[Marxism] Re: RE: My two cents on the Schiavo case

hari.kumar at sympatico.ca hari.kumar at sympatico.ca
Sun Mar 27 11:12:54 MST 2005

Responding to:
1.  (Joaqu?n Bustelo)
8. RE: My two cents on the Schiavo case (davidquarter at sympatico.ca)
9. RE: My two cents on the Schiavo case (Joaqu?n Bustelo)
14. Re: My two cents on the Schiavo case (Lueko Willms)"

(1) Bustelo's commentary was a fairly un-emotive one. It met with a somewhat openly emotive & 'loaded' one from Luke. 

(2) Luke's csae of "David Jayne, a 42 year old man with ALS" - is imply not comparable to that of the  Schiavo case. The hallmark of ALS is that cerebral mentation and higher functions are kept intact. The need for a ventilator is because the anterior Motor Neorone cells die - which control movement. The brain itself is not rotted out in most cases until later - & then usually at brain stem level only. 

This is a physiologically unwarranted extrapolation to the case under discussion.

(3) Mr Jayne feels that: "Twelve years ago, Jayne would have dismissed this existence as a living hell."

Well no one has ever said that:
(i) Opinions about the Health Related QUality of LIfe (HRQL) do not change;
(ii) That "SOCIETY" should make these decisions in isolation from what is known about the thoughts of the individual concerned prior to onset of debilitating disease, as argued here.
"It is incredibly wrong for society to decide who lives or dies based on their opinions of what level of quality of life is worth living."
(iii) I know of several sufferers from ALS who have made decisions in complete contrast to those of Mr Jayne.  
No one should be able to deny that individual decision. 

Comments by David Quarters regarding views of other disabled peoples' own perspectives, is a rectification of societal 'un-interest' of their viewpoints. But - it should not be a vehicle by which to ram thier own views down an individuals family's ability to make decisions as best for them. 

In counselling at end of life, I have been often in a position where some activists push their own agenda against the wishes & comfort & perspectives of the family in question. This is the same arrogance that has hitherto been the sole perogative of the physicians. 
both are wrong.

(4) In ending - I have not seen as of yet, the question discussed of what and how a 'socialist society' would approach this question. What I have seen so far, is a discussion of the "_abstract_ rights and wrongs".

For example, what is the attitude for example of 'rationing' resources in a socialist society?

If Michael Perelman is here, I would be interested in his reply. 
Sorry M _ I have lost track of PEN recently!

More information about the Marxism mailing list