
The discussion started in DEATH DO US OVER, Part 1 received enough response on other boards on which I posted it I am posting on those boards and here on my Blog my further thoughts regarding the point I was trying to make.
I do not advocate taking life by one’s own hand. Nevertheless I am exploring whether or not it can be done under justifiable circumstances. If this can be done the next question is when it can be done. While I am still consciously here I question the right of doing it. When I am altogether gone, but a shell, physically holding on to life, mentally having already gone, why not? What purpose is there in continuing an existence that is no more than a burden and a terrific cost to my wife at the expense of her own needs?
Drawing the line is the most difficult part of the proposition. Attempting to draw that line in living wills I have drafted I have done it in this way: I have prepared permission and direction to the appointed Health Care Representative to carry it out. First, it is predicated on the caretaker’s willingness to carry it out freely and voluntarily. You cannot ask them to do something they would find morally objectionable.
Next you must set the time. If you can make the decision there is no problem to getting it carried out. There may be a problem doing it. At this point I have trouble believing I have the right to take life so long as that life can serve purpose by living. If cognition remains it is hard to believe purposeful living does not also remain.
When and if my mind is gone, then it is another story. The only problem: At that time you are unable to make the decision yourself, your actual removal from life is the decision of whomever you have directed to carry it out.
I was a lawyer. I still think like one. This is how I approach these questions, I deal with them one alternative at a time. That said, the following is what remains on my mind about the issue:
There are times I am content to allow life & death to work itself out where I am concerned. I am content with that. It is at other times that I look at my disease’s affect on my loved ones particularly my wife Diane, I become quite concerned.
The effects with which I am concerned are these: My mind goes my body stays. I leave
Diane nothing more than my shell. Leaving this mindless bulk bestows on Diane the very difficult task of taking care of me. To the extent she can’t care for me she has to pay the cost of my care. This will necessarily expend funds she will need to live on herself. She must pay for me first. She must pay that first until we are paid down to a sum that is not enough for her continued support. This is what often forces me into a different view about my right to live a vegetable at her expense.
We are part of a culture that respects life so much it prohibits one’s taking of it themselves.
When I look at our cultural standards which makes taking one’s life prohibited I become somewhat dubious.
I see this: We as a nation went to war for noble moral purpose which included invading the wrong country, now trying to figure out what to do with the first country invaded where we failed to finish the job, after we have killed so many, for what?
This same country finds itself unable and unwilling to take care of its own people. We see the insane fight over our national denial of help to the needy and healthcare for all. There are so many unnecessary deaths from this. One wonders where they count up in comparison to the number of war dead.
All of this is of course done in the name of righteousness and economic responsibility. It is morally right for a government and individuals acting for the government to do this. It is done justifying the spending of profligate amounts on killing and warring for so evident political and economic rewards to benefit a very few.
In Part 1 I wrote:
“I have the Jewish, Christian and Buddhist answer to this (Suicide). They all say NO! I believe the answers of religion are good, but little more than an amalgamation of cultural standards accepted over the march of our history. They represent what we have learned as a group by being here.”
It seems axiomatic to me that morals in one sense are absolute, in another are modulated existentially by the life lived by the person addressing a moral issue. By reason of having the gift of life, by reason of the innate proclivity that is part of us to save and prolong life, ours and others, it is of the gravest concern should we undertake to end life, ours or anyone else’s. Our culture nonetheless has made that modification and among others allows killing a life in war. It is not only right if we kill others, it is morally right, in fact laudatory, should we smother a grenade to save another’s life even at the expense of our own life.
Our culture does and has modified an otherwise absolute to this extent.
There is little question but that giving compassion and all it includes is at the heart of the purpose of living. Compassion is meant to extend to others not self. The hooker to this is the words describing the golden rule: “Do not to another what you would not have them do to you.” That comes out of Jewish tradition. Christ offered it along with an annotation “Love your brother as yourself.” The hooker is you, yourself. The aphorism puts self at least on equal if not primary level to your other. Does the aphorism or the reasoning drawn from the aphorism and/or the wording in which it is delivered rule? Or do the merits of each specific situation rule?
I have come to believe the confrontation in life of ideals that are contradictory, one to the other, are events we are called on to make moral judgments directed by the events and determined by a choice of the greater good afforded by the circumstances of the specific event.
In looking at it in this way:
I started my life’s journey professing a religious belief that provided answers. It said I need not look, consider or decide. It was mine to humbly accept a better informed authority, the Church, and do what is told me.
For moral reasons I disagreed with its moral dogma and therefore left that belief system. I searched and found freedom of conscience blessed in another religion.
Doing this I defied fundamental beliefs ingrained in me in 16 years of religious education and 45 years of life. Doing this was the equivalent of damning myself to hell. In spite of this I reasoned that my conception of morally right based on my experience of life took precedence when it was in contradiction of what was told me to be morally right!
Looked at with eyes now Jewish ones, seeing things through Buddhist spectacles I have placed over these eyes, I can still see the truth of the sayings of Christ: “Do on to others as you would have them do on to you!” as stated in the religion I left.
Doing for others the same as we would have them do for us is not consistent with Washington who would say we must cut back to stay fiscally sound and able to defend ourselves rather than take care of our own.
In the same way can I not serve greater good by ending my life when I am no good to any one other than being burden and cost? I am not yet where I am no good and a burden, but certainly will be as this disease progresses. If I determine it to be moral for me in this situation to end my life, I can plan it now and do it then.
Does life call on me to make this final act of compassion?


