Life at any cost

I heard a very interesting interview on the CBC this morning with regard to our desire to prolong human life at all cost. It was a propos a letter received from a listener in response to another show about organ transplanting. The writer, a 51-year-old woman, is suffering from kidney failure, and unless she receives a donor kidney, she will die. And her response is, what's wrong with that? She expresses the view that death is the inevitable consequence of living, and if her time is near due to the wearing out of her kidneys, then it is time for her to die. She has even gone so far as to refuse the donor, her sister, and has ticked off many of her family members and loved ones who feel that it is their duty to prolong her life in any event. She herself feels that it is because of her regard for these people in her life that she will not have the transplant. Why should she deprive her sister of a kidney just to save herself? She is, however, continuing with dialysis treatment at home, so she does not have a death wish. But her point is valid.

Shelagh Rogers had on her "spiritual" panel of experts, and this woman was an invited guest, and they talked about the "denial" or "distraction" from death that we experience in this society. We all recognize that death is inevitable, but we keep pushing it back, and looking for cures to diseases that perhaps shouldn't be cured. It was most interesting and thought provoking.

I myself have some very controversial ideas about the treatment of disease and the prolongation of human life, ideas which I am careful not to disseminate around people who are apt to misunderstand me. I am not a monster, but a caring, compassionate human being, and wish to alleviate human suffering where I can. But here is my case.

Once upon a time, before the advent of modern medicine, a child born with some kind of disability died either soon after birth or during early childhood. It was terrible, but it happened. And that birth defect was not passed on. Simple Darwinism here. Now, however, children born who would otherwise die are saved by modern medical means, and may go on to reproduce and pass their unhealthy genetic material on to the next generation. There was also a time when women would have many babies, but only raise a few to adulthood. The population grew slowly, and there were enough resources to go around. Now, modern medicine in third-world countries means that women can have many babies, and raise them all, which contributes to poverty, a shortage of food, and a proliferation of disease. The obvious answer is to provide these women with the means to limit the sizes of their families, but that doesn't seem to work in societies where fertility is considered a desirable trait.

Many years ago there was a controversial criminal case in Alberta when a farmer killed his daughter who had been born with severe physical defects, was blind and deaf, severely retarded, and was being kept alive only because of the miracle of modern medicine. The man could not stand to see his daughter suffer, as she was obviously in constant pain and life was no joy to her. And so he caused her to die. He was found guilty of 2nd-degree murder, or something like that, and sentenced to serve jail time. All the people who testified in this man's favour pointed out what a kind, humane person he was, but that didn't fly with the courts.

When all this was in the news, I couldn't help but ask myself why this was an issue at all. If this child had been born in a time or place where the means were not available to keep her alive, she would have died a natural death. It would have been very sad, but that is how it goes, and her family and she herself would not have gone through the agonies above-mentioned. Who was more guilty: a) the father for ending his daughter's life in an act of mercy and compassion, or b) the medical profession for allowing this poor child to live in the first place?

I am a strong believer in birth control, limiting population growth, and not passing on genetic diseases. But I also believe that a child, once born, should have every opportunity to live, provided that life will be a joy and not a burden to said individual. If one of my own children were to have been born with such severe disabilities that life would be unbearable, I would have a really hard time deciding the most appropriate course of action.

As an aside, but sort of related, I had an ultrasound during my first pregnancy to determine the date of delivery, since my periods were not regular when I conceived. With my second pregnancy, I knew to the hour when my son was conceived, and I did not feel the need for the procedure. My doctor (who at that time was not yet a mother herself, or I'm sure she would have couched her language differently) wanted me to have an ultrasound as a matter of routine. I asked her why, since I knew my date of delivery, and she answered that at this early stage, if birth defects were detected, there was still time to abort. I answered that I did not want an ultrasound, and that was that, as she couldn't force me. But the point was, if my child was born with birth defects, I would deal with that too. While I am not an anti-abortionist, for myself it is not an option.

Actually, I think I've gone on long enough about this. It depresses me, just thinking about the possibility of having children who are less than perfect. Hubby and I have been blessed with two fantastic kids, and I have never had to worry about their physical or emotional or mental health. We have open lines of communication with them, which is more than I can say for other parents of teenagers whom I know. I can't imagine it being otherwise. I think I'll close now, on that happy note, before I start to wax maudlin.

|

<~~~ * ~~~>