, you will likely punch back. My action has consequence sometime immediate, sometimes not, therefore I exert discipline over my behavior. But my “freedom to act” is absolute. I could walk up to you and just randomly punch, or perhaps even take the action to “kill stupid people” if I deemed it necessary. But I maintain that the treat of retaliation or imprisonment may very well outweigh any perceived benefit of “killing the stupid person”. This is how freedom works in the real world, with legitimate checks and balances. But that being said, in civilized society there is generally a presumption that any action taken that is directed towards only the self is respected as an unlimited freedom. Because the check and balances of others don’t apply when it is the self vs. the self. Certainly, when one’s action has consequence for others we have legal restrictions to protect the others. I can’t just run up massive debt and immediately place it as the legal burden of someone else (the exception of course being if I am a wall street banker seeking government bail outs). So to protect others there are sanctions often placed. But in the case of suicide I don’t see the benefit and the reason for a legal sanction. Sure one can argue that suicide is a selfish act that does harm to the emotions of others. But I also view as profoundly selfish the idea that we must keep alive someone who is in unremitting pain when they have expressed a desire to move on. By what authority and right do we have to impose this on others? Very little as far as I can tell.