|
The Wells School of Philosophy
Roll Call
19th September 2023, Hare Lane, 1000-1200 hrs:
Tutors:
Linda Wells (LW),
Steve Wells (SW)
Pupils:
Julia Allen (JA),
John Elkins (JE),
Alexis Neville (AN),
Margie Richardson (MR),
Howard Springett (HS),
Colin Stern (CS),
Gavin Wilson (GW)
Initial Discussion Topic: Philosophy for the Very Elderly
Introduction (GW)
Several philosophies have at their heart the notion that, whatever gets taken away from you—however much you suffer—you've always got your power of reason; you can always make choices. But what if you can't even do that? The church may always be just round the corner waiting to fill that void. But are there other less religious philosophies that offer consolation for those who can barely think for themselves?
Many people suffering from dementia don't have any reasoned choice: they cannot hold two factors in their mind at once and make a judgement about them. They can recite things, but they cannot compare things. What can philosophy possibly mean for them? What sort of a philosophy is acceptable for those around them?
- If society were strictly utilitarian, it seems that many of those suffering from Alzheimer's would have been bumped off some years ago. These people do not score well in any cost-benefit analysis of their future care.
- Perhaps we can instead ask questions about rights and duties, to understand why a largely secular state should continue to invest so much resource in keeping them alive, particularly when, some of the time, they say would rather not be alive.
But there are very wealthy individuals, particularly in the United States, who are investing heavily in research into keeping themselves alive forever.
Contributions
- Various anecdotes were given of good and bad deaths—some enabled by doctors' omissions, some motivated by the interests (some of them financial) of the living—of court interventions, and of disagreements between relatives over treatment.(ALL)
- All beings die because eventually our genes stop repairing themselves.(CS)
- We should not allow money to dominate our decisions.(CS)
- HS and CS found some agreement on the issue of MONETARISM.
- Death is the natural destination for all life.(SW)
- Who would want to live forever? What sort of life is it for these immensely wealthy individuals who are spending most of their day working out in the gym and having blood transfusions from their children?(LW)
- Society should give more weight to the needs of the younger generations.(MR)
- Do we all believe we should be allowed to commit suicide?(JE)
- Kant says No. We don't own our own bodies.It's against the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.(SW)
- There is a difference between the right to die and the right to be killed.(CS)
- Who should be able to say what happens to an individual towards the end of their life? Why does being a close relative give you that authority? Is an agreement you signed perhaps twenty years ago still contractually valid?(JE)
- There was broad agreement that hospices are a good thing. There was a proposal that sort form of hospice care should be available, not just for one's last three weeks, but for one's final year.(JE)
- The money is there to do everything needed. The rich should pay more tax. As should Vodafone.(SW)
Books Plugged:
- Jon Alexander (2022). Citizens: Why the Key to Fixing Everything is All of Us. Canbury.
- Aristotle (c.330 BCE). De Juventute et Senectute, De Vita et Morte, De Respiratione. Lyceum Publishing.
- Madeline Miller (2018). Circe. Bloomsbury.
- Colin Stern (2021). Listening to Mother. Brown Dog.
- William Strauss, Neil Howe (1997). The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America's Next Rendezvous with Destiny. Broadway.
- Studs Terkel (2004). Hope Dies Last: Making a Difference in an Indifferent World. Granta.
|
