I would like to talk about euthanasia. The voluntary ending by a person of their own life, not as the result of depression or sudden tragedy or trauma; but as the result of a decision to cut one’s losses, and literally quit while you are ahead, still compos mentis: still legally of sound mind.
In countries where the prevailing religious doctrine of centuries has taught that taking one’s own life is a sin, and will doom the person concerned to everlasting torment, (or continuous torment, if they believe in reincarnation), this is illegal, and often considered immoral.
But if people choose to die with dignity, in a context in which they are not shamed or villified, would this not be a positive choice? 
As medical science has improved, human beings have lived longer. And they have expected more from their lives, living to the age of 80 rather than 40, with all the increased opportunity for life experience that affords a person.
But so much of our philosophical and religious beliefs are context-based. Beliefs which get us through the springtime and summer of our lives will not always sustain us in our 60s and 70s, as our vitality fades and our economic productivity ceases.
Contemplation of life reminds us of two different views of the phases of life: in traditional South Asian belief systems, the individual progresses from a student, to a householder, to a state of detachment from business and monetary concerns, to the state of spiritual contemplation known as ascetism. The individual’s fulfillment comes from increase in wisdom and social contribution. They are still seen as worthy of respect, in their golden years.
In the Western world, life is generally seen through a more financial and material framework. The individual is defined by their economic productivity. As a student, they are financially dependent, and the first part of their life is invested in gaining skills and experience for their professional career.
Then in their 20s, 30s and 40s they pursue the acquisition of wealth, success and status. In their 50s and 60s, unless health issues intervene, they consolidate their position. But when they retire, they have no income except for the returns on any investments they have made, and the value society places on them sharply falls.
In their declining years, as health problems increase, their friendship groups dwindle, and their physical strength and mental ability decrease, people become more vulnerable. And many of them do not have support structures of family and friends to sustain and console them.
In some tribal cultures in the world, elderly people voluntarily walk out into the harsh and exposed landscape, to ease their tribe of the burden of caring for them. In more ‘civilized’ societies, we do not think that is humane. So elderly people are cared for at home by their adult children, or in respite care, which becomes more hospital-like as their health problems increase.
Providing for our future, and that of our family, which was our guiding concern in the first part of our life, becomes more urgent at this stage, as our vulnerability places us at risk.
The societies in which euthanasia is legal and acceptable are what I would call societies whose legal systems are not influenced by religious doctrines, but see human life in an essentially practical way. If a person has lived a full and productive life, faced their challenges as well as they can, and is now in a situation where their health will only decline, and there is no improvement possible, and only suffering for themselves, and torment for their loved ones imminent, why is their choice to terminate that suffering characterized as a ‘sin’, or a ‘crime’?
I am not referring here to people who are clinically depressed, or psychologically fragile, whose beliefs about their inability to prevail are generated by negative thoughts, and therefore are not realistic. Not people in their teens or 20s who are anxious about the future, or people undergoing traumatic events like job loss, health crises or relationship breakdowns including divorce. In life’s journey, with appropriate support, we can all live to learn and grow beyond such challenges.
I am talking about conscious detachment, taken to the next logical level, with religious doctrine and emotional sentiment removed from it. I don’t think we have the right to tell each other what to do when it comes to this aspect of life, which is a personal choice each individual should decide for themselves.
I would have thought that in South Asia, where many belief systems teach people about the reality of impermanence and belief in acceptance of life’s challenges is so widely believed and practised, euthanasia in the future would be an option that many would choose, if their personal circumstances qualified them to do so.
Surely the right of all human beings to live their life to the fullest, and make use of every opportunity for happiness, should include the right to end their life when that fullness of life is irrevocably compromised.
No comments:
Post a Comment