[Marxism] Re: RE: My two cents on the Schiavo case

[<hari.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Responding to:
1.  (Joaqu?n Bustelo)
8. RE: My two cents on the Schiavo case (davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
9. RE: My two cents on the Schiavo case (Joaqu?n Bustelo)
14. Re: My two cents on the Schiavo case (Lueko Willms)"

REPLY:
(1) Bustelo's commentary was a fairly un-emotive one. It met with a somewhat 
openly emotive & 'loaded' one from Luke.

(2) Luke's csae of "David Jayne, a 42 year old man with ALS" - is imply not 
comparable to that of the  Schiavo case. The hallmark of ALS is that cerebral 
mentation and higher functions are kept intact. The need for a ventilator is 
because the anterior Motor Neorone cells die - which control movement. The 
brain itself is not rotted out in most cases until later - & then usually at 
brain stem level only.

This is a physiologically unwarranted extrapolation to the case under 
discussion.

(3) Mr Jayne feels that: "Twelve years ago, Jayne would have dismissed this 
existence as a living hell."

Well no one has ever said that:
(i) Opinions about the Health Related QUality of LIfe (HRQL) do not change;
Nor
(ii) That "SOCIETY" should make these decisions in isolation from what is known 
about the thoughts of the individual concerned prior to onset of debilitating 
disease, as argued here.
"It is incredibly wrong for society to decide who lives or dies based on their 
opinions of what level of quality of life is worth living."
(iii) I know of several sufferers from ALS who have made decisions in complete 
contrast to those of Mr Jayne.
No one should be able to deny that individual decision.

Comments by David Quarters regarding views of other disabled peoples' own 
perspectives, is a rectification of societal 'un-interest' of their viewpoints. 
But - it should not be a vehicle by which to ram thier own views down an 
individuals family's ability to make decisions as best for them.

In counselling at end of life, I have been often in a position where some 
activists push their own agenda against the wishes & comfort & perspectives of 
the family in question. This is the same arrogance that has hitherto been the 
sole perogative of the physicians.
both are wrong.

(4) In ending - I have not seen as of yet, the question discussed of what and 
how a 'socialist society' would approach this question. What I have seen so 
far, is a discussion of the "_abstract_ rights and wrongs".

For example, what is the attitude for example of 'rationing' resources in a 
socialist society?

If Michael Perelman is here, I would be interested in his reply.
Sorry M _ I have lost track of PEN recently!
H



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism