[MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?

[plattholden at gmail.com]

All:

In a conversation reported in the Guardian.uk scientists David Attenborough and 
Richard Dawkins were asked, "What is the most difficult ethical dilemma facing 
science today:? 

"DA: How far do you go to preserve individual human life?

RD: That's a good one, yes.

DA: I mean, what are we to do with the NHS? How can you put a value in pounds, 
shillings and pence on an individual life? There was a case with a bowel cancer 
drug -- if you gave that drug, which costs several thousand pounds, it 
continued life for six weeks on. How can you make that decision?"

How would the MOQ make that decision? There's no direct answer that I can find 
in Pirsig's writings. I presume that if the patient was of sound mind and, from 
his past history, could potentially offer something of intellectual value 
during the remaining six or so weeks of his life, he should receive the drug. 
Otherwise, the social value of his life would rule which, as the Giant would 
judge, isn't worth a pence. Biologically the poor soul would be best recycled.

What's really horrendous about the question is that in the NHS and now 
potentially in the U.S. such questions are all too real with life and death 
decisions in the hands of a government committee, i.e., a death panel. I don't 
know about you, but the thought of my government determining whether I live or 
die makes me sick. It's as if Joe Stalin was resurrected.

When you surrender such personal decisions to the government, not only is your 
life threatened, but DQ, the creative force of evolution, dies, too. Perhaps, 
the MOQ answer is just that -- take responsibility for your own life so DQ can 
flourish.   

The interview is at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/11/science-david-attenborough-
richard-dawkins

Regards,
Platt