2012年3月21日 星期三
Quote from Joseph Fletcher in support of Euthanasia
"We need to educate people to the idea that the quality of life is more
important than mere length of life. Our cultural tradition holds that
life has absolute value, but that is really not good enough anymore.
Sometimes, no life is better." - Joseph Fletcher
訂閱：
張貼留言 (Atom)
無法了解這文字的意思。
回覆刪除基本上，相信無人反對生命質素(Quality)比生命的長短更為重要，所以傳統文化應重視生命的價值(Value) -- 這部份是完全同意，只是我們仍然未能找到Absolute Value而已。
到了，But that is really not good enough anymore-- 起初以為作者是希望人可以找比傳統文化中的價值更高的東西，這也是好的建議，因為人是永遠希望進步的。可惜到了Sometimes, no life is better，真的是完全不明白，如果沒有生命，那裡可以談生命質素。
I believe the quote has to be interpreted in the context of euthanasia and thus suggest that“Sometimes” should be understood as “at a point when euthanasia is at issue”. Besides, I do not agree that the quality of life must be more important than length of life for this is up to the subject person to decide.
回覆刪除The quote from J. Fletcher seems to suggest and appreciate:
回覆刪除息可而止
So what is "息可而止"? 差不多了，moderation, 不耍勉強強求！
When time comes, give me a break. I can stop. That means I can die.
In fact, the quote hints at our understanding and interpretation of the puzzle:
Q-Q-Q
[a]Should it be in sequence: Quality, Quantity, Quit?
[b]Should be be in sequence: Quantity, Quality, Quit?
[c]Should it be in sequence: Quality, Quit?
[d]Should it be in sequence: Quantity, Quit?
or
[e]simply................... Quit?
[a]According to Albert Camus, it should be [a] No matter how absurd life is, please strive to lengthen life in quality, and if not possible, in the contingently short life before death, focus on Quantity. Never think about suicide or euthanasia.
[b] Rich tycoons in HKG most of them follow [b] track, as much momey as possible first, then a spoiled life in comfort before death.
[c]Whoever asks for euthanasia follows track [c] as logical route according to his (her) own rational mind. Without eough quality, better die early. That is what J. Fletcher suggests.
[d]Hardworking but bad luck, premature death in accident, or killed in PVS state, or suicide, or infanticide.
[e]Abortion, no experience in terms of Quality or Quantity.
Therefore we have 3 Q's Philosophy of Life and Death
他是希望說出當生命的質素和長度都不足時(即是最差的情況，)人可以有退出生命的選擇？
回覆刪除Joseph Fletcher says," Our cultural tradition holds that life has absolute value." This may refer to the " sanctity-of-life doctrine", originated in Christian tradition. This view that all human life is equally valuable and inviolable is deeply rooted in western society. It is enshrined in law and is at the heart of profeesional precepts informing the practice of medicine.
回覆刪除As Helga Kuhse says, two fundamental tenets of the sanctity-of-life doctrine are: the inviolability of all human life and the equal value of all human life. On this view, all human lives are equal and worthy of the same protection, irrespective of their quality of life.
From the corollary of the sanctity-of-life view, it is wrong to terminate the life of a permanently comatose patient as it is wrong to take the life of a conscious or self-conscious human being. Similarly, a patient is dying from cancer and is suffering unbearable pain would not be a reason for refraining from resusitation, for life has absolute view. On the sanctity-of-life view, a patient's life would have to be prolonged even if continued life were not good to her or to her relatives. So, it is absurd to lengthen the life without consideration of the quality. Life is valuable, based not on the length of life, but on the quality.
'生命質素'看似是一個很好的varable來看的價值,但'生命質素'是如何釐清或衡量? 若'生命質素'下降基於生活少許不愉快,很容易有滑坡效應.所以未能釐'生命質素'的定義而開始討論,會給'生命質素'的歧義所影響判斷.
回覆刪除