Well to paraphrase Sergio Leone (isn't it fun to cite such luminaries?)
""Where Life has no value, death sometimes has its price. This is why the
suicide bombers appeared."
The next logical step in making a life which has been economically and
politically constructed as worthless to you is to make your exit count in a
big way, and indeed it has been argued that death has indeed been
commodified in this way providing an alternative explanation for the suicide
bomber in the middle east, much more satisfactory than psychological
explanations I think.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/comment/j
ta.pdf
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/208/
And whilst it might not seem very dulcent or decorous to the cynic, and much
less the victim, it has a certain logic as the next step for some - If you
can't make your life count, you make your death count.
And if you are on the wrong side in a war, or even on the right side, is
being blown apart by whatever means a dignified death? The question of
course becomes, was the life that proceeded it worthwhile, and raises even
further questions, can only worthy lives have dignified ends? does the
dignity or significance of the end justify the rest of an undignified or
insignificant life? does an undignified end wipe out all the dignity or
significance of a life? Or is all life valuable and the dignity consist in
the principle that it is, regardless of circumstance, how we came into or
exit the world.
Well finally is anyone ever dignified when sitting on the toilet?
I wish I could find the definitive source of a quote I read many years ago
in the Coventry Evening Telegraph, quite possibly in the writings of Chris
Arnot (who apart from interviewing professor Harrison(op cit) and
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/comment/g
uardian.pdf, used to extol the virtues of "Tripey Hayes" in Coventry's
circular market. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-2036494.html also refered
in CET inter alia http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-60232621.html
Well whoever it was wrote that no-one ever commits suicide after a good
nights sleep or a decent voiding of the bowels, or something to that effect.
Could it be Dostoeysky or was it Durkheim?, I have never been able to track
this to it's source yet, google it and it bounces back as one of mine :(
Oh that encyclopedic memory of mine, were that it were a bit better on
sources.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Velarde
> Sent: 16 December 2008 12:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Assisted Suicide
>
> 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.
________________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.
|
