How We Should Die

We're not Lydonistas -- while we're fans of Open Source, we catch maybe one show in eight, usually via podcast. But since helping them decide on a topic for their Seattle show, we've returned from time to time to their web site. When we have an idea, we suggest a show topic.

Several of them have disappeared into the ether, or their archives at any rate. But one of our recent questions has not disappeared: What should the leading cause of death be? There's an interesting topic for discussion. Our pitch wrapped up:

But if we’re all going to die, all things being equal, what should the leading cause of death be? Heart disease in old age? Cancer? Suicide, especially of the death-with-dignity variety? In short, what’s the ultimate goal of modern medicine, short of immortality?

It caught the producers' attention. Currently warming up: The Good Death, a show in which Open Source will riff on our suggestion:

Advances in medical sciences are staving off the inevitable but once it comes the toll on the individual and on society can be huge. In this program we’ll discuss how to die. Does the most comfortable and painless death coincide with what is least costly to society? What toll will the ageing boomer population take on the US? How do you think about your own death? In this hour we’ll address the ethical, economic and philisophical components of what it means to die.

Have an opinion? Know someone they should talk to (and please, suggest someone other than Andrew Weil, who's got two votes already)? Add a comment to the show's thread. We'll keep an eye on it and let you know when it's got an air date.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@seattlest.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By James in News on June 19, 2006 12:48 PM

Comments [rss]

Jim Moore

In the "land of the free and the home of the brave," it's ironic and immoral that one's final act, to "shuffle off this mortal coil," would require permission from anyone. It is both possible and practical to accommodate all concerns regarding abusive exploitation of euthanasia while also accommodating a person's ability to choose a peaceful, dignified death instead of a forced march to the bitter end. Suffering is in the spirit, mind and body of the person who must endure it and the choice to endure or not is the most deeply personal choice of all.

It is also ironic that many in the faith community would deprive others of this right. It is inconsistent to believe that the soul is eternal and transcendent yet insist that dogged preservation of the vessel of the soul takes primacy over the spirit within. Where is the love in forcing someone who is suffering intolerably to experience every possible moment of torment?

Freedom is an extraordinary thing. One need not exercise it to feel it, cherish it and revel in it. The Oregon experiment demonstrates this eloquently. While many thousands have explored their options under Oregon's law, only a few hundred have secured their potion, and less than half of those have actually used it. The freedom to choose is a far different thing than the choice itself, and the freedom to choose is the font from which the greatest relief from suffering springs forth.

Jim Moore

Aurora, CO