“DEATH WITH DIGNITY”
Who hasn't heard of the founder of
ethical medical practice, Hippocrates, or at least of that
oath of his that doctors take? I'd bet hardly anyone reading this would
even consider googling his name. But did you know what that oath was
really all about?
By pledging to “first do no harm,”
and to avoid medicines that were known to cause abortions,
Hippocrates reveals to us two profundities:
- He had a deep sense of the sacredness of life, both living and unborn;
- He was reacting to a medical culture around him, a culture where one could apparently buy off a doc to have him commit murder-for-hire!
Thus, Hippocrates insisted that his
trainees should make a solemn oath to provide unbiased, ethical care
for all patients.
Over this last week, the sad case of
Brittany Maynard brought to light once again the issue of “death
with dignity.”
AKA, suicide.
AKA, a doctor slipped the ethical
bounds that should transcend historically-ungrounded state laws. A
doctor prescribed for her exactly what Hippocrates pledged to never
do.
Why is this case touted as “changing
the debate”?* Because our ADHD-addled media refuses to look long
enough in the rear-view mirror of history to realize that the only
reframing of the topic is that now we have a social media that
multiplies the sense of proximity of this sad story. However, the
story is as old as Job: “I'm suffering and wish I could die.”
Job, you may argue, did not have terminal cancer. True. Neither do
many of those who are terminating their lives in the Low
Countries...as Belgium
and the Netherlands
are setting what I regard as unfortunate standards in this pursuit of
“death must be better than living.”
No, in the Hippocratic, Hebrew, and
Christian philosophies, life has meaning, above and beyond and
through suffering. No, suffering is not good—don't trot out that
old saw—nobody with any sense is arguing that, and if you insist
that's what I'm saying...shut up, you're not listening to me but to
your a priori conceptions. [Buh-bye!]
[Alas, there are some out there who might indeed argue or misstate that suffering is good. NO! There may come good fruit, as the Bible asserts, but suffering is not good in and of itself. Period.]
*Quote from USA Today, Mon, 11/3/14.
“She's changed the debate by changing the audience,” the article
continues. Since when do facts change because they're aired in a
different setting? Really?
No comments:
Post a Comment
I would appreciate and might even enjoy your dialogue!