If you're reading this, you would have most probably saw (and clicked) the link in my "other blog" just to "check it out". But probably not.

At any rate, you're reading this probably because:


- You're a very bored person with nothing else better to do (or read).
- You like poking into blogs with cannily weird headings, for the sake of seeing whats the meat of it.
- You like ambiguous issues, of which there are rarely any real answers, if at all.
- You typed something in google and clicked "I'm feeling lucky"




Still, since you're already here. Might as well read. harhar =P

Feb 2, 2009

Right to live. Licence to die?

One of the major controversies and disputes in our modern, educated world today is one that is of intrinsic nature.



A human's choice to continue living and endure the challenge of life as always,
or to accept one's self into the realms of Death itself, as a means to relief further suffering.




Premature end of life. A loose analogy might be the cutting of a rope, before the fire from one end of it burns its way to the other end of the rope and ends its supposed route, which would have signify the completion of the fire's purpose. With the premature cutting of the rope, thus the whole process is cut off.

Usually, the ones who have a desire to put a premature end to their lives have legitimate reasons to do so, and by "legitimate" I mean due to old age combined with loneliness (eg. loss of spouse, no other family members or they don't care anymore), multiple chronic diseases/illnesses, or, an extension to the previous case ; extreme pain (whether physical or mental) endured by a person, which is long lasting (or usually, permanent), and cannot be truly treated.

An excerpt from this website

"The 'right to life' including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life up to the point of death including a dignified procedure of death. In other words, this may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. But the 'right to die' with dignity at the end of life is not to be confused or equaled with the 'right to die' an un-natural death curtailing the natural span of life."

"It is argued that right to die respects the individual's right to self-determination or his right of privacy. Interference with that right can only be justified if it is to protect essential social values, which is not the case where patients suffering unbearably at the end of their lives request to die when no alternatives exist. Not allowing the right to die would come down to forcing people to suffer against their will, which would be cruel and a negation of their human rights and dignity. Every person has a right to live with at least a minimum dignity and when the state of his existence falls below even that minimum level then he must be allowed to end such tortuous existence. In such cases relief from suffering (rather than preserving life) should be the primary objective."

That excerpt says it all. Should a human really endure the suffering and numerous pains just for the sake of continuity of life? Continuity of an already agonising life, without purpose?

Before I speak my mind, here are some other believes, philosophy, or thoughts:
Neutral stance.

"Suicide is justified when man's life, owing to circumstances outside of a person's control, is no longer possible; an example might be a person with a painful terminal illness, or a prisoner in a concentration camp who sees no chance of escape. In cases such as these, suicide is not necessarily a philosophic rejection of life or of reality. On the contrary, it may very well be their tragic reaffirmation. Self-destruction in such contexts may amount to the tortured cry: "Man's life means so much to me that I will not settle for anything less. I will not accept a living death as a substitute."
- Leonard Peikoff

"The emphasis on the power of the individual to create meaning is rejected, and acknowledge that all things are equally meaningless, including suicide."
-Nihilistic belief
Support for the "Right-to-die"

"A person's life belongs only to him or her, and no other person has the right to force their own ideals that life must be lived. Rather, only the individual involved can make such decision, and whatever decision he or she does make, should be respected."
- Liberalistic belief

Jean Améry (who himself committed suicide in 1978) argues forcefully and almost romantically that suicide represents the ultimate freedom of humanity, justifying the act with phrases such as "we only arrive at ourselves in a freely chosen death" and lamenting "ridiculously everyday life and its alienation".

"When life is so burdensome, death has become for man a sought-after refuge".
-Herodotus


Against the notion of "suicide"

"Natural law forbids every man to do, that which is destructive of his life, or take away the means of preserving the same"
-Hobbes, from this book Leviathan

"The absurd man will not commit suicide; he wants to live, without relinquishing any of his certainty, without a future, without hope, without illusions ... and without resignation either. He stares at death with passionate attention and this fascination liberates him. He experiences the 'divine irresponsibility' of the condemned man"
-Sartre (an existentialist), while describing the position of Meursault (person), the protagonist of Albert Camus' novel L’Étranger who is condemned to death.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.
-
Point 2281 of the Catechism

I won't preach too much religion here. Check it out if you want.


My 2 cents? (c'mon, I've got more than 2 cents)

For me, I wouldn't choose to take my own life. If I were to base on Christian values, suicide = eternally scaling the fiery wasteland of hell. As I believe that suicide is akin to murder. Murder own self, that is. Deliberate taking of one's life. Which in this case is the taking of one's own life. So thats in the Christian's perspective.

But on the other hand, if I were ALREADY inflicted with a multitude of affliction, hmm lets name a few:
- Cancer
- Myocardial infarction
- Myocarditis
- stroke
- Parkinson's disease
- Some stage of Alzheimer's disease.
-
hemiplegia
- aortic dissection

(Though then again, if I had aortic dissection, I'm as good as dead. 80% mortality rate)

Now, not to say IF I got all of those listed above (takes some seriously screwed up
disposition with God/luck/karma for ALL to happen. Blimey) but even if it were just one, or between 2-3 (and thats excessively morbid already, mind), it will be torturous. Perhaps hopelessness does set in. And if say I'm already very old and my darrrrliiiinggg (whoever that would be) has already returned to the Lord, kids all over the world hardly bothering how the old man (by that time? yeah) then, there'll honestly be nothing left to fight for.

But still, even if I were to die, considering the affliction I would already be going through, I'll be pretty sure that anytime I'll undergo some form of cardiac arrest, heart attack or some form of seizure, I'll perhaps just request that I not be resuscitated should such an event occur, thus leading to what would be "natural death". So in a sense, I don't deliberately bring death upon myself, but let it happen naturally, should it happen. That way, I won't really be condemned for "killing myself" but instead, let "nature take it's course", so to speak.

So in a nutshell, I wouldn't approve deliberately killing myself, should I be faced with such agony. But should some seizure or attack that will take my life happen, I'll be able to say bye-bye without burdening anyone else anymore.


But that was just MY 2 cents.
(can hardly get me a sweet)

Still. The debate goes on. Should people exercise their right to die, as they have the right to live? Is it ethical? Should it be part of our modernistic lives?





We may never find a true solution to this issue.









Yet.

Jan 31, 2009

Who's wrong? Who's right? Who's left?

Israel vs Hamas

After a strained 6 month cease fire period, rockets and mortars slam deep into Israeli territory, supposedly a provocative attack by Hamas militants. US condemns the attack which they say is "...
responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza."

Israel, being damn pissed, launches what would be a 22-day land and air offensive, supposedly with the main aim of "busting out Hamas militants' strategic locations to cripple them" as well as "knocking out tunnels through which weapons are smuggled", which would however eventually lead to the flattening of about half of the Gaza region. Destruction of homes. Death of about approximately 1000+ Palestinians, militants and civilians alike, with the innocent people bearing the huge brunt of losses.

There have been some intelligence report suggesting that Hamas militants may have quite likely disguised themselves as civilians to "make it harder" for the Israeli troops to distinguish between militants, and civilians. Perhaps that may have just made the Israeli's throw caution (literally) to the wind and just shell every damn thing they can probably find, including homes, media centres, schools, hospitals, ambulance. C'mon. Hospitals and ambulances too? Isn't that a clear violation of the 4th Geneva Convention? Medical healthcare teams are neutral. Not firing practice targets. And the large death toll of civilians throughout the course of the conflict (estimated at 900-odd) with many more injured, coupled with the lower kill rate of militants (no sufficiently accurate figure as of yet) puts Israel on a pedestal. One thats placed on a furnace and underneath a column of spikes. Their actions throughout the war has drawn widespread criticism and hatred, more so from Muslim nations. Their acts also include the use of inhumanely vicious weapons such as white phosphorus (which burns through skin, tissues and bone till it runs out) and mini pellets so minute they get embedded deep into the body, rupturing tissues and matter within, such that doctors cannot even properly detect the source of the injury.


While we can lambast Israel for resorting to such monstrous acts, we should not forget the other side of the conflict too, the Hamas group. Knowing the extent of what Israel can and will do, the Hamas group, still defiantly (if you would like to think of it that way) continued its smuggling operations and continued smashing rockets into Israeli territory, (again if you like to think of it as such) ignoring the welfare of it's people, even to the extent of..whether intentionally or otherwise - using civilians as cannon fodder. In the aftermath of the massacre of the Gaza strip, the compensation offered by the Hamas group is, in my opinion, hardly of help to the people who have suffered greatly under the constant air-strikes and shelling of the Israeli troops, that has not only taken away homes and livelihood, but lives as well. Lives of those who perhaps in actuality, wanted nothing to do with this conflict. Children, whose innocence clearly seen and felt, were never spared from the cruel edges of death itself.

One might argue that Palestinians had a right to fight to reclaim the land that Israeli's have taken and controlled, to take back what is rightfully theirs. But at what cost? Thousands of lives? The suffering and agony endured by those blameless?


Then comes the question.
Who really is to blame? Was this the right thing for Israel to do? Can anything be done to rectify the damage?

Here are the thoughts from some quarters:

"Israel will not be able to topple Hamas unless it fully reoccupies Gaza, and it will probably not be able even to stop the rocket attacks on its cities without some kind of political settlement. For that, Israel will need the mediation of Egypt, Saudi Arabia or other Sunni states. Israel must be careful not to allow its military campaign to undermine its own diplomatic end game -- or to hand another political victory to an Iranian regime that remains a far greater threat to Israel than Hamas is."
-Washington Post editorial board. Mixed stance.


"The military surge devised by General David Petraeus succeeded in destroying al-Qaeda's operational effectiveness in Iraq, thereby allowing the Iraqi government to start taking responsibility for governing the country. Israel needs to adopt a similar strategy in Gaza, not least because a large proportion of the civilian Palestinian population would dearly love to see an end to Hamas's unwelcome interference in their affairs."
-Con Coughlin, through The Daily Telegraph. In support of the move.


"If Israel hoped to break Hamas' hold on Gaza it has gone precisely the wrong way about it. Its leaders have done this many times before, repeatedly misreading the way Arab societies work. They believe that if they hit Gaza (or Lebanon) hard enough, the local population will blame Hamas (or Hezbollah) for bringing tragedy upon them. But it doesn't work like that. Instead, Gazans blame Israel - and close ranks with Hamas."
-Jonathan Freedland through The Guardian. Against the move.

"What is urgently needed now is: an internationally monitored ceasefire, of sufficient duration to resume and conclude negotiations on that basis; for Israel then to lift the blockade; and for new elections to decide who speaks for the Palestinians – Fatah, whose position is fast being eroded by this crisis, Hamas, or a combination of them both."
-Financial Times editorial board. Against the move.

More in this list of opinions.

So who feels the major brunt of the conflict?
Palestinian civilians. Even children. Imagine.

And whats left behind out of this conflict?
Devastation. Despair.
Death.



From this bloody conflict, who's wrong? Who's right?



And who is left?