| | Developing Human Potential Without Religion |
| Part 4: Birth and Death Issues | ||
| | ||
| Where modern, industrial or non-natural methods of living life are accepted as necessary part of day to day life (like eating frozen food, Coca Cola or juices from the fridge, preserved foods, flying in aeroplanes, talking on telephone, using internet etc. etc.), then this industrial (non-natural) or modern create moral and ethical issues about creating, or ending or controlling life which are always to the fore in the personal, situational experiences of life, as well as in the broader spectra of social concerns. Many may raise moral and ethical eyebrows when the female menopause is delayed or menses restarted in a post-menopausal woman in order to make pregnancy possible again. Does it make sense to conceive at the age of sixty-plus? For many women it probably does, and they have valid reasons for spending a good deal of anxiety and money to conceive. After all, the moral and ethical eyebrows are barely raised at all for the aging male who sires a child. However, aside from the issue of post-menopausal conception, what of the woman who finds herself pregnant but, for reasons of physical, mental or social health, does not want to let the little genetic-drop to continue to grow into a fetus, (for example, what choices are there for a little girl who is raped and so is forcibly made pregnant?) It is the religious groups, in particular, who are opposed to the interference of science or medicine in the beginning of life or ending it, (although they do not protest when surgeons remove naturally-formed stones in the gall-bladder or in the kidneys; is it not human interference in the natural process in the interest of physical, mental and social health of a human-being just like in the case of woman seeking an unwanted or forced early pregnancy ?). The ignorant and medieval-minded Roman Catholic Church, for example, is against any form of artificial insemination (AI) as an answer to medical problem of infertility, even if the sperm donor is the marriage partner of the female. It regards the AI process of reproduction as non-natural, being mechanical and outside the "normal" sexual union of marriage. However, it seems that artificial heart pacemakers -- no less an intrusion into the natural body -- are quite acceptable. Equally so, it is illogically and myteriously opposed to abortion, particularly in cases of nuns carrying forced and illegitimate pregnancies out of the rapes by the Christian bishops and priests ! | ||
| Abortion is the premature expulsion or removal of the drop-like little genetic-mass from the womb of a woman to prevent its conrinuation and growth. Humanists are not always in favour of abortion on itself. They would like rather a child be conceived responsibly through choice, welcomed in a family, and have a caring environment. But these are ideal situations; not all pregnancies are wanted, not all circumstances are favourable, and some circumstances are definitely harmful to a baby to be born, as some pregnancies are harmful to the health of the mother;(for example :Female infanticide in India and Pakistan is related to the low status of femael in the society as well as the fact that women needs to be married off to others and need alienating a part of property and need dowry as well, therefore millions of female genetic-masess are aborted each year in India / Pakistan and Bangladesh that amounts togenocide by other mean ; one could also mention a custom in one tribe in Arab Bedouins of 7th century who used to bury their female babies alive as being female, or being a father of a female, was amatter of shame and dishonour !) An efficient contraception isould ideally prevent any unwanted, pregnancy. However, clearly it does not. According to the Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA) in Britain, for example, three-quarters of the women who have abortions had been using some sort of contraception. This confirms that many methods of contraception cannot guarantee absolute protection against unwanted conception. For those women who find that they cannot face pregnancy for whatever physical, mental or social circumstances, humanists believe that the choice of terminating the pregnancy is their basic human right, as it is their own body which have to carry the pregnancies, suffer from disease and discomfort during pregnancy, as well as suffer from the painful and sometimes lethal process of child delivery, especially in 3rd world countries where hundreds of thousands women die during child-delivery every year, or become physically disabled because of inefficient or inadequate services. Since humanists are devoted to enhancing the quality of life, in cases of abortion it is the quality of life of the mother as well as the genetic mass to develop as a foetus that is taken into account. If mother, child, or both are likely to suffer in case the the pregnancy is allowed to continue, then humanists generally consider that termination of that genetic maas is the morally acceptable solution. However, the classical religions like Christianity, Hinduism and Islam talk on these problems with ignorance of the whole process, and therefore are unbelieveable and untrustwothy. Few women take the choice to abort lightly and abortion clinics are only too familiar with the timidity, fear and distress of most women who cross their thresholds. Some women are happy to have many children; some do not want any at all. For each woman there is a limit beyond which the quality of life vanishes, and there is also a time when it is right to have a child and a time when it is radically wrong. "Pro-life" groups as they call themselves, (most hypocratically, they do not care for millions of deaths in Hiroshima,Vietnam or Iraq but of just the potential Christian life of a genetic mass!), or Anti-abortion Rights campaigners, often make the point that adoption, or putting a child in care, are better options than abortion. But pro-abortion rights groups demand, "Better for whom?" Certainly not for the mother, who has the added burden of carrying a genetic mass she does not want to continue, a birth process that she does not want, and then the guilt of parting with the child, if she let it go to some institution of family. And orphanages were full when abortion was illegal: clearly, without abortion there will be many unwanted children in institutional care. Bringing another human being into the world is a highly responsible and important act. Unless that being can be offered a considerable measure of quality it seems futile to bring him or her into a world where quality of life would be lacking. The fundamental rights of women mean little if they cannot have choice in matters of their own fertility. The woman is a living, conscious human being, with knowledge of the joys and vicissitudes of life. Her life, balanced against an unconscious potential life is more precious than the potential life that she carries. Without quality in her life -- in whatever way the woman understands that word -- her life expression is diminished. One of the most important criteria for terminations of pregnancies is the evidence that the foetus is seriously handicapped either mentally, physically, or both. Most women who carry a potential child in their womb are radically concerned that they will bear a "normal" baby. And only Some women will cope admirably with a handicapped child; others would never be able to cope. Given the increasing overpopulation of the planet, abortion is seen as one way of limiting population expansion. In China, for example, abortion is compulsory for those who have more than one child (though this has brought increasing evidence of infanticide for baby girls), and in Tibet, one has to have a certificate in order to become pregnan (which is clearly a repressive pracice)t. Severe financial penalties ensue for those who conceive again. In Bangladesh a choice between sterilization and starvation has been the policy in years past. In India it is often potential female-genetic-mass that are aborted, partly because of the crucial difference an extra mouth to feed can make in impoverished families, but also because a woman will normally reproduce until she has a son. Sons are socially and religiously important for maintaining parents in their old age, for status, and for important fictional religious death rites. Through its long history, Hinduism, Christianity as well as Islam have generally given the male a far greater status than the female. In fact, women were not even permitted to read certain scriptures in all these religions. In India, then, disappointment will surround the woman who gives birth to girls, when there is no boy, and since the amniocentesis test has become available, abortion has become a means of restricting family size, accounting both for the need for son(s), and for the need for a smaller family. However, to humanists, abortion as a means of curbing population expansion is misguided belief: it is efficient contraception that should do this, and this will only occur with better sex education and health services concerned with birth control. Whatever the opinion of the individual humanist about abortion itself, the humanist position is a clearly pro-choice rights one, and it is supportive of the main bodies that campaign for reform in present government legislation concerning women's right to choose. But there are those who oppose this right to choose under any circumstances, the so-called"pro-life" or "anti-abortion rights" groups. Much of the antipathy to abortion centres round the issue of foetal sentience, the fictional claim -- disputed by pro-choice campaigners -- that the genetic-mass may be capable of experiencing pain after ten weeks. Any attempt to remove the foetus from the womb may thus beinflicting a painful termination and, since it is ending potential life, is tantamount to a lethal act. But apart from the issue of the genetic-mass sentience, those opposed to a woman'choice falsely assume that life begins at conception. Any attempt at interfering with that fictional-life is believed to be wrong (however, it is often forgotten that millions of easrly genetic-masses of fetuses are automatically aborted-as an act of Allah or God-so that it should be accepted that abortion normally and aztomatically happens in nature even without intention !). Since life is falsely accepted to be present from the moment of conception, such opponents also condemn the use of abortifacients, the so-called "morning after pill", the post-coital pill that is designed to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterus during the first days of development. This indeed this is ncontraception and should not be confused with any form of abortion. Some campaigners against women's choice also believe that physical or mental disability are no grounds for abortion, pointing out that the later terminations for handicaps are sometimes for minor reasons of harelip, club foot, even impaired hearing and sight. They are opposed to what they consider a fostering of a mentality of lethal discrimination against the disabled, which is totally incorrect and equally illogical, as a potential life as as yet only potential and not real. With the advance of genetic technology, search and terminate attitude although criticized seems justified, particularly since care of the severely disabled child and adult can make great demands on the health of the mother, and on the welfare of the family if not on the social services. Opponents of women'schoice also fear the acceptance of termination of those severely handicapped at birth, a practice that normally doesn't obtain in hospitals. But the cases of women's choice because of a potentially handicapped child are very few compared to those on grounds of harm to the mental and physical well-being of the mother, or to her existing family. In Britain women must gain authorization from two medical practitioners before termination is permitted, yet campaigners against women's choice claim that reasons given are social reasons and amount to " women's choice on demand". They are opposed to any reform in the abortion law that might allow women to terminate early pregnancy through their own choice. The unborn child, wrongly or rightly, is always seen as a separate human being from its mother, with a potentially unique and separate personality, having a right to life both before and after its birth, although it is a fact that a genetic mass maturing into a feutus remains part of the body of a women « bones of her bones, flesh of her flesh and blood of her blood » till delivery, therfore it is a potential person encumbered by the mother's person of which it remains a parasite and dependent even for its potenteality for life. (Is it not part of mother's flesh till delivery, and why should she suffer forced prgnancy, diseaases of pregnancy, death, disease and injury during delivery without her consent ?). Underlying these ideas is a medieval-minded religious ideology that only Allah or God has the right to give and take life. The Roman Catholic position, for example, is staunchly anti-Women's choice (and officially anti-contraception), as is the Muslim position. In Muslim religious law, life is given by Allah right from the beginning as a nutfah, a drop of fluid in the mother's womb. This drop of fluid, Muslims believe, is planned, programmed and cared for by Allah, and should not be terminated. The "soul" is believed to enter thegenetic mass called at 120 days. But even Islam, as Anglican Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, accepts that termination is essential if the mother's life is in serious danger. These, then, are some of the views put forward by those who oppose woman's choice. It is worth reiterating that humanists are pro-choice: while not favouring unjustified abortion in itself, they recognize the need for each woman to choose her own path in the face of pregnancy. When a woman first knows that she is pregnant, she will hardly react passively whether married or not: whether in reasonable social and mental health or not, whether she is victom of rape ?. Whether such information is accepted with happiness or despair, her life is radically affected and changed from that very moment. Advice, counselling, care and dialogue are essential at such a time, but only the woman herself can make the ultimate decision after due guidance, whether her pregnancy is wanted, forced or unwanted, and if the latter, it asks a great deal to deny her the right to terminate what will affect her life radically thereafter. | ||
| The word euthanasia is sometimes referred to as "mercy killing"; that is to say, it is the act of ending a life of one who has no hope of recovery from a terminal and extremely painful illness. It is generally thought of as an act of compassion, that in most countries is illegal. The connotation of ending suffering is reflected in the Greek origins of the word eu-thanatos where it meant "an easy or painless death." Today euthanasia suggests some kind of assistance in the process of death, in order to end suffering. It is something often done for animals, but generally remains illegal for human beings. Buddha and other ancieent traditions: When Buddha was more than 80 years old, he found that he could not continue to live indpendently and gracefully. Therefore one evening he arranaged to cook poisonous mushrooms for his dinner, and after dinner he invited his disciples, gave his final sermon and died of his own accord with peace and dignity. There had also been a tradition in ancient Greece and other ancient civiizations for terminating one's life peacefully. Similarly in ancient India when somebody wanted to terminate his life for one or the other reason, he had to inform the state which investigated the sanity and the problem and gave him 7 days to re-consider before he was allowed to end his life in full view of the public. We all have to die, but none of us wants to end life in perpetual pain and dreadful suffering. But the fact is that some of us may have to. And if that time comes, and we know that there is no hope of recovery, and all that remains is the long and painful slide to the point of death, then the decision to cut short a life of suffering seems very sensible to many people. There are two issues involved here: first, should we have the right to decide when, in certain circumstances, we should die, and, second, should a medical practitioner be allowed to assist that death? And since there are many cases in which the patient may be considerably incapacitated, the medical involvement in the issue of euthanasia is crucial. We live in an age when medical science has done much to reduce suffering in so many areas, not least in the cases where a painful and distressing end of life ensues. But medical science has also created the facilities to artificially prolong life, and in some cases this may well be for a patient who does not want his or her life prolonged. Then, too, while palliative drugs (drugs used to ease the distress and pain without providing cure) are more efficient, there are some patients for whom the side effects are unbearable, or for whom pain is still extreme. To know that one's life is over, to spend each day and night in terrible pain, to feel hopeless about one's condition, but to be unable to die, is the epitome of suffering. The dichotomy for the medical practitioner is acute -- to save life, or to relieve suffering. It is a moral dichotomy that is situational to the individuals involved; (This is essentially medical ethics question). Those who are in favour of euthanasia believe that it should be one available option for those for whom life is drawing to a painful end. And while hospice care (residential care for people who are very seriously, and often terminally, ill) is the best choice for some, euthanasia might well be the best for others. For many, both options might be felt to be necessary. But whatever scenario one has at the end of life, to know that if it becomes intolerable there is the choice to die, is more likely to stimulate courage in pain and suffering. Each person has the right to live with dignity and to die with dignity, and when the dignity of life ceases, then the choice of death is, for some, a compassionate option. But as the law stands in most Western countries, ending one's own life is usually suicide, and with assistance from someone else it is called assisted-suicide or even murder. In the recent past suicide was considered both a sin and a crime, whatever might have been the compuldions. The Roman Catholic and most Protestant Churches would refuse to bury a person in consecrated ground if he or she had committed suicide, or even to conduct a funeral service, while in some countries the police would always be involved because a crime had been committed. Under British law in the nineteenth century the estate of one who had died through suicide was confiscated. The idea of deciding when it is right to die and of ending one's own life has a long history of religious and legal antipathy. In religious circles the same antagonism to both suicide and euthanasia still obtains because of a belief that only the divine should give and take life. And yet, religiously, it seems one can die for a religious cause and become a saint but not for one's own self! Gandhi's fasts that brought him close to death would have been an act of suicide, but were admired by many as a passive means to win political points. Buddhists, too, condemn suicide, but have immolated themselves to protest against political injustices ; 13,000 persons commit suicide annually in the sophisticated France, a high technological Western country, but here they do it as they are sick of their Western Christian society and not for any justifiable reasons. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, suicides such as those of Samson and Saul have been commended, and the mass suicides at Masada in Israel shortly after the time of the fall of the Temple in C.E. 70 have become a symbol of bravery to all Jews. Christian history, too, is peppered with so-called martyrs for the faith. In Islam, also, sacrificing one's life in jihad, "holy war," is acceptable, as anyone familiar with the Israeli-Arab conflict, 9/11 incident, suicidal-bombing in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan knows. But suicide for personal reasons is a disgrace, and euthanasia is abhorrent. We can die for a god, but not for ourselves Voluntary euthanasia Voluntary euthanasia is simply not voluntary if there is any degree of persuasion or pressure placed on a patient. Care for the old, the infirm and the terminally ill should be of an exceptionally high standard, so that those who feel that the burden of life is unbearable are in the minority. But the choice to terminate life must always be voluntary (in full presence of senses): It is an optional choice that should be legal for the individual who, under no pressure or suggestion from any persons whatsoever, decides that the termination of his or her life is the best option. As with abortion, it is a right to choose. But having made the choice to die, the individual is often asking for assistance in dying. The rationale for voluntary euthanasia is sound and is supported by most humanists. It suggests that a person has a right to die when there can be no further quality in his or her life (out of extreme age, painful and incurable disease, for example). But since there may be no possibility of coherent communication for a dying person in the last phases of life, the right to choose made now when in sound mind, what one would wish to happen in such a situation, is part of the rationale of the right to choose. Voluntary euthanasia would therefore be an option to those individuals for whom suffering at the end of life is too painful and distressing and who, in such circumstances, are able themselves to choose to die. It would also be an option to those who may choose to decide in advance the conditions under which they might not wish to continue living; if, for example such conditions are incurable and are permanent). Such decisions are both situational and personal. They are decisions that might well be abhorrent for some, and important for others. The essential factor is the minimum quality of life of the individual and the right of an individual to balance loss of minimal quality against prolonging life; in other words to control his or her own life in such extrene circumstances. This is a thoroughly humanist principle. Voluntary euthanasia societies usually supply a kind of document that is an Advanced Directive, Living Will, or Do Not Resuscitate Order. Importantly, such a document does not ask a doctor to break the law. It simply indicates the wishes of a person concerning the withholding of treatment in certain extremely degrading/painful/distressing medical conditions. In other words, it conveys the wishes of someone in sound mind that, should such a fatal condition occur, life is not to be prolonged by medical treatment where there can be no hope of recovery to a dignified life. Such a form is normally retained by one's medical practitioner. In some cases a Living Will Alert Card or the like can be carried to indicate that a living will has been signed. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, would involve direct action to terminate the painful life of a person such as a lethal injection or a lethal overdose of drugs. It is the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another, and there are many instances when -- despite the fact that it is against the law (except when ordered by the Law-courts) -- both individuals and doctors have actively teminated the painful life of a person in order to relieve what could only be a long, painful and drawn-out death. Passive euthanasia occurs when treatment is withheld so that the patient is allowed to die naturally. Contemporary medicine has the skills to prolong life indefinitely, even though a patient may exist as a non-thinking /sub-human for several weeks , months or even years. Allowing such a non-person to die naturally when there is no point in continuing treatment is often a sensible thing to do. Similarly, severely defective newborn babies are sometimes left to die. The problem in this latter case is that, allowing a baby to die naturally is likely to cause considerable suffering, unlike the comatose patient, for example. Then, too, it is a fine point whether letting someone die and actively terminating his or her painful life are so radically different. If someone is drowning in a lake and I don't reach out my hand to pull him or her out, I may be just as guilty of active or passive helping him or her die -- and certainly at the mental level, it is so. Passive euthanasia may also involve cases where the patient is capable of making the decision not to be given further medical treatment to prolong life, when the quality of that life can only be at best very poor and diminished. Whose right is to be respected here? Should an individual have the right to refuse further treatment? Or has a doctor the right to impose treatment on that person? And how does a doctor balance the saving of life with the alleviation of suffering in such instances? These are the greyer areas that occur with the issues of passive versus active euthanasia. Somewhere between passive and active euthanasia is indirect euthanasia that occurs when death is hastened as a side-effect of the medical treatment given. The main objection put forward against euthanasia -- even voluntary euthanasia -- are that : · its acceptance may well be a slippery slope from legitimate euthanasia to abuse of it. · Legal acceptance of voluntary euthanasia would be a shorter step to non-voluntary situations – · the termination of the permanently insane, of some psychotic criminals, of the very old and senile · and of new-born babies that are not seriously defective, such as those with harelip or cleft palate. · Psychologically disturbed person might opt for this due to their diminished mental capacity The practicalities of euthanasia are difficult in cases of non-voluntary euthanasia for it is easy to see that there might be some individuals, or even some societies, that might justify it; Roman Catholic Christian Nazism is a case, where even the Reformed Protestant Church supported the Roman Catholic Nazi fascism during Hitler's regime in killind and sending millions of Jews into the concentration camps for gas-killing. And there may be individuals who are more anxious about the burden they are placing on their family and who request euthanasia for unselfish but self-accusatory, rather than medical reasons. Those objecting to euthanasia, make the valid point that ill health may cause depression -- enough to prevent a patient making a rational decision. Then, too, medical decisions are not infallible, or generally ethical even in the so-called sophisticated Christian West, and a patient may be given an incorrect prognosis -- eventually recovering sufficiently to regain quality of life. There are certainly a few cases of regression, also, when patients experience cure. But the ethics and principle of euthanasia is a different matter. Those who oppose it in principle often do so on religious grounds (although some secular people may oppose it on ethical principles); religious people believing that it is the fictional Allah/God who gives life and, therefore, Allah/God who should decide when it should be taken away. They believe in the sanctity of life given by the so-called divine. Ethical secular people claim that life not death is natural, and that euthanasia goes against the natural goal of survival that is inherent in all creatures. The humanist response to such views is dictated by a desire to ensure dignity and quality of life for all human beings, and the right of individuals to choose their own pathways in life. Humanists hold that the religious beliefs should not be allowed in the debate and decisions about euthanasia. Most medical procedures from dentistry to heart transplants are non-natural from religioud points of view and could be said to be against "divine" ideas for humanity. But ending the pitiful suffering of a fellow human being is a compassionate action that is informed by the best of human principles. There is a great humanist concern for the goodness of life, but if the goodness of life is lost entirely, and if it cannot be recovered, then the opposites of utter despair and hopeless mental suffering ensue. An Allah/God that allows such suffering is no worth believing, not at all. And while most religions see no sense in prolonging life artificially, or might accept passive euthanasia, this can often be a very cruel death: assisted euthanasia is the gentler and more dignified end to a life. Humanists believe in only one life and it is therefore important that it ends in the kind of dignity and quality with which that life was lived. In principle, this is compassionate, and humanists claim that it is wrong to deny people such compassion out of fear of abuse of such principles by a small minority. This is unfair to those who are suffering. Humanists generally support and respect those who reach a deep conviction that the time has come to end the life. To end life humanely, to shorten the grief and suffering of loved ones, and to act out of compassion within prescribed safeguards, is to remove the fear that many might have about the way in which they leave this life. The fundamental principles of humanism are concerned with the happiness and fulfilment of each individual in every possible way. When all hope of even the minimum of such happiness and fulfilment are over, and the reflections of them in the past are blotted out by the pain of the present and its continuing prognosis, then euthanasia is an act of love. It may be that such an act of love goes beyond the bounds of the law and exceeds the bounds of "established" and lega land the so-called religious morality: through a principle of the love of humanity, there are certainly times when it is right to prolonged and painful agony by the best possible methods in accordance with the good humanist ethical principles. ***** In this series « Humanism and Spirituality », following articles are available : Intro 1, Developing Human potential ; Intro 2, Rejecting supernaturalism ; Basic 1, Stages of Life ; Basic 2, Life Ceremonies; Basic 3 Rituals of life ; Basic 4, Birth and Death issues; all at the following link: (While other intellectually inspiring articles of this series and others are on their way ; you may join the group as a member and the each new articles will reach you at your e.mail address automatically !): <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanist_international/messages> A lot of interseting and intellectually stimilating artiles on Humanism, e.g. Humanism and Science, Ethics, Psychology, Creation-Evolution, Spiritualiy and Rituals / Ceremonies are available ; there are Introductory description (Intro) ; Basic foundation (Basic) ; and Comorehensive discussion (Comp) articles; these comprise reflections on differemt courses on Humanism arranged by the Institute of Humanist Studies, USA. These are free for all and can be read directly at : <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanist_international/messages> | ||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com __._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___