Monday, January 8, 2018

IT'S NOT EASY.



End of life decisions.

I am having a serious rethink on my euthanasia attitudes, partly because my clock is ticking and good friends are falling off their perch in an inexorable progress to meeting the end of life.
Greater concerns emerge when rationing of medical procedures and familial pressures apparent in the 21st century that seem to be somewhat diferent to years gone by.

I have been  aware of  cases of elder abuse by spawn hoping to inherit yet seemingly unable to be empathetic in attempts to avoid what can be crippling high costs of end of life process.
Housing, location, convenience, quality of life and medical challenges, are too often submerged in an emotional maelstrom of  doubt and desire.

This still very aware and reasonable farmer, has within, a long history of confronting the reality that a kindness often  becomes logical  and reasonable, as a carer of many great and often much  loved animals.
Only  just last year a decision arose over Swmbo's beloved old poodle who had reached a very good innings totalling over seventeen years but a rapid decline into a dementia state confronted and after a particularly enjoyable visit from family it was Swmbo who first suggested Joy had reached a time when her quality of life had become fraught and the time was upon us for a decision neither of us wanted to make.

Setting parameters for such decision making for humans brings clarity for the more obvious cases where in  the ravaging world of terminal illness it seems so simple and just as with capital punishment many cases  can have a widespread agreement as to what could be described by most as a "right"  decision. History is littered with clear cases where forfeiture of a perpetrators life seems a "good" next step but then there is a bewildering confusion as the certainty of death becomes more problematical where such certainty becomes increasingly in doubt.

Depression in its most serious cases is an instance where easier access to a one way ticket seems an attractive option then something arises where it gets skittled. Talkback radio can reveal  a number of anecdotal parade of patients, later grateful they got through such episodes with the black dog.
Another  case in point in the change of mind scenario, arose some years ago where a husband and wife in the sane and simple world of serious danger in their equestrian  sport, had them in agreement that should one of them suffer a serious accident that threatened destruction of their lifestyle they would not wish for extraordinary interventions that led to a life of dependence and loss of almost everything they had previously enjoyed.
Well it happened and Mr was seriously injured in a crash, but extraordinary interventions and some good fortune left him wheelchair bound and severely  disabled. He survived and admitted subsequently he enjoyed "trackside" and other entertainment from his beloved earlier, exciting if clearly endangering lifestyle,  before his "sh*t" sandwich was delivered and loss of an existance,  healthy fit people might see as untenable, became very different when reality happened along.

Sadly not so for the very unlucky lady who died under the storm felled tree of significance in Rotorua  recently.
A tree that had, according to published information, been of serious concern to many as its security had become increasingly compromised and only unwarranted and extraordinary interventions had postponed what is now revealed to have been a  reckless in the extreme, fatal outcome.
In the light of events during the weather event  had a  fatal outcome for the unfortunate driver of
the doomed car but a prevention had been on the table for many months if not years, in the removal of the tree.

Sheesh the local council with all their accumulated knowledge failed to make the "right "decision over an old diseased oak tree yet the promoters of Seymore's Euthanasia bill think those charged with its implementation, will be able to make correct decisions around end of life choices for a citizen.

Emotion filled, practical, reasonable and sensible become too hard even for a much overused Committee process yet promotors of the current bill think it will all be alright "on the night", for Aunty Agnes.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can never work out why those that think a life after death is bollocks and an old fashioned, deluded superstition yet as the time to find out draws near it can become a wee bit unsettled. Otherwise I think its a good post and the summary is the bit that matters. The govt stuffs everything it touches yet this will all go swimmingly. I must make sure wife and I don't talk about being worth more dead than alive in front of the kids.

3:16

David said...

I can never work out why those that think a life after death is bollocks and an old fashioned, deluded superstition yet as the time to find out draws near it can become a wee bit unsettled.

Can you point to any of these? I know that there have been a lot of "deathbed conversions" invented by Xtians after the death of people such as Darwin, Hitchens, et al. We do that the wicked nun from Calcutta almost recanted her faith on her deathbed.

And yes, I believe life after death IS bollocks. If I am alive, I am not dead. If I am dead, I am not alive.

The Veteran said...

David ... I find it fascinating that you, who would run a mile to defend the rights of Muslims, should take considerable delight in poking the borax at those who hold Christian beliefs. Double standards?

David said...

Veteran, first you need to learn the difference between a Muslim and Islam.

I defend human rights, not "religious rights". Humans have rights and are deserving (mostly) of respect. Beliefs do not, or at least, should not, have rights. Beliefs can and must be questioned and challenged, particularly when believers try to get their beliefs enshrined in secular law.

Yes, I do sometimes defend Muslims, at the same time I attack Islam. I defend the rights of Christians, but will attack Christianity. I defend the rights of Jews, but will attack Judaism and Zionism.

Tribalism has no place in human rights. Tribalism is the enemy of human rights. If you think I attack Christianity more than Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other religion, I would agree with you. But that is not because I have a greater antipathy to Christianity, but because it is the most prevalent and insidious religion in our two nations.

If I am in a public place and a woman is being abused because she wears a headscarf, or a boy is abused for wearing a Yarmulke, I will come to the aid. What would you do?

If people want to call out Tony Abbott and Cory Bernardi for bigotry, Colin Craig for hypocrisy, Brian Tamaki for being a con artist, I will stand with them. Where do you stand?


The Veteran said...

David ... a Muslim is an adherent of the Islamic religion ... duh. In defending Muslims you are defending Islam. The flip side to that is that I haven't noticed you defending the rights of Christians too much ... your atheistic zealotry is acknowledged but it is your selective atheism that defines you. In short, you protestith too much.

David said...

As I said, you need to learn the difference between a Muslim and Islam. Perhaps a photo of the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo murders will aid your understanding.

You need to learn to separate the belief from the believer. Most adherents of a religion are so simply because of the place of their birth. Just as there are Presbyterians who dance, Catholics who use birth control, Mormons who drink coffee, there are also a great many "Cafeteria Muslims".

I live in Australia, the "rights of christians" are not really an issue here. They practically run the place. However, I support their right to believe and worship, where I draw the line is when they, or any other religion, wants to use religion to avoid following the law.

To repeat:

If I am in a public place and a woman is being abused because she wears a headscarf, or a boy is abused for wearing a Yarmulke, I will come to the aid. What would you do?

If people want to call out Tony Abbott and Cory Bernardi for bigotry, Colin Craig for hypocrisy, Brian Tamaki for being a con artist, I will stand with them. Where do you stand?

In the shadows, behind a tree, it would seem.

The Veteran said...

David ... your selective morality defines you. I repeat ... you protestith too much.

You're very quick to jump in the deep end and attack anyone who professes the Julio-christian ethic but when it comes to other religions your silence is deafening.

David said...

Julio-christian ethic

I suspect you meant Judeo, but anywhoo, guess who never use the term Judeo Christian? Jews.

Yes, I will attack ...anyone who professes the Julio-christian ethic... if they are using that to deny health care to women, equal rights to GLBTI, to slip religion into secular schools (as Howard did with his "Chaplaincy programme), to undermine the rule of law by claiming special privileges, and to being a burden on the taxpayer by failing to "render unto Caesar".

...when it comes to other religions your silence is deafening.

Well, I don't see too many Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Baha'i, Hindus, posting here, so how would you know? I hold all religions in equal contempt, but not their followers. Unless they want to force everyone to bow down to their god.