I'm puzzled by it.
I think it depends on my quality of life and how much my survival demands others to make efforts on my behalf.
We all take it for granted that we want to fight disease, but is this another of those illusions like thinking we need lots of money!
At the moment, part of me is inclined to take the consequences of taking no action if I get a major disease, but in practice, I immediately think that I must take care of myself if something is affecting my health.
From a great site with photographs by Mark Story. Some very interesting comments which gave me a perspective!
3 comments:
Assuming the inevitability of decay, physical and/or mental, there must come a point when continuing to exist becomes undesirable or irrelevant. Personally I feel I have a right to go before that point and the state has no right to interfere.
Whether I would have the will is another matter.
If technology provides a way of avoiding, or substantially delaying, decay, then it becomes a completely different ball game. However, indefinite life does not particularly appeal (think of the weight of memory and what would you actually do?). It would also be logistically impossible - we cannot support the existing transient population of the world at anything like a reasonable standard, never mind an indefinitely increasing population.
I realise that there will be a time when I am unable to understand or communicate with the other people I'm living amongst. Learning new stuff is becoming increasingly difficult!
I also feel that I shall want to be self sufficient so would welcome a phasing out of my state and other pensions and only use private Health care.
I think I put a high value on feeling good about myself and think this would be important.
I wonder hope realistic I'm being!
The test will come in the not too distant future . . . .
What do Kamikase Pilots have to tell us about the value of life and when to die?
Interview with one at http://www.japanvisitor.com/index.php?cID=359&pID=1089
Post a Comment