I’m betting virtually everyone in the entire world now knows that the king of pop is dead, thanks to modern technology. The response to Michael Jackson’s death has been just phenomenal. Apparently, several major websites struggled to cope with fan demand in the hours after the singer’s death. Yesterday morning ten of millions logged on to view the “funeral” (more like circus if you ask me). And I’m just as guilty as everyone else really. When I first got a whiff of the story (via a facebook status, might I add) I went to google and searched several times to see if the rumour could be substantiated.
Critically looking back on my actions, I had to question why I responded in this way and, perhaps more pertinently, why did millions of other people respond in a similar fashion. What does it say about what our culture values? Yes Michael Jackson was indeed revolutionary, I’m not denying that. He changed the face of music, and even if your not a fan you have to admit his music had ramifications unfathomable ramifications on our cultural landscape. But there is something a little creepy about a society that mobilises itself for the death of one man because of his musical contribution to society and then on the other hand is willing to let others die because they are viewed as having no utility.
Take, for example, the case of Sean Davidson and his mother – an example very present to me at the moment as my friend was the one being slammed in the herald this morning for saying that Davidson should face the full penalty for killing his mother. If you want to read the article it is linked here. The basic gist of the story is that Davidson admitted in a leaked manuscript that he gave his mother crushed morphine to put her out of her misery and to help her die with “dignity”. His mother wanted to be euthanized and had stopped eating 22 days prior to her sons intervention, obviously without success. I really think that this is actually not about suffering (even though that was the focus of my friend’s letter). That may sound a bit uncompassionate but the reality is that most of her suffering could have been alleviated through the use of morphine etc etc… So if she is not physically suffering, then what is she left with? Time with her family perhaps? One might speculate that Davidson made the trip to New Zealand to help him mother to die but why hadn’t he made the trip before hand to comfort and spend time with her in her last few months of her life. By our modern day utilitarian standards, this woman would be viewed as a burden – to the economy, to the health system, to her family, and to her friends. For instance, in order to help her to realise that her life was valued perhaps her son might have had to take quite a bit of time off work.
If we dig a little deeper the issue is really about what one constitutes as a valuable contribution to society. How could an old woman lying in bed possibly contribute to society? Why is her death a blessing while the loss of Michael a terrible tragedy? The answer – Utility.
How the “purely economic point of view” relates to euthanasia would be worth teasing out in greater detail.
I think Michael Jackson would probably agree about the great gift of human life, about how sacred and precious every human life is; certainly his music frequently spoke to that.
God Bless
A circus you say Filia. Did you get up and watch the whole thing or are you just? assuming the worst? I personally feel strongly about this performer and what he brought to this world and I would like to express that his memorial was a tribute to his great life.
I worry about this. As we have an aging population I can see how promoting euthanasia could increase. Why pay hundreds of dollars a day just to keep grandma alive for another few weeks? That kind of thing. I think it will create a “duty to die” mentality.
Muerk,
I think the Holy Father is onto something with his comment that “The poor are not to be considered a “burden”, but a resource, even from the purely economic point of view”.
The sick will get better and contribute to the economy if they are properly treated and get better (that even happens sometimes in supposedly hopeless medical cases).
And even when they don’t get better, the goods and services they are provided with contribute to the economy eg by creating jobs for those who make medical supplies, nurses, doctor etc.
Often the healing and reconciliation that happens when people are allowed to die naturally, rather than being killed off early, contributes to the economy by healing and making more productive those left behind (eg those whom the dying person forgave or was reconciled to etc).
God Bless
Well in this case you won’t get any disagreement from me.
FD – an extraordinarily difficult subject to tackle, euthenasia, and one which I have concerns over regarding double standards. Generally, it is accepted that an animal in distress or suffering, on balanace, may better be euthenased.
Yet we do not legally (by and large) confer the same compassion on people. Isn’t this hypocritical. We euthenase animals for a particular reason (and remember, we do it to them, they don’t ask for it). Humans have the capacity to ask.
Heaven forbid anyone finds themselves in this situation, either watching or dying. I do find it somewhat disturbing however that the judgement overall, is being made by people NOT immediately faced with critical illness. Are they really in a position to judge ?
FD – assuming you’ve never been in the position of said old lady, isn’t it unrealistic and pure speculation that you can say most of her suffering could be alleviated by morphine ? I’m no Doctor but that is probably not true, because Doctors can only prescribe a level they think the patient can tolerate without dying. They CANNOT administer necessarily as much as is needed to alleviate intolerable suffering.
I hope none of us ever find ourselves in the situation where we fervently want to die, and a perfectly healthy person is saying ‘no you can’t, try and deal with the suffering’. Only then can one really see whether at a personal level, the policy on euthenasia is good, or actual bodily cruelty.
I’ve simplified dramatically I know and there are all manner of circumstances when euthenasia or a policy thereof could be incredibly dangerous.
Presumably however, given the will, and enough safeguards in place, some policy of controlled euthenasia could work – the Swiss have it I believe.
To remove a ’sane’ persons right to die should they so wish may in some way (morally) be linked to removing a persons right to life. I do not have the answer other than to suggest looking at it from the POV of someone who wants to die. Have we, any of us, the right to say no ?
Actually they can. Large doses of morphine will shorten life expectancy however this is allowable if it reduces suffering. Provided the object of the dose isn’t to kill, it is acceptable. But this is quite different to administering a lethal dose.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html
Muerk,
To administer doses to shorten life expectancy is ‘killing’ isn’t it, as well as reducing suffering ? I’d like to believe that for each person, the Doctor was absolutely aware that say 15ml will reduce suffering, but 20ml will kill. I don’t think its quite that EXACT however, so the Doctor probably has to err on the side of safety perhaps for fear of later being accused of murder.
Regarding the passage you quote, isn’t the really important bit the final 4 words – ‘without a serious reason’.
Isn’t a conscious person pleading to die a sufficiently serious reason in some cases ? The papal message does appear to say that if a conscious person has satisfied moral duties, then they can ask to die (aka be euthenased). Am I mis-interpreting ?
Being put into unconsciousness isn’t being killed though. I think that’s the big distinction.
The point is to remove suffering, but not to actively kill. Should the methods to reduce suffering shorten someone’s life, then that is acceptable, provided that is the last resort.
Yep, understand what you say Muerk and if I’m correct, you are saying that euthenasia is acceptable as a last resort albeit done on the premise of relieving suffering ? Which is the aim of euthenasia too, yes, reduce suffering by shortening life ?
Passive/active killing ?
I don’t think it’s euthanasia. We all have to die, we can’t avoid that. But there are times where actively prolonging life isn’t the right thing to do. To me, euthanasia is actively wanting to end someone’s life, that’s different to relieving suffering even though it may shorten life as a side effect.
The point is, with good hospice care the dying should not have to suffer, and nor should they be put down like a dog. In fact I have heard of people who recommend not putting dying horses down, but to nurse them in the same way you would with a dying person.
#12
Wow Muerk, now you have enetered a sphere about which I have strong views. ‘Nor should they be put down like a dog’ – as in putting a dog down is completely ok ?
No disrespect Muerk, but I am most definitely not one of the popular ‘humans are more important than animals’ fraternity. To put one species above another is, in my belief, extraordinarily pompous, species-ist, and completely lacking in compassion.
Why, exactly, does a horse deserve less dignity, compassion and care than a human ? We judge animals because we think they are ‘below us’ – less valuable, less worthy, less capable of feeling pain or fear or distress. Absolute garbage. Absolute garbage. We make that judgement because it suits us, not because it is morally right.
Let me suggest this – by and large, dogs are capable of showing ‘true unconditional love’. Even when being treated badly, dogs still show affection to their owners. There are accounts on the internet of dogs being cut open, after the war, for vivisection, alive and unanesthetised, and when they saw their owners, their tails still beat madly out of affection, cut open, and dying. Comparisons can abound with crucifixion, which in effect it is.
If that does not demonstrate a love which humans can only hope to achieve, I don’t know what does. And yet we (well not me) use the word ‘dog’ as derogatory. Why ?
I make no apology whatsoever for laying my cards on the table that to treat any other species with anything less than the compassion we would have for each other is disgusting, immoral and destroys the concept of compassion. I find it deeply offensive.
Yes, I am angry. Very.
If a horse is ‘less important’ or a dog or anything else – based on what, lower brain capacity ?, why do we afford people who are perhaps labelled disrespectfully as ‘persistent vegetative state’ or ‘disabled’ greater status than animals ?
Its a revolting, self serving example of distinguishing some sentient beings as more important than others, one minor step away from racism, and bears no resemblance to the concept of compassion for all living things.
Whoah there LT! I made a single statement and you have wildly extrapolated.
I think you need to back down.
Sorry Muerk but respectfully, I can’t back down on the point of ‘us and them’. I fundamentally disgaree with the Churchs assertion that animals are less important than us, and respectfully, your comments at least suggested that horses should be treated as less deserving of compassion than people and maybe I’ve mis-interpreted it that you do think thats acceptable. If I have, I apologise unreservedly, sorry.
I am cuplble of bristling at comments like ‘treat them like a dog’ and stuff like that.
Ghandi said the measure of a nations civilistaion could be measured against its treatment of animals.
There is a lot of bad treatment of people in the world but frankly, it appears to pale into insignificance to our treatment of animals. And we should be collectively ashamed.
If God finds our current ‘en masse’ treatment acceptable, I want no part of God at all. It seems to be completely at odds with all of his teachings of compassion and respect.
Sorry for exploding at you Muerk, sorry. This is a massive moral problem that in my opinion, humans are dealing with EXCEPTIONALLY badly.
Over a billion animals a day die at our hands. How does that factor into ‘thou shalt not kill’.
For food, an argument could be made (as for the rest of the animal world), but consistent mis-treatment, perpetually being refused appropriate ‘respect’ and yet being forced to give us so much is an obcenity which I find completely at odds with the concepts of compassion and respect which the Church and everyone else allegedly purports.
Our relationship with animals highlights the very best and typically the very worst of the human spirit.
Thanks for backing off.
First up. We have a dog, two cats, a goldfish and two guinea pigs. I’ve worked with horses before and I’ve had chickens. Our family is pretty animal mad and I have always had a rule to not date men who didn’t like animals. Our animals are part of the family and are all inside pets, even our guinea pigs who stay inside when it’s raining and come in at night. Crikey, when we had chooks I let them come in at night when it was cold. We put a broom handle between two chairs, put newspaper underneath and let them roost in our bedroom. Roosters make fabulous alarm clocks, especially when they are sitting at the end of your bed.
I loathe vivisection and I agree our treatment of animals is appalling and yes, “we should be collectively ashamed.” You have no argument from me about that.
LT: Are you vegan just out of interest?
LT,
With you wholeheartedly on this one dear boy. I have been in many countries where the maltreatment of animals is just a way of life. Sadly religion plays a large part in this, based on the various verses of the various sacred texts around the world that very clearly put animals in a lower position than humans. I agree with your statements in #13 absolutely: in my experience most animals behave better than most humans and in the cases where the animal is aggressive towards humans or other animals (in the pet world) it’s generally the fault of the owner.
Didn’t know meurk was a lady – but I do now
KA