Jeremy, one of the points, perhaps a key one, is that underneath of the
mortis-filia's claim lays the insatisfaction of the 'modern' standards of
'living' which is a slightly different from your views which I would resume
as constructing 'disability as a social construction of 'civilization''.
Yours is a biol-social model.
In my point of view, people in the opulent world, are institutionalised to
believe that a terminally illness and a disability is a tragic and
'undignified' aspect of existent. Ergo, it is not worth living if you are
not 'forever young'
The problem with this version of the tragic-medical model is that one-you-
is the centre of the universe. No one else counts or exist. The individual
is too busy looking at him/herself (e.g hence his/her narcissistic
emotions).
In this bubble, the only thing they do not own is their own death. The
'right' to 'dignified death' or 'assistive suicide' as it is also
understood, is an extension of a human perception of a property rights
dimension. The human is able to dominate not only world but even his/her
own exit ('die in dignity'). Notice, this is not a right in the first place,
it is a 'nice thought though. There is not such a thing of 'dignified death'
but conversely, it could be 'dignified living'. By changing the focus of
attention the morti planner is making all of us concentrate on his/her own
suffering of tanatos origin, and not on the realities of existence of six
million of people who do not have choice of ' assisted living'.
Paradoxes of life, that individual would not get the psychological anx of
being tired of living, if poor in a poor society, and although in pain,
would probably also care for others. Yes, the majority of the world do not
live more than 50-60 years of age. But what the hell, if the human body is
designed to 'survive' more than 30. Yes folks, death is and will never be
comfortable. Face it and try not to demoralise the ones that will die
embracing a moral cause for freedom.
And yes, suicide was an act of sacrifice when food was scarce in
agricultural societies (There is an excellent Japanese film the Ballad of
the Narallama about this - 1980s). Death wasn't as feared in societies who
were not conquered by the Greek-medieval Christian paradigm (e.g Aztec,
Incas).Why it is that 'western travellers find that there is nothing more
beautiful that watching the sunset in poor societies (my own translation A
Camus)
Why are these people in opulent societies tired and with fear of living and
dying? Aren't enough causes in the world for living for? I invite all my
pals that are suffering alone, today, yes you, who is contemplating
finishing off this world by the end of the year, give yourself a chance, ,
and if you can afford it, visit, live, one day in Afghanistan or Irak (as a
poor fellow of course) and if after that you still want to die, I'll eat my
own boot.
Best, Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Wickins" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Assisted Suicide
> Thanks again, Andy. I hope I'm your pal enough to bear yor style in mind -
> I'v
> been reading your posts for some time, now!
>
> I hope it doesn't surprise you if I say that I agree with many of the
> points you
> make - I am well aware that there are many that don't have toilets, for
> instance, but the chances of an adult surviving that needed help with
> elimination are very small, too. I some ways, it can be said that my
> preference
> is a consequence of civilisation, because most of the situations I fear
> most
> would be unlikely to happen without a high level of health-care available,
> because they would not be survivable. Ventilators, neuro-surgery, even
> common-or-garden anti-biotics, are available to keep me alive in
> situations
> where someone in a different part of the world would die. I also agree
> with the
> point that my viewpoint can be viewed as being somewhat narcissistic, but
> where
> are the studies that show or refute that people in the under-developed
> world
> don't kill themselves because of disability or other reasons associated
> with
> concepts of dignity? Equally, I have no hard evidence to show that
> suicide, in
> one form or another, is a consistent part of human experience throughout
> the
> existence of our species, though it seems at least probable.
>
> You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the responsibility we have to
> others, to
> the extent that we have a duty to hang on to the last breath, dying when
> purple
> and not blue. From the point of view of others, I really don't think there
> is
> any difference - we are still dead, and hopefully have some people who
> will
> miss us. I do not consider that there is a duty on any individual to
> assist in
> a death, or even to agree with it, but part of friendship is surely to
> consider
> the wishes of the friend. It seems to me, from my limited experience, that
> the
> least grief comes from planned suicide than unexpectedly quick death
> (after
> diagnosis of life threatening illness). This is contrasted with the
> ultimate
> relief that comes after a long illness, and the friends and relatives can
> go
> back to not having to visit or worry about the person any more. Life "goes
> back
> to normal", and people start to feel guilty about not showing grief.
>
> I do not see where the claim that disabled people are being "pressured" to
> die
> comes from. Perhaps I need to educated on this point. If it is true, then
> we
> are most certainly on the same side! No-one should be pressured at all - I
> have
> clearly stated that it has to be up to the individual, and, whilst I know
> that
> no decision is entirely without the input of others, known or unknown,
> there
> are ways of safeguarding people. Life is the default option, and there has
> to
> be a clear message that it is never "wrong" to live.
>
> Yours,
>
> Jeremy
>
> --
> Jeremy Wickins,
> PhD Researcher,
> School of Law,
> University of Sheffield,
> Bartolome House,
> Sheffield. S3 7ND
> UK.
>
>
> Quoting A Velarde <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Hi Jeremy. Thanks for your email. still think it is nor right. As my
>> first
>> reaction, for historical and philosophical reasons. I will resume them
>> drastically. I do apologise for this. There are going to be lots of
>> misunderstandings. Pals bear in mind my style
>>
>> To put my cards on the table: I follow Kantian philosophy on a critical
>> modernist way. I like Nietche and Foucault, but as a second thought (the
>> rationality of the individual acts, which are not social norms).
>>
>> E.g Would I condemn if someone commits suicide, whatever its forms,
>> assisted
>>
>> or not? No.( I leave it to those who make their judgement under
>> metaphysical
>>
>> rules) Because my second (rule) though above.
>>
>> Under my first rule , I will think that he.she deserted, made my world
>> much
>>
>> sadder, left me to fight on my own.
>>
>> For historical reasons: The world, the material one, is a struggle.
>> Believe
>>
>> me Jeremy, the majority of the world do not have a toilet let alone the
>> luxury of thinking about the sort of aesthetic thoughts of 'dying in
>> dignity'. At the heart of this debate lays the narcissistic development
>> of
>>
>> the individuals within the 'modern' world. Tired of will planning and
>> tax
>> avoidance, people want to anticipate their 'death', so 'to die in
>> dignity'.
>> Hipper rationalism? The majority of the world will not be able to 'plan'
>> their death? And people die in all sort of undignified and inspected
>> ways.
>> The majority pf us will die choking their own saliva and soiled. Should
>> we
>> 'construct' a norm in which everyone who fears death, to plan it
>> calculative, so their is no pain nor shamed? Is this what is at stake in
>> the
>>
>> 'dignified death' in the UK 3rd millennium?.
>>
>> The ultimate act of a hipper rationalised world? Tired of destroying the
>> planned at least some will die in 'dignity.
>>
>> In my view, there is nothing undignified of dieing, what ever if happen,
>> with someone holding my hand or with an anaphylaxis attack because
>> imperialism brought brazil nuts to my table? Should I be allowed to ask a
>> friend to crack my skull when I am purple because I cannot breath? At
>> what
>> time should the doctors allow my friend to give me that merciful blow?
>> when
>> I am blue or light green? Alright , lets not use an ax, lets be
>> 'civilised',
>>
>> remove the ventilator, or allow a software to do it, with the wink of my
>> friend's eye.
>>
>> I am sorry, I believe it is a self centre philosophy, an egotistic and
>> narcissistic act. There is no philosophy being or underneath such an
>> argument, only the fathom of moral crisis of a culturally tired part of
>> the
>> world.
>>
>> I do believe in freedom, in a collective notion of it. If people who do
>> not,
>>
>> you need to use an argument which is socially convincing. so far, I am
>> unable to see the rationality of it, apart of an indirect claim to
>> undermine
>>
>> the lives of impaired people, and not a desire (not an inch) to better
>> the
>> lives of impaired people, but to bring to the attention of their
>> psychological suffering, a suffering that everyone of us, will have,
>> sooner
>> or latter.
>>
>> Best, Andy
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jeremy Wickins" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: Assisted Suicide
>>
>>
>> > Andy,
>> >
>> > Thought provoking as ever.
>> >
>> > Surely your argument is based on a conception that there is a "meaning"
>> > to
>>
>> > life
>> > - in your case , the struggle to live. There are problems with this -
>> > for
>> > instance, I don't believe there is some metaphysical meaning to life.
>> > There is
>> > only what the person experiences and wants - so yes, life is egoistic.
>> > That
>> > doesn't mean that there shouldn't be general rules guiding action -
>> > people
>>
>> > come
>> > together partly because they want the certainty and protection that
>> > comes
>> > from
>> > rules. However, I am unconvinced that the rules can ever dictate the
>> > means
>>
>> > of
>> > ending one's life - it is beyond the remit of a society, especially
>> > when
>> > it is
>> > considered that we are talking about only a few people a year that
>> > would
>> > find
>> > themselves in the very specific situation of having become physically
>> > incapable
>> > of taking their own lives when it is a valid option for whatever reason
>> > (such
>> > as avoiding dying in a long, painful, and/or distressing way, for
>> > instance,
>> > choking to death, as happened with Diane Pretty).
>> >
>> > I am not saying that people should not be encouraged to consider their
>> > choice
>> > first, whatever the reason for wanting to die - it is morally correct
>> > to
>> > prevent someone with a properly diagnosed mental illness from killing
>> > themselves whilst that diagnosis is valid. However, it is not correct
>> > to
>> > stop
>> > them when they are diagnosed as being free from whatever the condition
>> > was. It
>> > is not correct, either, to diagnose someone as being mentally ill
>> > purely
>> > because they want to die - people can and do make the decision
>> > rationally,
>> > though it is valid for others to see if the range of options available
>> > can be
>> > expanded so that death is not seen as the only acceptable choice. In
>> > some
>> > cases, it seems that merely having the ability to kill oneself, or to
>> > be
>> > assisted, increases the degrees of freedom sufficiently to make life
>> > bearable -
>> > this is one of the interpretations of data from the Oregon Death with
>> > Dignity
>> > legislation.
>> >
>> > For some, there is no dignity in "the struggle to survive", especially
>> > when it
>> > is clear that death is going to come relatively soon, and it is going
>> > to
>> > be
>> > "messy" in some way (and that is subjective, too). People who see it
>> > that
>> > way
>> > regard "dignity" as accepting the inevitable and taking control of
>> > things.
>>
>> > I
>> > admit, my feelings go beyond this, because I, looking at what may lead
>> > me
>> > to
>> > want to die, include becoming quadri- (and possibly para-)plegic,
>> > because - for
>> > me - being "looked after" is abhorrent. I do not want to be dependent
>> > on
>> > another person to do lots of things I can do at present, such as go to
>> > the
>> > toilet, and I would probably (it cannot be said "certainly", because
>> > the
>> > urge
>> > to live is always strong, and I cannot know exactly what I would think)
>> > hate
>> > every time someone had to help me with, say, personal hygeine. I am an
>> > intensely private person, and living only by having someone around all
>> > the
>>
>> > time
>> > would rapidly eat into my thin reserves of sociability (particularly in
>> > the
>> > current times whan getting angry with someone, especially one who is
>> > "only
>> > helping", is treated as uncceptable).
>> >
>> > This is becoming another long diatribe, so I'll stop here!
>> >
>> > Yours,
>> >
>> > Jeremy
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeremy Wickins,
>> > PhD Researcher,
>> > School of Law,
>> > University of Sheffield,
>> > Bartolome House,
>> > Sheffield. S3 7ND
>> > UK.
>> >
>> >
>> > Quoting A Velarde <[log in to unmask]>:
>> >
>> >> This questions the moral rationality. Those who claim the mortis cause
>> >> claim
>> >>
>> >> that 'none is hurt' and therefore it should be a 'right' based on a
>> >> claim
>>
>> >> of
>> >>
>> >> legitimacy (everyone should have a decent death).
>> >>
>> >> I am not convinced. Not only because 'decency' in dying is not a right
>> >> in
>> >> this world of six billion human beings, of which more than 4/5 have
>> >> still
>> >> achieved the right for a decent life.
>> >>
>> >> I also think that there is a direct damage. May not be the only the
>> >> poor
>> >> fellow that 'assist' buying the tickets to Switzerland). The essence e
>> >> of
>> >> humanity (human struggle for freedom) is seriously undermined. We
>> >> should
>>
>> >> be
>> >>
>> >> seek freedom, collectively. Can we only everyone to be guerrilla
>> >> combatant
>> >> or a missionary? No. Should people have the right to abandon the
>> >> struggle
>> >> and die in the way they wish?
>> >> I am to sure. My first reaction is no. I am sorry. I think it is
>> >> because
>>
>> >> it
>> >>
>> >> seems that it is an egotistic option.
>> >>
>> >> Best, Andy
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Larry Arnold" <[log in to unmask]>
>> >> To: "'A Velarde'" <[log in to unmask]>;
>> >> <[log in to unmask]>
>> >> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:17 PM
>> >> Subject: RE: Assisted Suicide
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Here is another way of looking at the limits of possibility.
>> >> >
>> >> > Should a personal assistant be exempt from being prosecuted if they
>> >> > assist
>> >>
>> >> > a
>> >> > disabled person, who could not otherwise do it without assistance,
>> >> > to
>> >> > rob
>> >> > a
>> >> > bank?
>> >> >
>> >> > Larry
>> >> >
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
>> >> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Velarde
>> >> >> Sent: 15 December 2008 10:38
>> >> >> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Assisted Suicide
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I guess this posit the quesion about the limits of the social
>> >> >> model paradigm. if society disables the impaired individual,
>> >> >> could society 'empower ' him/her to end its participation in
>> >> >> society? Would the individual (whatwever his validity claim,
>> >> >> can request such support from the social group he/she wants
>> >> >> top abandom, ind by doing so, opening a door from which
>> >> >> social model activist would be have their validity claims
>> >> >> undermined?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If the answer is yes, the individual need to make his/her
>> >> >> case by constructing a different paradigm. So far it is base
>> >> >> on a self centrer phylosophy (on both sides of the argument
>> >> >> for and against it) . Best, Andy
>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> >> From: "Julia Cameron" <[log in to unmask]>
>> >> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:23 PM
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Assisted Suicide
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> ________________End of message________________
>> >>
>> >> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
>> >> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
>> >> (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>> >> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
>> >> [log in to unmask]
>> >>
>> >> Archives and tools are located at:
>> >> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>> >> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web
>> >> page.
>> >>
>> >
>> > ________________End of message________________
>> >
>> > This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
>> > Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
>> > (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>> > Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
>> > [log in to unmask]
>> >
>> > Archives and tools are located at:
>> > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>> > You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web
>> > page.
>> >
>>
>>
>
> ________________End of message________________
>
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
> (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web
> page.
>
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|
