Already feeling better after that little rant (see previous post).
Coming back to the euthanasia issue, I have some questions for you to toss about. Feel free to write in with your insights. I'll post them.
1. Do we have a moral obligation to prolong life if prolongation is possible?
2. Does the quality of the prolonged life figure at all in the decision to prolong it? E.g., is life in a vegetative state desirable on the off-chance that that state might someday be reversed? Oh, yes-- the abortion-related conundrum: does the issue of personhood figure into questions about vegetative states?
3. If we have such a moral obligation (to prolong life when possible), is it morally wrong for me to, say, sign a Do Not Resuscitate order or one of those "no heroic measures" writs?
4. (3) above seems to imply a very murky boundary between being left alone to die naturally and suicide. Your thoughts? What is the shape of that boundary?
5. Or to ask it more plainly: what is suicide? Does the term cover a choice to die naturally, i.e., without medical attempts to prolong life and/or deal with the problem?
6. What does all this mean for aging? Are we morally obligated to find ways to prolong the average human life expectancy?
I could think of more questions, but I have to take a shit.
_
No comments:
Post a Comment
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING!
All comments are subject to approval before they are published, so they will not appear immediately. Comments should be civil, relevant, and substantive. Anonymous comments are not allowed and will be unceremoniously deleted. For more on my comments policy, please see this entry on my other blog.