Surprisingly few myths shape out culture. One of those myths
is that life, no matter where you find it, is sacred. To put this myth in the perspective
of biology, the “sacredness of life” is a product of survival of the fittest; few
things in life can be more fundamentally biological than self-preservation, yet
we know we all must die. I have read a number of papers and books in biology about
the evolution of death and, as all of us have, observed a number of examples
where individual acts seem to challenge this concept, including wars and
suicide bombers. Even though constantly challenged, the myth not only lives on
and seems to be gaining more influence in shaping culture. I find it heartening
to know that we seem to be moving the concept out of blind religious belief and
into a sphere of educated behavior.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
Sacredness of life as a religious belief runs counters to what
we all know to be biology facts. Like so many other things in our world,
science is explaining away all the mysteries surrounding the creation of and maintenance
of life, which has created a conflict with religion. This is shaping our
culture for the first time in 150,000 years in a new way. In the beginning, the
spirits of religious forces dominated but now scientific forces are dominating.
We moved from the bestial cruelty of survival of the fittest, as Tennyson said,
“red in tooth and claw”, through a world of trying to preserve life when life should
not be preserved, and into a world where quality of life is being substituted
for sacredness of life. The change is happening at an ever-accelerating pace. I
think of Herbert Spencer’s curt description of Charles Darwin theories shrouded
in rhetoric to avoid rigors of religious censor of 155 years ago and modern day
events.
The headline grabbing case of terminally ill Brittney took
her own life with the blessing of her family brought this all to my mind. She
died with her family at her bedside—she did not wait for God to decide; she
made the decision. How different, and in a sense much more humane, this scene
was from the recent Teresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo case
where the issue was to remove the feeding tube from a brain dead women and
allow the biology processes deteriorate until they stopped. Much hand wringing
with Judges, religious leaders, federal and state legislators were involved. Only
nine years separated these two terrible different out comes.
We don’t look at it that way, but abortion is a major issue
shaping our culture. As a debate, it is capturing headlines. Although, themes
for opposing the interruption of pregnancy vary, regardless, sacredness of life
is at the heart of the issue. Science has developed to the point where drugs
can prevent pregnancy by interrupting a continuing process at every level of
that process as scientifically defined. If pregnancy occurs, test can diagnose
the fact in a matter of a few hours. Of equal importance, more and more scientist
can predict the quality of life of children, or of potential children, from the
genome of the parents. Conditions are predictable with varying degrees of
certainty from the genome of the conceptus with varying degrees of certainty;
certain conditions are crippling for life, others will result in a short life,
still others will result in someone who cannot survive on their own. More and
more, people are able to make decisions because they have the information.
Human nature is such that the scientists who provide the
information do not make the decision; the individual makes the decision; family
planning and abortion is only part of that process. The point is that science
is allowing people to be able to decide on the quality of their life, the quality
of the future life of them, their children, and their families. Culture comes
into play by moral punishment; meaning people will judge other people and act
accordingly as good or bad by the quality of life decisions they make. No
longer will it be acceptable to say God was unkind to that family. God is not
responsible, they are. This shaping of culture will happen in the same way as people
treat family size now. Society does not bless a modern family with many
children but rather the parents are cursed by society as being irresponsible.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
Some questions if I may ask.
ReplyDeleteWhen would you feel a Dependant has the right to decide their own quality of life?
When is it still the right of the provider of the Dependant?
If someone is disabled at the age of say 11 with no need for life support, and not diagnosed with a terminal illness. Is the mother justified in taking the life of that child? In what way would be justified?
Along with "sacredness of life" it's pretty common to hear quality of life. Which is of opinion, I don't see how science could set up a spreadsheet and decide quality of life, but I'm not a man of science.
But as an opinion, if a perfectly healthy man is just "done" that he's just tired and wants to end it. His idea of quality probably is different then mine or yours. Should it be allowed to let him end his life? Without attempting to do anything to change his mindset of his quality of life?
Obviously Brittney felt like her quality of life was a burden on others around her and chose to end it. I don't agree with it for my life but I'll respect it.
But if someone feels the same way, would you speak the same of him as you did with Brittney when you talked about her. That it was a "humane " decision.
I am trying to poke at you a little with these questions, but I do mean them with the utmost respect.
And as a man of faith, I ask only for honest discussion. I don't wish to argue politics, or about my faith.
Thank you
You ask some very important questions that deserve carful thought.
DeleteI agree; scientist would have a great deal of difficulty to “set up a spreadsheet” to define quality of life”. I would suggest they would not even try because “quality of life” dangling out in space is something that is not quantifiable. There must be context.
In modern society, your example of a mother having the power of life and death over the life of an 11-year old child for no reason would universally be condemned. This relates to lack of a reason. To be coherent, define the “quality of life” of the 11 year old or other issue with that would cause the mother to want to “kill” the child. For current examples of what we consider as a reason, use a husband’s power over the life of an unfaithful wife in certain Islamic societies, or, in civil society, use the state administered death penalty for murder.
As your thoughtful notes point out, quality of life is the central issue in suicide. The “crime”, if you want to label it as that, is terminal illness. Aside from the fact that we have a tendency to deny that mental illness is like physical illness, terminal cancer is terminal cancer. Society did not decide Brittney’s fate, she did. Of course, society has the responsibility to decide if the person is not capable. My point is that the a person’s opinion should always be paramount; however, without that input others should have some mechanism enabling them to decide to alleviate suffering and shoulder the responsibility and not have the out of saying “nature” will decide.
On the topic of suicide, does the fact that there has been successful stories of people recovering from suicidal thoughts/depression (I use the term depression loosely because it is happy associated with suicide and don't want to leave it out). Does that define it, depression or things that would lead to the event of suicide, as terminal? If there is a way to prevent or "cure." The act of suicide is terminal (unless they are unsuccessful) I can agree to that, but providing the means to commit the act without attempts to provide other options is... Doesn't sit well with me.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not saying Brittney didn't exhaust other options but if given the option to outright, for their illness to, end their life, a person who is having suicidal thoughts going to look to other options or just go to what they think is the only answer.
As for the 11 year old, I'll attempt to find the article to a similar story. I know I've read one recently I believe happened in the UK.
Suicide, or self-destruction, often seems to be associated with depression; however, from what I read, depression seems to be an extremely complex mental state, is either associated with some triggering cause or is inherent. Admittedly, the relationship between propensity for depression and actually “being depressed” confuses me. Geneticists report finding genes associated with depression at least associated with the tendency for depression, with the caveat that if geneticists go looking for a gene they can find it. Brittney was undoubtedly depressed and saw not way out of her predicament. I am convinced she did a lot of looking for a way out.
DeleteIn contrast, a teenager who had his or her love life go bad, for example, has not done an in depth soul search for a way out of their situation. The difference in quality of life, in terms of future prospects, between terminal cancer and a bad love life, the two situations addressed, should be obvious. I am aware that there are situations where a person has irreversible physical attributes, for example, that led to bullying, resulted in depression, and eventually led to suicide. Most of us can appreciate the helplessness that might go with that situation but few can actually feel what that person might feel in respect to attitude toward life. We can look at that situation and understand that for bullying to take place, it takes at least two. It is up to us to try to understand and help both the victim and the perpetrator, deal with it, what ever it might take.