This doctor is taking an unusual personal stance ...
A recent interview with the doctor, now closer to 75 but sticking with his plan ...
In the future, it is possible ... even likely ... that life will be further extended, to 100, 150 or longer. But in what condition? And what about the effects on society?
Should Zen folks learn to say "this is enough life, I do not need more," an Oryoki meal of life?
What would you do, for yourself or your loved ones? (Sadly, many or most of us must already face the choice of when to turn off the life extending machines and treatments for someone we love, given where technology already is today.)
From my book ...
In an age in which we will be able to choose physical beauty, height, intelligence, gender, and more by buying the desired DNA, both for ourselves and our unborn children, many of us may decide instead to reject all medical interventions, take the cards we are dealt. To the wise, accepting things as they are, without craving change, is freedom. And while our research to conquer diseases, and extend the quantity of years in our lives, is seemingly a good thing on the surface, quantity is not what is most important. Sometimes ‘less can be more,’ even in lifespan.
For several years, my wife and I were volunteers at a hospice for the terminally ill. We were companions to people in their final days, and aids to their families, offering support and comfort where we could. We heard many life stories. I witnessed older people who had lived a long life, yet seemed to have been miserable and self-destructive during much of it. Many kept true to form at the end. I met others, even the young, who seemed peaceful and accepting of the process of dying whatever their age. Many had been so even earlier in life. Perhaps we can learn to have the best of all ways of living and dying: peaceful, wise and accepting of our lives all through our years, peaceful, wise and accepting of our dying when dying (plus, as a bonus, a few extra decades gifted us by science which we can savor too.)
A medical ethicist, Leon Kass, has argued that living longer can come at a price, while mortality may be something we should welcome. He argues that longer is not necessarily more pleasant, as mere focus on quantity can leave us shallow and frivolous, like immortal Greek Gods with too much time on their hands. Kass argues that finding meaning in life requires that life contain a certain fragility. He asserts that the appreciation of natural beauty requires awareness of its transience, and falling in love would be less poignant without loss and heartbreak at death. I do not disagree. He is right, but I believe that we can keep life meaningful too, even if a bit longer.
+ Kass L. L’Chaim and its limits: why not immortality? First Things May 2001; Life, liberty and the Defense of Dignity. Encounter Books, 2002; and Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls. The New Atlantis 1 (Spring 2003)
Zen masters teach that profound meaning is realized in how one lives this moment, without too much thought to before and after. Likewise, appreciation of natural beauty includes its transience, like Japanese cherry blossoms which last but a few days, or seasons that change at their own rhythm. However, the seasons will still change even with a few more of them, and relationships will come and go, even if not by death. Time is always passing like a river, no matter its total length. Thus, even with our extended lifespans, there will yet be ephemerality and heartbreak enough … and with more time for more of it. I may not want the ‘84,000 years of life’ that the Buddha Maitreya promises, but I would not mind 184 years in decent health. I would not want my last century to be spent trapped in bed, tubes everywhere, doped to the gills or in pain.*
* (Personal note to my children: If I am ever in such a state, pull the plug. I am fine with it. Of course, if I am unaware of my plight, emersed in some virtual simulation that lets me be young again with those I love, like you kids, that is a different story. In such case, please keep me plugged in so long as we can financially afford.)
...
... There are many legitimate concerns in cloning, organ harvesting, and self-benefitting life extension that lengthen our lives, but prevent others from ever being born as the trade-off (If we opt for doubled life spans, are we depriving life to someone never born?), or which is so expensive that it is only available to the rich, diverting resources and funding from other more pressing needs of the people.
Yes, rather than seeking to live for 150 or 500 years, some will consciously choose not to do so, even should it be technologically feasible. Instead, we could vow merely to live gracefully, in peace and simplicity, for the natural lifespans that we are given. I don’t suggest that any of us refuse all medicines and not avail ourselves of modern technology at all (as I said, some folks of more radical views, like many Jehovah’s Witnesses today, may choose such a course, and that is their right). However, there is room for reason and balance in available options. Is it not better to live a life of 50 or 100 years with satisfaction, surrounded by love, goodness and beauty, than a life of centuries filled with discontent, conflict, hate, greed and ugliness? Were I to face such a stark choice, I would choose the shorter yet more lovely road.
But then, what about a life of centuries filled with satisfaction, surrounded by love, goodness and beauty?
Some people may choose to accept and embrace their cancer and heart disease, infections and fevers, their own and their children’s deaths despite there being cures available. It will be their right and choice (so long, of course, as their choice does not endanger others, unlike the many people who refuse vaccines in our world today, endangering others. It is acceptable, I suppose, if in their fear of science, they elect to place themselves in danger, but they should not place others in greater danger by doing so. Nor should parents harm their children by being foolish.)
It is possible that many of the hearing or visually impaired, the wheelchair bound, and the like will refuse artificial ears or eyes or robotized legs (as some today refuse cochlear implants) because they are so appreciative of their life and body as it is, and do not wish to be any other way. They are to be honored for their wisdom, and their choice respected.
The right of assisted suicide and graceful exit should be allowed, even today, to the terminally ill and those in great pain. In the future, some folks, although perfectly healthy, possessing what the wider society calls healthy bodies and a reasonably good mental state, may decide that enough is enough anyway, and choose to end things. The law might allow such otherwise healthy persons the right, at any time or after 100 or 150 years or so, to elect suicide for no other reason than to give someone else a chance at life (assuming, for example, that maximum population quotas are in place on our “homeostatic” world), or just because the person feels that their time is now done.
Even if we live to 200 or 2000 years, I do not think that real immortality will ever be in the cards. We will still be struck down someday by something (hit by a runaway robot bus, some future virus that outsmarts our best doctors, or in a transporter accident traveling to Mars), or this whole quadrant of the galaxy might fall into a black hole. The Buddha taught that, deep within, we are timeless, but he never said that we would live for eternity. As with our meals, what is truly important in lifespan is healthiness and quality, not sheer length and quantity. Perhaps we can have a little more time, while learning to be less shallow and frivolous with the time we have.
Gassho, J
stlah
Why a leading cancer doctor says he won't get chemo after 75
... Emanuel wrote that he would refuse all medical interventions—including antibiotics and vaccinations—after he turned 75 years old, saying he believes older Americans live too long in a deteriorating state.
"Doubtless, death is a loss," he wrote. "But here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us if not disabled then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived . . . We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic."
Emanuel clarified in the article that he would not end his life at 75, but rather that he would stop taking efforts to prolong his life.
... Emanuel wrote that he would refuse all medical interventions—including antibiotics and vaccinations—after he turned 75 years old, saying he believes older Americans live too long in a deteriorating state.
"Doubtless, death is a loss," he wrote. "But here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us if not disabled then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived . . . We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic."
Emanuel clarified in the article that he would not end his life at 75, but rather that he would stop taking efforts to prolong his life.
In the future, it is possible ... even likely ... that life will be further extended, to 100, 150 or longer. But in what condition? And what about the effects on society?
Should Zen folks learn to say "this is enough life, I do not need more," an Oryoki meal of life?
What would you do, for yourself or your loved ones? (Sadly, many or most of us must already face the choice of when to turn off the life extending machines and treatments for someone we love, given where technology already is today.)
From my book ...
~~~~~
In an age in which we will be able to choose physical beauty, height, intelligence, gender, and more by buying the desired DNA, both for ourselves and our unborn children, many of us may decide instead to reject all medical interventions, take the cards we are dealt. To the wise, accepting things as they are, without craving change, is freedom. And while our research to conquer diseases, and extend the quantity of years in our lives, is seemingly a good thing on the surface, quantity is not what is most important. Sometimes ‘less can be more,’ even in lifespan.
For several years, my wife and I were volunteers at a hospice for the terminally ill. We were companions to people in their final days, and aids to their families, offering support and comfort where we could. We heard many life stories. I witnessed older people who had lived a long life, yet seemed to have been miserable and self-destructive during much of it. Many kept true to form at the end. I met others, even the young, who seemed peaceful and accepting of the process of dying whatever their age. Many had been so even earlier in life. Perhaps we can learn to have the best of all ways of living and dying: peaceful, wise and accepting of our lives all through our years, peaceful, wise and accepting of our dying when dying (plus, as a bonus, a few extra decades gifted us by science which we can savor too.)
A medical ethicist, Leon Kass, has argued that living longer can come at a price, while mortality may be something we should welcome. He argues that longer is not necessarily more pleasant, as mere focus on quantity can leave us shallow and frivolous, like immortal Greek Gods with too much time on their hands. Kass argues that finding meaning in life requires that life contain a certain fragility. He asserts that the appreciation of natural beauty requires awareness of its transience, and falling in love would be less poignant without loss and heartbreak at death. I do not disagree. He is right, but I believe that we can keep life meaningful too, even if a bit longer.
+ Kass L. L’Chaim and its limits: why not immortality? First Things May 2001; Life, liberty and the Defense of Dignity. Encounter Books, 2002; and Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls. The New Atlantis 1 (Spring 2003)
Zen masters teach that profound meaning is realized in how one lives this moment, without too much thought to before and after. Likewise, appreciation of natural beauty includes its transience, like Japanese cherry blossoms which last but a few days, or seasons that change at their own rhythm. However, the seasons will still change even with a few more of them, and relationships will come and go, even if not by death. Time is always passing like a river, no matter its total length. Thus, even with our extended lifespans, there will yet be ephemerality and heartbreak enough … and with more time for more of it. I may not want the ‘84,000 years of life’ that the Buddha Maitreya promises, but I would not mind 184 years in decent health. I would not want my last century to be spent trapped in bed, tubes everywhere, doped to the gills or in pain.*
* (Personal note to my children: If I am ever in such a state, pull the plug. I am fine with it. Of course, if I am unaware of my plight, emersed in some virtual simulation that lets me be young again with those I love, like you kids, that is a different story. In such case, please keep me plugged in so long as we can financially afford.)
...
... There are many legitimate concerns in cloning, organ harvesting, and self-benefitting life extension that lengthen our lives, but prevent others from ever being born as the trade-off (If we opt for doubled life spans, are we depriving life to someone never born?), or which is so expensive that it is only available to the rich, diverting resources and funding from other more pressing needs of the people.
Yes, rather than seeking to live for 150 or 500 years, some will consciously choose not to do so, even should it be technologically feasible. Instead, we could vow merely to live gracefully, in peace and simplicity, for the natural lifespans that we are given. I don’t suggest that any of us refuse all medicines and not avail ourselves of modern technology at all (as I said, some folks of more radical views, like many Jehovah’s Witnesses today, may choose such a course, and that is their right). However, there is room for reason and balance in available options. Is it not better to live a life of 50 or 100 years with satisfaction, surrounded by love, goodness and beauty, than a life of centuries filled with discontent, conflict, hate, greed and ugliness? Were I to face such a stark choice, I would choose the shorter yet more lovely road.
But then, what about a life of centuries filled with satisfaction, surrounded by love, goodness and beauty?
Some people may choose to accept and embrace their cancer and heart disease, infections and fevers, their own and their children’s deaths despite there being cures available. It will be their right and choice (so long, of course, as their choice does not endanger others, unlike the many people who refuse vaccines in our world today, endangering others. It is acceptable, I suppose, if in their fear of science, they elect to place themselves in danger, but they should not place others in greater danger by doing so. Nor should parents harm their children by being foolish.)
It is possible that many of the hearing or visually impaired, the wheelchair bound, and the like will refuse artificial ears or eyes or robotized legs (as some today refuse cochlear implants) because they are so appreciative of their life and body as it is, and do not wish to be any other way. They are to be honored for their wisdom, and their choice respected.
The right of assisted suicide and graceful exit should be allowed, even today, to the terminally ill and those in great pain. In the future, some folks, although perfectly healthy, possessing what the wider society calls healthy bodies and a reasonably good mental state, may decide that enough is enough anyway, and choose to end things. The law might allow such otherwise healthy persons the right, at any time or after 100 or 150 years or so, to elect suicide for no other reason than to give someone else a chance at life (assuming, for example, that maximum population quotas are in place on our “homeostatic” world), or just because the person feels that their time is now done.
Even if we live to 200 or 2000 years, I do not think that real immortality will ever be in the cards. We will still be struck down someday by something (hit by a runaway robot bus, some future virus that outsmarts our best doctors, or in a transporter accident traveling to Mars), or this whole quadrant of the galaxy might fall into a black hole. The Buddha taught that, deep within, we are timeless, but he never said that we would live for eternity. As with our meals, what is truly important in lifespan is healthiness and quality, not sheer length and quantity. Perhaps we can have a little more time, while learning to be less shallow and frivolous with the time we have.
Gassho, J
stlah
Comment