Superman and life
Published by Yazad Jal October 11th, 2004 in Culture and SocietyChristopher Reeve died today. Apart from being a childhood icon, he was someone I respected immensely for his brave battle against paralysis.
During tea, I mentioned Reeves’ death to some friends in the neighbouring office. And was dismayed by the response. “Oh! It’s a release for him” — “I would not want to live like that” - “I’d rather die than live on life support”
It reminded me of the film Whose Life Is It Anyway? where an artist (played by Richard Dreyfuss) who is paralysed from neck down wants to die and fights to get the hospital switch off his life support. I liked the film and cheered the principle that you should choose to end your life, if you so wish it.
However, I do not believe that choosing to die when there is little (or no) hope is the only choice. Christopher Reeve did not give up. He fought too — not to die, but to live. If I were in the same position, I’d make the choice he did.
I want to live. Keep me on life support, keep me alive. Always.
Yes, yazad… it is sad. The Superman series were the first foreign films I watched.
The right to choose to end one’s life makes sense to me now. But it isn’t right constitutionally. Think: “You can’t take things that aren’t yours away from yourself.”
Plus, even if the right to choose to die is granted, how can people be protected from potential misuse?
The “potential misuse” argument is classic paternalism. We should not allow people to buy and sell, think of the potential misuse. Of course you’d find cheats and frauds. Does not mean you stop business.
In the case of life and euthanasia, it is much tougher, I agree. It is still not a paradigm shift. Just an increase in magnitude.
There is a problem with crying “constitution” all the time. However fine, the damn document was not signed by all of us who are supposed to be under it’s purview. Plus it’s changed rather often. E.g. I will never sign a document that proclaims that India is a socialist republic. But hey, that’s what the constitution says right now.
No the only potential misuse problem comes when you have to pull the plug on a terminally ill patient who is incapacitated and cannot give consent and also who hasn’t left a living will.
In such a case, the same standards that aare applicable while deciding whether a doctor has been negligient or not can be applied in the court.
Think: “You can’t take things that aren’t yours away from yourself.”
What exactly do you mean, Amol? One’s life is own’s own, is it not?
True, everyone reserves the freedom of choosing how to lead his/her life. But “owning” and “leading” are seperate concepts.
You can only “own” what you can give yourself. Shirts, houses, cars and even money are things that somewhat qualify here. I use somewhat here because they won’t ultimately belong to you… Try not paying taxes and see who assumes ownership :). On the other hand, intangible stuff like knowledge and experience are truly yours…
Coming back to life and ownership… Your life is given/gifted/entrusted to you by your parents. Though you are free to use it in any manner you choose, doesn’t directly imply that you own it.
So are you saying that your parents should have the right to kill you when they want?
Amol, let me grant you that life is a “gift” from parents / god / whoever. Now when A gives B a gift whose does the gift belong to? A or B?
If I was given a gift, I think I own it. It might be crass and ungrateful to destroy that gift, but by all means my right to do so because it is mine. The same hold for the gift of a toy your parents gave you to the gift of life.
Somehow, I knew you’d ask this. Here’s what I think…
Amol gives Yazad a toy on his birthday. A few years later, Yazad gets mad at Amol and smashes the toy to smithereens. Amol is hurt… but thats OK; the toy “can” be replaced.
Can you replace someone’s life? I don’t think gifts of mass-produced, perishable but replaceable goods come anywhere near the same ballpark as the gift of life!
Ravikiran, man you’re always fast :o)
What lead you to think your parent’s gift to you by the act of conception warrants them your life’s ownership?
Amol, there are many gifts that are irreplacable — heirlooms for one. Plus, you proposed the gift analogy. Now what you’re doing is “shifting the goalpost.”
I think life is an inalienable right. My life is mine and mine alone to do what I please with it — achieve Mt. Everest or end it.
So what are you saying? I don’t think you are saying that *no one* owns your life in the sense of it being unclaimed property (in which case anyone can do anything with anyone) and I don’t think that you are saying that it is public property (in which case your life is administered by the government)
If you are uncomfortable with the idea of *anyone* “owning” a life, I understand. But the point is, do you have the *legal* right to do whatever you want with your life, including things that many people will find ethically abhorrent? Or more precisely, do you think the *government* should have the powers to stop you from doing things that would put your life at risk?
Now what you’re doing is “shifting the goalpost.”
How?
Yeap. Many gifts and artefacts can be irreplacable. But then again, they don’t come anywhere near the same ballpark as the gift of life.
You’re shifting goalposts by assigning conditons (irreplacable, etc) to your analogy *after* I’ve used the same analogy to critique your conclusion. BTW, all you’ve come up with is an order of magnitude. Not enough my friend. Ravi asks the questions I would have liked to, so I won’t repeat. You should answer them!
I won’t call “irreplaceable” a condition that has been added later on just for continuing the arguement. Strictly speaking Yazad, “irreplacebale” is not a condition even.
My thoughts say that the irreplacability of life is nothing but a self-evident truth. A truth that I presumed you would consider before attacking my analogy.
I like to think of myself as an instance of nature that got created when my parents decided to conceive. Believers can substitute nature with God/Providence/Parents or their favorite deity. Atheists may want to banish the statement altogether.
Who owns me? Nature does. Who decides when I die? Nature does. As an instance of Nature, I surrender to it.
I accept the ownership of the “role” I am to play in my life and in others’, but ultimately I know I don’t own anything.
Do you accept the doctor’s mind as a part of nature or not? A medical treatment is an artifice devised by a doctor’s mind. As part of “surrendering to Nature”, do you refuse all medical treatment?
Perhaps not. Perhaps you think that the doctor’s mind is a [part of Nature]/[creation of God] (choose one). But if you accept the doctor’s mind as [poN]/[coG] why not your own mind? Why shouldn’t “surrendering to Nature” involve accepting the decision of your own mind as to whether you should live or not?
For that matter, the same questions can be asked about a murderer’s mind. If a man commits murder, should we prosecute him or not? After all, a murderer’s mind is also [poN]/[coG] Should we just let him go, or should we lynch him without trial, because we feel like it? Our feelings are also [poN]/[coG].
This distinction between “Natural” and “Artificial” is one of the silliest ever defined. I’ve realised that no ethical rules whatsoever can be discerned from that distinction.
Ravikiran, now you’ve forced me to do a rethink.
To be continued… :o)