recently, there has been a lot of debate about euthanasia... and it was not surprising that many religious groups - the catholic church, the islamic council, the taoist association, and so on - have come out condemning it. all sang the same tune of respecting life and that we should not try to be god. and as i read, i wondered aloud - all these while, by deciding to save lives, are we not already playing god? why must we use start to use god as an excuse when it comes discussing euthanasia?
since time memoria, nature's law have revolved around survival of the fittest. and at the individual-level, if we are not fit for whatever reasons such as falling sick, meeting with accident, and so on, by the laws of nature (and if i may suggest, god), we should perish... if we really want to let god be the judge, then we should do away with saving lives altogether!
on the other hand, we might jolly well be doing our species a disfavour by saving those `unfit' persons with medical advances. people who are weak for whatever reasons will continue to transfer their genes to their offspring and over a prolonged period of time, weaken our gene pool. already, we can see the population getting weaker and weaker... people today are less resistant to diseases... over time, what will appear would be a species of human being not different from one who has aids (heh heh.. not exactly, but you get the idea) except that he does not actually have it - having to live in sterile conditions, susceptible to all sorts of diseases... and every small virus would have the potential of developing into an epidemic that might wipe out the entire species... all these mean one thing - that in saving lives mean a larger disservice to the species as a whole in the long run... no?
anyway, regarding the debate about euthanasia, i find the whole discussion rather interesting. i am one who is neutral to euthanasia and i believe that there might be just be some benefits discussing through how it could be framed and approached. rather than coming outright decrying and condemning the whole issue, why not discuss through what the real issue is in the first place? from a holistic perspective, there are real issues about managing terminally sick, ensuring proper care for the terminally sick, helping the terminally sick transit with dignity and comfort... the ultimate act of pulling the plug (or for that matter, deciding to put the terminally sick onto a plug in the first place) can be distilled to a single action, perhaps what is different is - who makes the decision. aren't they simply a case of different sides of a same coin?
whatever the outcome, the process of discussing about this issue as a society should provide everyone the clarity of how we, a society as a whole, should approach healthcare holistically.
since time memoria, nature's law have revolved around survival of the fittest. and at the individual-level, if we are not fit for whatever reasons such as falling sick, meeting with accident, and so on, by the laws of nature (and if i may suggest, god), we should perish... if we really want to let god be the judge, then we should do away with saving lives altogether!
on the other hand, we might jolly well be doing our species a disfavour by saving those `unfit' persons with medical advances. people who are weak for whatever reasons will continue to transfer their genes to their offspring and over a prolonged period of time, weaken our gene pool. already, we can see the population getting weaker and weaker... people today are less resistant to diseases... over time, what will appear would be a species of human being not different from one who has aids (heh heh.. not exactly, but you get the idea) except that he does not actually have it - having to live in sterile conditions, susceptible to all sorts of diseases... and every small virus would have the potential of developing into an epidemic that might wipe out the entire species... all these mean one thing - that in saving lives mean a larger disservice to the species as a whole in the long run... no?
anyway, regarding the debate about euthanasia, i find the whole discussion rather interesting. i am one who is neutral to euthanasia and i believe that there might be just be some benefits discussing through how it could be framed and approached. rather than coming outright decrying and condemning the whole issue, why not discuss through what the real issue is in the first place? from a holistic perspective, there are real issues about managing terminally sick, ensuring proper care for the terminally sick, helping the terminally sick transit with dignity and comfort... the ultimate act of pulling the plug (or for that matter, deciding to put the terminally sick onto a plug in the first place) can be distilled to a single action, perhaps what is different is - who makes the decision. aren't they simply a case of different sides of a same coin?
whatever the outcome, the process of discussing about this issue as a society should provide everyone the clarity of how we, a society as a whole, should approach healthcare holistically.
No comments:
Post a Comment