When Torment is Baby's Destiny, Euthanasia is Defended
I have to say, personally, I'm in favor of euthanasia. And there's precedent for it, if you think about it. In the "old days," if a baby was born with some horrid ailment, what did they do? They left it out for the vultures, pretty much.
People talk about the sanctity of an infant's life. While I think that babies are wonderful, and life is wonderful, and so on, I also think that an infant is about potential. For example, if a lioness doesn't have enough food to eat, she feeds herself before she feeds her babies. Why? Because she can have more babies. But the baby, without a mother, can't even have a life.
I hope that doesn't sound bitter or cruel, because I mean it in a way I think makes sense. And I don't think that life support, with all the drama and cost it creates, is the best option, whether for a baby or for someone like Terri Schiavo, the woman in Florida at the center of all the controversy. I mean, the woman's been in a coma for 15 years. Her husband said he knew that it would have been her wish to not be kept alive artifically, and this instigated a riduculously expensive legal battle. How much money has this cost her family? How much money has it cost the state? Just in legal bills? Forget the inordinate amount of money which has been spent on her medical care.
I mean, I feel sad for the woman, but let's be realistic. Even if she comes out of the coma (and what are the odds of that? Less than a snowball's chance in hell), she's almost definitely brain damaged, and she's missed 15 years of her life. She's not going to understand why she looks so much different than what she remembers (if she remembers anything); she's not going to understand that her husband has tried to move on, and she sure as hell won't understand how the world got to be the way it is.
I guess that part of my attitude to all of this "sanctity of life" stuff really got a big jolt when I was in Africa last year. Because there, at least amongst the animals, it's the "Circle of life" that really prevails. You see the delicate balance of creatures who prey and creatures who are preyed upon. From the dung beetles to the grasses to the herbivores and insects to the insectivores and carnivores, there's a balance of numbers. There are enough gazelles to maintain a genetically stable population, and enough that the lions can eat as many gazelles as they need without causing the gazelles to go extinct. But the lions have their own dangers, as well. The hyena try to kill their babies; they sometimes even get attacked by the animals they're trying to hunt.
People, however, have removed themselves from the "Circle of Life." People think it's about the renewal of life, from youth to old age to more youth, but it's not. It's about the delicate balance of species, and since we're rather invincible, there are too many of us. There is not enough space. There is not enough food. There is not enough medicine.
And people are distressed that doctors think that it's OK to help a baby die, when that baby has no chance at a life?
All I can say is, get your priorities straight.
Posted by Jon at March 10, 2005 12:01 AMAfrica has an amazing way of making you see life for what it is, doesn't it? My question about all of this is that when technology and medicine make it possible for people to live extremely extended lives, and the decision-making aspect of nature is temporarily avoided, how are we supposed to decide what the value of any single life is, and who gets to make that decision? The doctors? The state? The insurance company? It rarely seems to be the person in question.
The Terri Schiavo (and the money "wasted" from it) is not about the right to die. It is about not making your individual intentions clear while you are cognizant. The current debate comes between two groups who think they know what the unconscious person really wants, mixed with a bit of what they want as well. If you really don’t want to be kept alive by machines and medicine, then you need to make that crystal clear in advance. It needs to be physically recorded and discussed with all your loved ones. For example, just because you tell your spouse during a conversation at dinner, “yah, I don’t want them to keep me alive if I am brain damaged” – does not mean that everyone is going to know what to do when that unfortunate event really happens. I can understand both sides of the Schiavo issue. The family feels like Teri is improving and they want to hold out for medial breakthroughs and her husband feels like it is pointless and she would prefer to die. Terri can’t speak, neither side is completely right – who are we outsiders to pick a side? Unfortunately the court, hearing both sides, is the only option to fairly decide the ending result.
The “sanctity of life” is important. We are similar to animals but we are still very different. If we want to live like animals – we can. However, humans are unique in that they have thought processes that rise above instinctive behavior. We are the perhaps the only animal that can mentally processes choices and restrict our behavior if we want. Sure, we are a part of the “circle of life” but it is far too simple to suggest that we should merely give into our animal tendencies and go with the flow. Jon suggests that there “there are too many of us. There is not enough space. There is not enough food. There is not enough medicine”. I think this is animal thinking. Instead of using our unique intelligence to figure out issues of how to make a heavily populated planet work, the solution is just to let people die? Get rid of some of these people who are taking up space? Should we then kill people over 75 years old because they are unproductive and have lived their life? Should we get rid of those with Downs Syndrome – after all, are they much different that Terri? Some individuals, who are heavily retarded, may not have much better brain abilities than Terri. Where do we draw the line? Who is qualified to make this god-like decision? If we were just like animals, we would have left the sick and lame animals behind long ago.
Maybe Jon is simply trying to point out that, as mortal humans, we need to better accept that we will die one day and that this is ok. I agree with this. But that is a personal enlightenment and not something to be pushed on to others. In practice, we need to respect all human life and do what we can to protect it. We can not allow ourselves to use our animal nature as an excuse for bad behavior. As Jon pointed out, the mother lioness eats before her cub if food is scarce but she has not other choice. As humans, if a mother can not support her child, we are able to develop systems and use reasoning to figure out another solution (ie: adoption and aid from other family members). Let us not allow our animal tendencies to pull us down into despair and give up. Let us use what our creator gave us and rise above the things of the natural world.