In our class discussion last week, we discussed three different kinds of euthanasia:
The first type of euthanasia about PVS seems easiler to accept by most of us.
However, it's the second type and the third type of euthanasia (sorry I forgot the exact name we used in class) which we find it controversial.
It appears that we tend to give more justification to 2nd type of euthanasia than the 3rd type. It sounds intuitively right but I still found it kind of puzzling. The arguments we talked about in class do not seem a very compelling reason for me to accept this kind of thinking as I think the same argument can support both 2nd and 3rd type of euthanasia.
The only and most plausible explanation I can think of is that we give more weigh to physical suffering than to psychological suffering. But is it the true? One of my psychology teachers used to tell me that being rape is worse off than being murder which I found it plausible true. And I also believe that there exist some kind of psychological suffering which would be worse off than phsycial pain.
But on the other hand, it also seems that psychological suffering is not as worse as phsycial suffering as psychological suffering might be able to "recover" one day while some physical suffering can never be relieved.
So, do different type of sufferings make a different in our justification of euthanasia at all? Or are there some other important factors which make 2nd type of euthanasia more justifiable than the 3rd type that I have missed?
有心理專家相信，在未來的日子，將會有不少於四分一人受到不同程度心理問題所困擾。所以在討論安樂死時，只談肉體的痛苦是會有遺漏。但是心靈的痛苦是很難評估的。Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,PTSD(創傷後壓力心理障礙症)，是當今經常被受討論的項目，但事實上，心理專家也不斷研究Post Traumatic Growth (創傷後成長)是如何產生。以海德格而言，這是面對死亡後的本真。心理問題能最終復原，是必須依賴自己面對，別人只能協助指導，而不能强行利用外加治療，也即是，如果本身是不希望復原，便會永久沉淪(這不是我的批評，只是借用海德格的名稱)。
回覆刪除文章所指出的重點亦是心理的痛苦可能比肉體的痛苦更嚴重，但是卻可能是會復原的。利用安樂死的條件來說(以荷蘭法例而論)，心理痛苦便未必能列作屬於"不能復原"的條件，是乎會合安樂死的條件。當然求死的病人是會設法證明本人的痛苦，及乎合不能復原的條件，這是否會覆蓋理意而不願意復原呢？對於"深海長眠"電影中的雷蒙，他真的受到無法忍受的痛苦，或是愛上長眠在處於深海一刻而不願醒來(愛上了死神)，希望大家作出反思。
Thanks, Tony for your insights here.
刪除Maybe I am demanding, but I also believe that: If one does not try to self-help and self-save oneself, one only feels guilty in the end much in regret.
In fact one should always mind one's mind- the biggest enemy to oneself! To be invincible, one must conquer one's own mind first!
Therefore in the movie, our main character's stubborn indulgence in those few seconds of illusory emancipation of death ("very high and orgasmic"- a kiss of death) in water should be a mental sickness unique and personal to him.
But such indulgence, is it reasonable and necessary? Whether it is a priviledge or a curse, only a philosopher may be interested in deep thought about such a paradox, but he is not.
If he cannot accept acceptance and life only means "life and death" to him, then of course he always will long for the same "kiss of death" when so-called life to him has been ruined by his paralysed body.
If he can understand:-
One body many lives,
and
two bodies should also mean different lives,
as long as he exists,
then he may not dream about the same "kiss of death", and he can then recover from his mental sickness.
(1)Please form a matrix in constructing a picture of possible types of euthanasia:
刪除Voluntary Involuntary Other (if any)
[V] [I] [Oy]
Passive VP IP Oy(?)P
[P]
Active VA IA Oy(?)A
[A]
Other [Ox] VOx(?) IOx(?) Oy(?)Ox(?)
If any)
(2)(a) In PVS (labelled 'cabbage'), there is no consciousness, and of course no instruction from patient, no way it can be Voluntary (V), so it can only be Involuntary (I).
(b) If 'letting die' without ever given any life maintenance device, it is passive (P) euthanasia.
(c) If existing life maintenance equipments are to be taken away, it is active (A) euthanasia.
(d) If the patient is not PVS, yet cannot give instruction (like a Down's syndrome baby) then it is Non-voluntary (Oy)passive (P) euthanasia. Letting die in a few days pain before death.
(3) If patient has rationality in consciousness, and if euthanasia can be carried out, it will always be under the category of Voluntary (V) euthanasia, but it can be P or A depends on the situation whether it is to be rid of treatment or adding lethal injection.
** The question is: is there Other Ox type, if not passive or active??
I do have answers, but I let classmates do their homeworks and studies to find it (them) out.
(4)(a) To answer claasmate's question:
Why more attention is paid to physical rather than "pyschological" suffering in consideration of euthanasia?
I find it quite straightforward with an analogy below.
(b) I assume "a man who says he is not drunk actually is more or less in drunkeness!"
** Therefore when "a patient says I cannot stand my mental suffering anymore. I must die.", he is actually in quandary, painful in confusion, and he cannot be rational. And therefore we cannot just listen to him and believe him, and then let him die by arrangement of euthanasia. What he needs should be awakening! Never euthanasia
(5) Also 士可殺不可辱 should not apply to victims of rape cases. 聖女貞德 (St. Joan of Arc)不是她的貞潔 (virginity)與否，而是她的無堅不摧、在聖靈的感召下變成好打得。
May all classmates be aware of the following remark(marked ++) which must NOT be promoted, and such comment should never be assumed to be true.
++
"my psychology teachers used to tell me that being rape is worse off than being murder which I found it plausible true."
IT MUST BE WRONG! We are not in Stone Age anymore!
All girls and women, their value and meaning of life have nothing to do at all with (AND should never be ruined by) any indescent assault that they may unfortunately come across.
所有人、無論是男或女、或非男非女、或忽男忽女、或小孩子、就是不幸地遇到sex abuse or indescent assault, or even rape or even gang rape, 遇襲後最重耍是保命，shame is NEVER on the victims! shame is only on the criminals! All victims, most important of all, 留得青山在、那怕無柴燒!
肉體的痛苦不能回復, 而且別人也看的到
回覆刪除精神上的痛苦實際上, 還是看當事人在不在乎而已. 要個害臊的人當著人說話的痛苦可能他寧願死了比較痛快. 第三者難以理解.
而且單純精神上的痛苦而想死的人,大概會很乾脆的自殺去了, 能夠和別人說"我想死"的時候, 潛台詞是其實是"安慰我", "聽我訴苦" 不能這麼不解風情光從字面上理解
Anthony, may I suggest that you may review your conclusion that:
回覆刪除能夠和別人說"我想死"的時候, 潛台詞是其實是"安慰我", "聽我訴苦" 不能這麼不解風情光從字面上理解
particularly avoid the few words "不能這麼不解風情". These words should not appear in discussion of a serious topic related to death, suicide, or euthanasia.
Below is a true tragic story in Hong Kong:-
Many many years ago, an old classmate (7 years together) suddenly came to me 2 years after graduation, complained about this and that, accusing that all people we knew were unkind to him. At that time I had no idea that such absurd complaints might be symptoms of depression, so I did not care much and did not ask him to seek couselling (to talk to a clinical psychologist). In one week's time, my classmate jumped out from the roof top of a building and died instantly.
Therefore, Anthony and all classmates, please make sure we must take it serious when a friend comes to talk and make complaints. Never never assume that he (she) just need to talk, and nothing serious can happen. Such a friend may commit suicide the following day!
我也有相似SWAN 的經驗。事實上，人是有非常脆弱的一面，心靈上的痛苦是難以言傳。如果沒有別人適當的扶持，是很容易產生尋死的心態，這便是海德格所說面對死亡的時刻。這也是人類不應該完全獨立生存，無論是要助人或是求助，也要與別人分享，這也是人類產生倫理關係的主要原因。當然，最終能夠解決這問題的人，便是當事人(即自己行出最重要的一步，也是海德格强調，死亡是孤孤獨地面對)，但是如果缺乏別人的協助，我們也不能輕易說他是自己想不通，如果當有朋友須要協助時，我們不加協助，便是letting die。
回覆刪除明顯地，雷蒙的個案是所謂PTSD(即Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, 創傷後壓力心理障礙症)，所以他將死亡時的一刻不斷呈現的眼前(即Flash back)。雷蒙的不幸是40年前(約70年代)醫學限對創傷治療了解不深，所以沒有恰當的協助，或只有不恰當的介入。以我所知，斌仔的情況也有相同的地方，政府在處理斌仔時，是有不足的地方，所以令問題惡化。
當然所說的協助，不是容易處理，而且是因人而異。所以要小心評估，以免幫倒忙。以雷蒙的個案為例，那神父(或其他人)可能是一個好例子，他以為自已有說服其他人的能力，並不了解心理治療是另一種專長，要是不得其法，可能反過來迫使雷蒙更相信自己的信念是真確的。所以心理問題及處理方法可能是產生很多不可預見的結果，希望大家學習哲學時，也要重視建立一套正面的價值觀。整體上，安樂死是可以被接納的，但是卻要非常小心處理。
正因為心靈上的痛苦還須要其當時人的存有才能被起現或體現,雖外在的事或人可有令當時人心靈上的痛苦消減的可能(只有概然性而非必然性),但當肉體的痛不能復原,安樂死是可以被接納的消減痛苦的手段,而沒有進取主動使用這消減痛苦的手段而延長痛苦,則被動是否比主動為差?若死不是唯一消減痛苦的手段,則主動或被動安樂死為錯.所以一般而言是否letting die比killing較差?
回覆刪除Dr Sin makes a clssification of euthanasia which is quiet difference from the traditional classification. He makes three types of euthanasia:(1) PVS Euthanasia, (2) Terminal Suffering Euthanasia, and (3) Non-life Threatening Euthanasia. Peter Singer holds the person view where a person has self-consciousnes and rationality with an entity for time and space.Is it justified for a non-person for euthanasia because a non-person does not have self-consciousness and rationality? If the answer is "yes", then PVS euthanasia and terminal threatening euthanasia is justifiable. But for the non-life threatening euthanasia, as in " Ben Chai's case", Ben Chai is a person who has self-consciousness and rationality, but his four limbs are paralysed. From the person's view, it seems not to be justified for euthanasia. Is it right?
回覆刪除