16 September 2012
You have a choice to make.
Right now.
Live or die.
But NOT for yourself, for another life. Perhaps a person, perhaps an animal. It is still life.
You must make this decision, and you alone.
A soul in your hands.
Whatever the outcome, the responsibility lies with you.
How do you make a decision like that? What gives you the right over this life?
If we assume, for simplicities sake, that a life can be given value by two things:
• Length • Health
Then perhaps we can start to make a logical decision. Perhaps dying is not so bad if, presumably, it has been "good". And by that I mean (assumptions of opinion):
• of sufficient length • with health that does not hinder natural behaviour/lifestyle
CASE STUDY 1 So, consider a 85 year old man called Adam. He traveled the world, had a wife, children, lived his dreams. But now he is retired, a widower but still in good health apart from terrible arthritis which restricts his movements. He requires help to do simple things such as get dressed or go to the bathroom.
Do you choose to let this man live or die?
What do you consider? Do you evaluate his life, label it as "good"? Does that mean he has lived 'enough' and can now die? Or does it mean his life should be continued, because it is good?
Perhaps we should add another variable to consider the past and the present. Does Adam's past have any weighting on the decision you make now?
Or do we make an evaluation of the present situation, without reference to the past?
For Adam, if you choose for him to live, it is unlikely he will live many more years and is unlikely to do this at a high standard of living due to his poor health.
But he remains mentally sound.
How long should a brain live on within a dying body?
If you choose death, is it depriving Adam of a few more years, months or weeks of a "good life"? Would it be a crime? Or would it be a merciful end to his painful arthritis and low quality of life?
CASE STUDY 2
A two year old female golden retriever called Jess is diagnosed with a chronic, degenerative immunodeficiency disease.
This is incurable, eventually fatal and will gradually get worse over time. Due to a weakened immune system Jess will be unable to fight of infections and so will get ill repeatedly and much more often than healthy dogs.
Managing the condition is possible for a number of years but eventually it will be fatal.
Do you choose for Jess to live or die?
If your choice is life, this could be because she is young. She could have many more years of life with sufficient quality to perform her natural behaviours. But does this choice also subject Jess to much more pain and suffering from the high rate of infection, that she will eventually be unable to fight off. And up to this point she would require regular (perhaps stressful) veterinary care.
If your choice is for Jess to die, perhaps you have chosen this to spare her the gradual decline in health, to spare her from the pain and suffering of repeated infections. But it is also the denial of further years of live. For a young animal, you could say that she has not added sufficient "value" to her life, as it has not been long. So, should life be continued, even if it is poor quality, until a respectable age is met?
Would the choice be different for an older dog? Perhaps 6, or 10 or 14?
How does the 'value' of length combat the value of 'health'?
So, here lies your choice. Do you choose life or death for Adam? Do you choose life or death for Jess?
Are the same principles viable for the assessment of both cases? Are human and animal life comparable? Is the taking of a life ethically acceptable in any situation?
Of course, I merely scratch the surface.
A Choice • Opuss № I