Reply to comment

I thought this link fitting to our discussion about death and medicine to prolong life. It touches upon the idea of a "death panel" in the practice of medicine, and who gets to say who lives/dies. What I find sad (or maybe even hopeful, depending on viewpoint) about it is how these issues that people are very sensitive about (whether we are for one side or another) are always used to serve political purposes.

http://2010.newsweek.com/top-10/accidental-celebrities/terri-schiavo.html

"[Terri Schiavo] became a symbol, used by politicians to curry favor with a segment of the population who view the removal of feeding tubes as euthanasia. The use of death as a political tool is long-standing: effigies burned, martyrs’ coffins marched through the streets. It remains an ugly part of rhetoric today, as opponents of health-care reform suggest “death panels” would decide whether a patient deserved the expenditure of precious dollars. But it defies description. We all face death with as much dignity as we can muster. We swing our arms out at it, pushing it away, for ourselves, certainly for our loved ones, as long as the pushing makes any sense at all. It is not unnatural that those who love the same patient might disagree about when that moment has come."

We are all selfish in one way or another when it comes to the issue of death. Every individual will find a way, through force, subtle manipulation or through other means, to ensure that the people they choose to care about will benefit first (live longer, healthier, better). The sad truth is that there is insufficient resources in the world to compensate everyone's needs--someone's loss is another's gain, and vice versa. I think of it as the modern evolution of the concept of "survival of the fittest."For me, the real question is, why is it so difficult for people to accept?