The problem of death and life always interested people and evoked a lot of debates among philosophers and scientists. Death was always a sacral theme everywhere. Ancient mythology contains a lot of heroes, and legends connected with death, moreover, very often the death possesses even a separate kingdom which is located in a dark underground. The ancient philosophers even dedicated their tractates to death. In addition, it can be said that every nation has its own culture of death which includes ancient customs, beliefs, folklore and superstitions. This paper is also dedicated to the culture of death depicted in the book by Wesley Smith. The paper is concerned with the national differences in the culture of death provided by the author, the rising role of euthanasia in modern medicine, the approach to the state program “Obamacare” and the problem of organ donation and the question of the dignity of a nowadays developed society.
The author starts his narration with a very important phrase about the international culture of death, depicting the attitude of the developed countries to the customs of the tribes and nations which pertain to the third world:
In the contemporary West, we judge cultures as “advanced” or “civilized” in part by how they care for their weakest and most vulnerable members. Cultures that disrespect their dying, elderly, and disabled, or that do not provide for them in a caring and compassionate manner, generally are seen as backward, if not downright oppressive. Traditionally, we have measured our progress toward a genuinely humane and enlightened society against these standards. (Smith, 195)
The author makes use of the theme of the traditional criticism of the wild tribes and their relation to death which seems rude, inhumane and cruel for the Western society. The European and American culture presupposes the delicate and mannerly attitude to death and the people who are closer to the lethal threshold than any other person. These are elderly people, handicapped and seriously ill people. In developed countries, such groups of people use various facilities made up for their necessities. But nobody takes special care of them in the countries of the third world. The invalids and elderly people are treated as any other regular person. The people disrespect death and take it as a necessity and a natural process. The development of medicine enables to postpone or even delay the death. This good appears to turn into a problem in the modern developed world as there are more and more debates about the legalization or banning of euthanasia.
This book is concentrated on this notion too. The author shows that: “many people today accept almost without question medical principles which just a few decades ago they would never have approved of. So gradual encroachments on killing the unwanted have brought us to what is happening in medicine today”. (Smith, 213)
The program of the legislation of euthanasia has erected several different positions. The program found its supporters among the people of little religious faith. For the most part, they are philosophers, scientists, lawyers. But the church still opposes this encroachment on killing, judging by the fact that there is only God who gave the life to a human and nobody else can take it. The author tries to induce the answer to this dilemma by including several accounts of old and very ill people. Some of them are even young or handicapped. The author depicts their sufferings and makes the reader understand why they desire to be “put to death, simply abandoned to death, or even counseled into wanting to end their life or have it ended for them.” (Spencer, 150)
Another point of the philosophical approach to the problem of euthanasia is that the supporting of one person alive costs a lot of humans affords and money. Thus, while one person is hopelessly supported by the different apparatuses of respiration, another person is dying of the lack of medicine, money or doctor’s attention. The state allocates a certain amount of finances for the patients who are will never back to their normal life, but this amount is not endless. Thus, the question of which human life is more valuable is the most crucial in this connection. “One factor in this decision is how much trouble the person is to others, how great sacrifices others must make to keep the person alive. The chief factor, is how much money will be required to keep the person alive”. (Smith, 145)
The author also makes use of the attitude of the ancient philosopher and a person who is regarded as the father of medicine Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.) According to him the primary duty of the doctor is to save the life of the patient. Furthermore, the author states that in modern medicine this demand is not always fulfilled.
Modern legal cases are giving doctors the right to make life-and-death decisions about their patients given what the state or the insurance companies want. No matter how much the family may want its loved one to live, other voices are gradually gaining the right to make the decision. (Spencer, 120)
Apart from this, it is possible to notice an impact of the state program
The state program “Obamacare” also makes an influence on the author’s positions. The state health program of the American president presupposes:
Numerous health-related provisions include prohibiting health insurers from denying coverage or refusing claims based on pre-existing conditions, expanding Medicaid eligibility, subsidizing insurance premiums, providing incentives for businesses to provide health care benefits, establishing health insurance exchanges, and support for medical research. (Spencer, 250)
Thus, Obama’s program is supporting the trend of euthanasia as it banes insurance denying in the case of the deliberate death of the patient. Apart from it, we may see an idea of a state attitude to the problem of the death of the citizens. The culture of death may seriously change in a few decades as euthanasia may be completely legalized. But new low also brings a serious rise in costs of the state health care, thus the program also has several opposers.
The author also rises the question of organs donation as a modern way of blasphemy. The religion condemns any instances of removing parts of one organism into another. Organ donation is also a matter of big money and a serious crime nowadays, as there are a lot of registered instances of taking out certain organs from the body during regular surgery. The victim may not even notice that some inner organ is missing. The violation of human rights in such a way is a usual practice in the countries of the third world. The most notable thing here is that most orders for the organs are of western origin, which signifies that the developed countries exploit the poor parts of the world to satisfy their needs in donated organs. Returning to the philosophical question put at the beginning of the book, about the indulgent attitude to the cultures that disrespect death, the author also evokes the question if the Western culture does not show the same attitude. The residents of developed countries are getting more and more addicted to medicine and health care due to their natural fear of death, which sometimes becomes fanatically strong.
Smith also is concerned about the teaching of some philosophers that some animals are superior to some human beings, and are therefore more worthy of protection and care. Most people are alarmed by such teaching, but its proponents are given prestigious chairs in universities”. (Chevlen, 205)
The people are losing their human dignity by attempting to save their struggling relatives dooming other people on the slow death and defective life. The societies of prosperous countries are getting blinded by their selfishness and fanatic will of life. The author also inserts the thought that even animals respect death more than developed human society.
The book warns society about the loss of dignity of being human, respect life and death equally, without referring to any side. Otherwise, it may result in the serious consequences of losing the human sense of life.
Works Cited
Chevlen, Eric M., Smith Wesley J. Power Over Pain. New York: Random House, 2002.
Smith, Wesley J. in America. San Francisco: Encounter Press, 2009.
Spencer, Jean. Menu Measure: Health Bill Requires Calorie Disclosure. Washington: Washington Wire 2010.