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

[Andre Broersen]

  Platt inviting Andre to respond:

"How would the MOQ make that decision? There's no direct answer that I 
can find in Pirsig's writings.

Andre:
Well Platt, I suppose, if you look upon 'answer' as an end-point you are 
correct. Mr. Pirsig never intended the MOQ to provide answers in that 
sense but I think that the MOQ does provide a larger context within 
which to place the subject of this thread.

Platt:
I presume that if the patient was of sound mind and, from his past 
history,... .

Andre:
Here you are creating a precondition. What does 'sound mind' mean? Who 
is to judge this soundness? Are we looking here perhaps at the quality 
(adjective)of the ability to apprehend Quality? (just a thought).

Platt:
'...could potentially offer something of intellectual value during the 
remaining six or so weeks of his life, he should receive the drug.

Andre:
Continuing the precondition. Offer something to whom? Next, are we going 
to have a panel of people judging the content of what could possibly be 
intellectually offered, Platt? Or are you referring to the quality of 
apprehending Quality mentioned above?

Platt:
Otherwise, the social value of his life would rule which, as the Giant 
would judge, isn't worth a pence.

Andre:
My understanding of the medical profession, Platt, and having worked 
with many of them and having been totally dependent on their care a few 
times is that not many share the values of, as you call it, the Giant. 
Maybe that is what it is like in the States, I do not know.
Many, if not all of the medical carers I have met identify with LILA's 
doctor/germ example. Society has a moral right to control biology. These 
people care and they are incredibly dedicated to their work and have an 
acute sense of their responsibilities.
If it comes to being a matter of life and death, quality of life issues 
are always taken into consideration (there are very strict guidelines 
doctors need to adhere to here in the Netherlands) and never, to my 
knowledge, are financial considerations taken into account.

The other issue of course is that if, under some circumstances, society 
is to neglect (or even stop) the preservation of individual life, for 
example on the basis of financial considerations, what other 
considerations is it going to sanction? I think your 'Giant would judge' 
remark would be a sad reflection of the social values that hold sway in 
any given culture. I agree with Mr. Pirsig when he says that 'It is a 
matter for society through its mechanisms of politics to decide and keep 
deciding as it evolves toward a better world. ( LC, Annot:92)

Platt:
Biologically the poor soul would be best recycled."

Andre:
You mean food for the tree?, the vulture?, the Giant?, the flames?

Now, from a dynamic perspective... oh la la.