This a question i have pondered about at times. Are we really justified when we go against nature to prolonge human life. As our understanding of health sciences improve we are as a species consistently refuting various barriers nature has put in place to keep our numbers in check. While we talk about humanity, compassion and how every human life is precious (all of which i do agree) ,our vast(and ever increasing) numbers and resource grabbing capabilities leave little space for the rest of world.
Being a health professional myself , I am at times conflicted if im doing a ''Noble'' job or just facilitating our short sighted greediness.
health science is really just learning. the ethical part is when to use it. if your gonna use it , it would be ethical to do it right. past that one day the whole know universe will die. so with that in mind why not try to live as long as you can. the difference between us and animals is we can go father
This post reminds me of the movie In Time, in which science finally made people immortal (I'm pretty sure that's why they ended up immortal at least, it's been years since I've heard anything about that movie) and "time" replaces currency. The rich have lots of time and are completely immortal almost, the poor frequently die on the streets because they have run out of time.
In other words, humans had to implement their own way of keeping the population in check due to "perfecting" the species.
While I see nothing wrong with prolonging the life of those who truly want to live, I think a major dilemma comes into play when you bring such things as religion and suffering into the picture. There are some people who know they're going to die, there's no hope to recover, and yet we keep them alive. We don't humanly euthanize them. Why?
Some say it's because we would be playing God to decide who dies and who lives. But isn't the same thing happening by prolonging the lives of those in pain, of those who know they're going to die anyways?
I personally am a religious person. I wouldn't want to die if I knew there was hope for recovery, but if I were, for instance, in a state of vegetation, I don't see a reason to keep me alive and cost my family needless pain when they know there is no hope for me. If it weren't for modern healthcare, I'd be dead anyways. Why prolong it?
It's a sensitive issue and I think it's good to look at every side of it. My grandpa brought out a good point the other day regarding his best friend who's been in and out of hospitals for years now.
He said "if it weren't for modern medicine, nature would have taken it's course by now. He's alive, but he's in pain, so what good are we really doing?"
It was rather upsetting to hear him say that, but at the same time, it's very real too. If we are only prolonging life, but not the quality of it, is there a point?