Value of life
I've had a number of conversations with various people in the past few months on the value of life. I am amazed with how many people value life over everything else. Once you focus so hard on anything it tends to become a self-defeating quest. Life becomes valued for no other reason than its pure existence.
We have turned capitalist even in our perceptions of humanity. Quantity is valued over quality. Why is there this intense focus on preserving life at all cost? Has anyone stopped and asked where's the utility? What is the point?
Instead of getting lost in a web of nebulous arguments let's look at some examples of what I'm talking about here.
1. Abortion. It was pointed out to me that the question of abortion comes down to the question of when life starts. That's examing the question from the quantity perspective again - preserving life at all cost. What about the quality? Shouldn't a mother have a right to decide whether she wants to carry a baby for nine months and nurture it for 15-20 years afterwards? What happens to her job/career? What if she's a single mom? What if she's been raped? What about the child that she's going to bring into this world. Can she support it? Is she willing to leave that child at the mercy of others through adoption? What about the quality of life for a child that's not wanted?
2. Euthanasia. We love life so much that we submit other people to a prolonged, torturous death by preventing them from dying. That's how much we love life. We'll drug you to the point where you won't know who you are, but we won't let you die. What's the point?
3. Danger. "Do not worry citizen! We're working dilligently on making sure you live a very long and dull life!" A person cannot ride a bike without a helmet. Cannot drive a car without a seatbelt. Cannot take "bad" drugs. Cannot drink alcohol until 21, but can enlist and command heavy weaponry in order to kill that precious life we work so hard to preserve. Certain sex acts are illegal for crying out loud - of course, only to protect people's moral fortitude.
All I have to say is that it would be nice to put a little more emphasis on the QUALITY and NOT QUANTITY when it comes to life. Reproducing is easy. Living a happy and fullfilled life is not!
We have turned capitalist even in our perceptions of humanity. Quantity is valued over quality. Why is there this intense focus on preserving life at all cost? Has anyone stopped and asked where's the utility? What is the point?
Instead of getting lost in a web of nebulous arguments let's look at some examples of what I'm talking about here.
1. Abortion. It was pointed out to me that the question of abortion comes down to the question of when life starts. That's examing the question from the quantity perspective again - preserving life at all cost. What about the quality? Shouldn't a mother have a right to decide whether she wants to carry a baby for nine months and nurture it for 15-20 years afterwards? What happens to her job/career? What if she's a single mom? What if she's been raped? What about the child that she's going to bring into this world. Can she support it? Is she willing to leave that child at the mercy of others through adoption? What about the quality of life for a child that's not wanted?
2. Euthanasia. We love life so much that we submit other people to a prolonged, torturous death by preventing them from dying. That's how much we love life. We'll drug you to the point where you won't know who you are, but we won't let you die. What's the point?
3. Danger. "Do not worry citizen! We're working dilligently on making sure you live a very long and dull life!" A person cannot ride a bike without a helmet. Cannot drive a car without a seatbelt. Cannot take "bad" drugs. Cannot drink alcohol until 21, but can enlist and command heavy weaponry in order to kill that precious life we work so hard to preserve. Certain sex acts are illegal for crying out loud - of course, only to protect people's moral fortitude.
All I have to say is that it would be nice to put a little more emphasis on the QUALITY and NOT QUANTITY when it comes to life. Reproducing is easy. Living a happy and fullfilled life is not!
posted by z @ 4:54 AM
11 Comments:
At 8:41 AM,
Rama said…
I agree on some counts. The abortion issue I'm not definitive on. Part of me thinks that it should be banned, because you knew what the consequences of being sexually active were, and therefore must live with it (and yes, I know there's exceptions to this). But then there's this other part of me that won't allow the government to tell an individual what they can do with their body (I personally would never have one, but I don't think we should deny that option to someone else).
I agree on the euthanasia issue you brought up. If I have to live on pills everyday of the week, and see the doctor twice a week at age 70, then I'd rather not be alive. That's not life, it's just existence.
This is where I jump back and forth between being a republican (preserve life) and a democrat (let the individual choose for themselves).
At 9:11 AM,
Anonymous said…
Quality of life is something that may or may not be improved, and usually the choice sits with the individual (there are those who have found fullfilling lives even with terminal, pain-filled conditions). 'Quality' has a lot of grey area, options, and alternative solutions. But I'm betting its awfully hard to improve the quality of life of someone who's dead.
But you already know where I stand ;-)
E.
At 11:33 AM,
nell said…
I tend to agree with you on many points. However, as has been pointed out, who defines the quality of life, especially if the person in question is unable to speak for him or herself? In many respects, quantity here is easier for people (and I'm not saying that's the right path) because it's very easy to say, ok, this person still has a pulse as long as they are hooked up to this machine, therefore they are alive and will be for X amount of time. It's not so easy to say, this person is a vegetable, therefore they have no quality of life. I'm betting that being a vegetable sucks ass. But we don't know and we probably never will, and that poses problems for many people.
Add to that the uncertainty of the afterlife, and it's easy to see why so many people are against the idea of 'quality' if it means the end of someone's life (does it also mean the end of their existence? Or is there an afterlife?) How do we know we're doing someone a favor? This is why living wills are so, so important -- as a means of removing the burden of choice from the loved ones.
But again, because death, afterlife, and the existence of a soul are so debateable and unknown, people just don't want to risk it. Life, although mysterious, is not an unknown. It's our existence, and we may bitch about it and hate it, but it's all we really know.
It is also about making choices, and I think as humans we are always concerned about what kind of choice we're making. Is it the right choice? Is it the right time to choose? Am I the right person to make the choice? We are paralyzed by our ability to make choices.
At 12:05 PM,
nell said…
Also, if you want some good reading about the wretchedness of poverty, I can recommend By the Lake of Sleeping Children by Luis Urrea.
At 4:19 AM,
z said…
Sam - your last paragraph is funny and true. The Republicans are supposedly always for individual rights and the Democrats are supposed to be for a big state that protects the individual from themselves. Funny how tables turn on some issues.
With libertarianism you get the best of both worlds - fiscal conservativism and personal liberties. And it so simple - government reduction. Funny how Republicans have abandoned that whole idea these days.
Regarding abortion - the whole bit about consequences is not fair. Does that mean that if you get an STD we should deny you medicine and let you die? I think the only way abortion can be argued as an issue is "preserving life". That argument is extremely difficult to resolve because it comes down to morals.
At 4:28 AM,
z said…
E. - Yes, I agree that people can live happy and productive lives even in the most extreme circumstances. I also agree that you cannot mandate 'improving quality of life'.
The thing though is that both of these should come down to personal choices and the government should not get involved. If an individual thinks they can live a happy and productive life that's great. However, if they would rather not - that should be their choice as well.
And as far as quality goes - leaving it to the individual to tailor quality would be the optimal solution. If I choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet (or a car without a seatbelt) I should be able to sign a waiver (if married both parties would need to do so) stating that I know what I am doing and I choose the actions and accept the consequences. Mandating a need for medical/life insurance (which of course would be higher) could be a reasonable requirement.
At 4:43 AM,
z said…
Nellie - Yes, absolutely. It could be a reasonable requirement to keep people alive who cannot express their wishes either way. The important caveat should be that the family/relatives/donors would need to pay for the care.
I am mostly talking about enabling people to make a decision and say - i've lived my life to the fullest and now i don't want to spend the next 5-10 years wasting away. Surely, at this time people are able to do so themselves (interestingly there is some suspicion that Hunter S. Thompson may have made that very decision - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20050223/ap_on_re_us/thompson_death_1), but it still seems to me that it would be humane to allow doctors (who choose to do so) to help people go quickly, quetly and in a dignified manner (an argument could be made that blowing one's head off with a shotgun is not necessarily dignified).
At 4:45 AM,
z said…
nellie - thanks for the book recommendation. i'm afraid i won't read it though - there is a lot of sadness in the world and i usually don't go actively looking for it.
At 11:44 AM,
nell said…
Same here. I actually had to read it for class. On a normal basis, I read to escape, not be confronted with reality :)
At 1:33 PM,
Anonymous said…
The issue with seat-belts and helmets, and any risk factor, is that there is a dollar cost to society. In an emergency, everyone is treated. It simply costs more to treat people whose head has been squished (I debated this issue in high school, prior to said debate I was very against laws requiring seat belt use). If those people dont have insurance, you and I pay extra because they didnt want to wear a helmet. Akin to this conversation, a blog I read at dubiousquality.blogspot has a story about a college editor in IA or somewhere who wrote an awful lot of op-eds about not having to wear seat belts, until he was killed in a car crash everyone else survived because they were wearing seat belts.
At 2:59 PM,
z said…
Matt - certainly (and somewhat unfortunately) we cannot give a carte blanche to people when it comes to safety mostly due to the related costs to society. These costs go well beyond medical treatment to also account for possible disability, wellfare for the family, finding foster homes for kids, etc.
I think it would make sense to allow people the ability to engage in risky behaviour with proper checks and balances. Permits could be issued for which one would have to pay a fee and prove they have both medical and life insurance.
While a ban is often a quick and easy solution to a complex problem at some point we have to limit government's ability to intefere with our personal lives and decisions. In instances where that is necessary for the good of the society it is imperative that we strive to preserve the individual's right to choose while safeguarding society at the same time. A balance can be achieved with some effort.
Post a Comment
<< Home