An interesting piece you posted. I can see both redeeming and condemning qualities in it which is interesting.
On the one paw the man whom spent all those years in prison was able to relinquish what he felt was the cause of his pain and anguish. By snuffing out the father whom he felt was apart of the reason he ended up in jail he basically is able to start life anew again. The piece also pointed out cycliable behaviors happen in part because the party involved knows no other method of dealing with an issue. Breaking of cycles is what therapy is supposed to do but when there is coursely embeded embitterment the cycle often can only be broken by removing the source. With the fathers death the cycle could be broken dependent upon the choices the son makes. He reached closure in his own unique way though disturbing as it is and just mabye he can follow a different path IF he knew a different path to take. Interesting synopsis and situation regardless.
On the other paw the man technically committed a murder since the father was still technically alive. I say technically because if this were 20yrs earlier the technology that is supporting the life wouldn't exist and being a braindead vegetable with no chance of recovery is a human about as alive as a set of roses plopped into a vase without water. Yes the rose is technically alive but you know it won't survive without the water or his case the feeding tube and some form of breathing apparatus.
It leaves a good moral delimia though for sure, What constitutes life?
To me life may as well end when someone no longer is able to function within society even in the smallest part. The notion of spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to keep someone whom is basically a human shell with no chance of recovery has sickened me. I know in the USA that the way death works is as such, once you exhausted all of your personal ways and means to support yourself then medicare will kick in and pay your expenses.
So since death is prolonged medically like this scenario all that families worldly wealth is allowed to be pumped into keeping the corpse on life support and the family ends up with nothing. In fact often times they end up with a pile of debt from funeral expense or other non preplanned death expenditures. Its pretty sad.
I feel there are lives worth saving and others not worth the effort. I feel its better to allow a family to distribute wealth to end up with a small windfall that can help them with life than have it end up in the pockets of the health care industry, Nursing homes and funeral homes and morticians.
When your bedridden, braindead and unable to perform life giving motions like breathing without the assistive help of a machine and and unable to assist society anymore with no chance of recovery you become a liability.
At that point your basically a living shell even if you can sorta murmur and move a finger. A chopped off lizard tail without a brain can wiggle, doesn't mean its technically living. Life constitututes for me some form of motor function/movement and the ability to effectively breathe without assistive help. There is a difference between recovery and prolonging. The scenario of this passage to me signified prolongnation of inevitable death.
Ahem...but but I agree with you on that dilemma part. Making decisions of life and death is never easy, but we all just have to give it a try at some point of our lives, I reckon.
Personally I'd nail it down to free will. When a person no longer has free will to end his/her own suffering then it is a fellow man's right to bring him/her peace, by death if needed.
On the one paw the man whom spent all those years in prison was able to relinquish what he felt was the cause of his pain and anguish. By snuffing out the father whom he felt was apart of the reason he ended up in jail he basically is able to start life anew again. The piece also pointed out cycliable behaviors happen in part because the party involved knows no other method of dealing with an issue. Breaking of cycles is what therapy is supposed to do but when there is coursely embeded embitterment the cycle often can only be broken by removing the source. With the fathers death the cycle could be broken dependent upon the choices the son makes. He reached closure in his own unique way though disturbing as it is and just mabye he can follow a different path IF he knew a different path to take. Interesting synopsis and situation regardless.
On the other paw the man technically committed a murder since the father was still technically alive. I say technically because if this were 20yrs earlier the technology that is supporting the life wouldn't exist and being a braindead vegetable with no chance of recovery is a human about as alive as a set of roses plopped into a vase without water. Yes the rose is technically alive but you know it won't survive without the water or his case the feeding tube and some form of breathing apparatus.
It leaves a good moral delimia though for sure, What constitutes life?
To me life may as well end when someone no longer is able to function within society even in the smallest part. The notion of spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to keep someone whom is basically a human shell with no chance of recovery has sickened me. I know in the USA that the way death works is as such, once you exhausted all of your personal ways and means to support yourself then medicare will kick in and pay your expenses.
So since death is prolonged medically like this scenario all that families worldly wealth is allowed to be pumped into keeping the corpse on life support and the family ends up with nothing. In fact often times they end up with a pile of debt from funeral expense or other non preplanned death expenditures. Its pretty sad.
I feel there are lives worth saving and others not worth the effort. I feel its better to allow a family to distribute wealth to end up with a small windfall that can help them with life than have it end up in the pockets of the health care industry, Nursing homes and funeral homes and morticians.
When your bedridden, braindead and unable to perform life giving motions like breathing without the assistive help of a machine and and unable to assist society anymore with no chance of recovery you become a liability.
At that point your basically a living shell even if you can sorta murmur and move a finger. A chopped off lizard tail without a brain can wiggle, doesn't mean its technically living. Life constitututes for me some form of motor function/movement and the ability to effectively breathe without assistive help. There is a difference between recovery and prolonging. The scenario of this passage to me signified prolongnation of inevitable death.
Reply
Ahem...but but I agree with you on that dilemma part. Making decisions of life and death is never easy, but we all just have to give it a try at some point of our lives, I reckon.
Personally I'd nail it down to free will. When a person no longer has free will to end his/her own suffering then it is a fellow man's right to bring him/her peace, by death if needed.
Just my two cents.
Reply
Leave a comment