Hevvin Machine
05 Apr 2009, 06:09 AM
Reading through the very interesting discussion on "assisted suicide" brought something to mind. Over the course of the last few centuries, particularly the last one or so, the human race has become faced with an array of moral issues that simply didn't exist when most of our moral codes were being formed. Nearly all revolve around the side-effects of new technology, like the end of life issues being discussed are the product of modern medicine.
For nearly all of history death simply wasn't much in our control. Most people didn't even get old, they died from some accident or illness. The working assumption was always that any given person wanted to go on as long as possible. Most people with a really painful and debilitating condition also died rather quickly. Today this is still somewhat true, but more and more people wind up trapped by modern technology in lives that are ugly and painful. We just don't have the historical references for dealing with that in a moral way.
Most of the arguments seem to come from some sort of dogma that doesn't take into account the entirety of the situation. In theory I agree that people should be able to make their own decisions, but I have been around long enough to know that it isn't always that simple. In fact, it hardly ever is. People often choose things with very murky motivations. Kevorkian's last "patient", if I recall correctly, wasn't even ill. She was angry with her family and got even with them by dying. And there are people out there who might be more likely to encourage Granny to get on with leaving them some money if their house is being foreclosed on. Imagine how much money an HMO might save if a small reduction in the pain medication they pay for increased the number of patients who chose the less expensive suicide option over extended care. These are just a few of the moral issues that haven't been addressed.
Then there is the whole Schaivo disaster. What about people who cannot make a decision for themselves? Due to our lack of clarity she wound up with the worst of all worlds. They couldn't end her physical life humanely with drugs or something, so they killed her body with starvation and dehydration! AFAIK she was already gone and didn't feel anything. If there was even a tiny glimmer of awareness that was horribly cruel. If not, then none of it mattered anyway.
I'm not claiming to have answers. What I am saying is that we are faced with many such problems. Issues that we just don't have precedents to go on. End of life issues are one, environmental changes are another, our global economy is yet another. We need to come up with new ways to view emerging moral dilemmas.
We also need to ask ourselves before inventing new technology:"What potential moral dilemmas are we creating and how can we deal with them?" instead of just inventing and letting someone else clean up the mess.
Hev
For nearly all of history death simply wasn't much in our control. Most people didn't even get old, they died from some accident or illness. The working assumption was always that any given person wanted to go on as long as possible. Most people with a really painful and debilitating condition also died rather quickly. Today this is still somewhat true, but more and more people wind up trapped by modern technology in lives that are ugly and painful. We just don't have the historical references for dealing with that in a moral way.
Most of the arguments seem to come from some sort of dogma that doesn't take into account the entirety of the situation. In theory I agree that people should be able to make their own decisions, but I have been around long enough to know that it isn't always that simple. In fact, it hardly ever is. People often choose things with very murky motivations. Kevorkian's last "patient", if I recall correctly, wasn't even ill. She was angry with her family and got even with them by dying. And there are people out there who might be more likely to encourage Granny to get on with leaving them some money if their house is being foreclosed on. Imagine how much money an HMO might save if a small reduction in the pain medication they pay for increased the number of patients who chose the less expensive suicide option over extended care. These are just a few of the moral issues that haven't been addressed.
Then there is the whole Schaivo disaster. What about people who cannot make a decision for themselves? Due to our lack of clarity she wound up with the worst of all worlds. They couldn't end her physical life humanely with drugs or something, so they killed her body with starvation and dehydration! AFAIK she was already gone and didn't feel anything. If there was even a tiny glimmer of awareness that was horribly cruel. If not, then none of it mattered anyway.
I'm not claiming to have answers. What I am saying is that we are faced with many such problems. Issues that we just don't have precedents to go on. End of life issues are one, environmental changes are another, our global economy is yet another. We need to come up with new ways to view emerging moral dilemmas.
We also need to ask ourselves before inventing new technology:"What potential moral dilemmas are we creating and how can we deal with them?" instead of just inventing and letting someone else clean up the mess.
Hev