Morality and extension of life

It seems in our world that death is regarded as the greatest evil there is. All sorts of groups from atheists to the devout, moral philosophers to drunks at the bar, usually agree on one thing: None of them want to die, and death in general is a bad thing. We live our lives with a distinct fear of death, and though death is inevitable, great pains are taken to insure that we live as long as possible. But, is this a good thing? I will contend that it is in fact not a very good thing, and a myriad of reasons and arguments can be illustrated to drive the point home. I will provide an outline of two here.

First, we’ll briefly look at the issue from the vantage of loved ones and the terminally ill. John Hardwig, in “Is There a Duty to Die?” really sums up the points of this argument quite tidily, so I will only summarize his argument. Some claim that the suffering individual is already ill, and this is burden enough; to ask this person to take on the burden to cease life is too much. But this ill individual does not cease to be accountable to family and loved ones the moment they become critically ill. There are, sadly, many cases where prolonging the life of a family member can destroy the quality of life for the family the ill person will inevitably leave behind- the cost of care can destroy careers, cost the family its home, defer the dreams and hope of the children perhaps to the point of unattainability, and create emotional stresses and duress. These burdens must be considered by the ill person.

Avoiding the arguments for and against a patient’s right to terminate his or her own life through euthanasia or stop treatments, I offer one more less explored point. Hardwig briefly touches on this point in the introductory passages of his piece, but it deserves more consideration. Modern medicine has reached a point where it can prolong lives much longer than in generations past. Is this a good thing? would most people in their right minds really want to live to the point of delirium and incapacity? I would think not. Would these people then want society, their loved ones, and their medical care providers to have to sacrifice their time, services, and perhaps dreams, on their artificially preserved shell of a body? I would think not.  

These medical “miracles” are going to turn into monsters in our life time. The governments of the world have spent little time preparing for the explosion in the geriatric population that is going to rush onto us in the coming two decades. Our entitlement programs, social programs, and healthcare industry are likely to bit hit blindsided by this influx of elderly people. Whereas before an individual could have been allowed to make a rational, reasoned, moral choice regarding the end of their lives, we may well see (and in some cases already are seeing) insurance providers denying treatments to older clients to make way for younger healthier clients. Rather than allowing patients the right to self determination in their end of life scenario- one in which they can carefully examine the quality of life they would continue to live and the quality of life for those around them, these choices are being put in the hands of suits in office buildings who benefit from slashing costs, not providing compassionate care. Is this the morally correct course between the two choices?