Sanctity of Life

Sanctity of life is the one cardinal tenant we have all grown up with and accept unquestionably. Unless of course another country is copying your particularly nasty bomb, when it is then okay to kill. Or someone you are not in an allegiance with decides to shoot his own people, when it is okay to kill. Or when for God, King and Country, (not too sure of the prioritising here) it is okay to send off to slaughter a third of your adult male population. Apart for those global government decisions then, well no. We stand by as some 3,600 are killed annually in traffic accidents, untold numbers expose themselves to early deaths by drink, drugs, smoking and food abuses. All that though is trivial against the millions of babies that die each year around the globe for want of some simple cheap necessity, whether, clean water, basic food, treatment against malaria or diarrhoea. So no, there is no such thing as the sanctity of life.

Thank goodness Terry Pratchett is using his status to try and lift the veil on all the pious bunkum that surrounds the last great taboo, death. It is okay now to talk openly and freely about sex. Time we applied the same common sense to death. It comes to us all, it is the manner, the means and the propriety of the event we should get all het up about. A life squandered, taken by some stupidity, some reckless lack of forethought, these are all to be railed at and most vigorously. Equally whether self-induced by poor life choices or by the hands of some mindless could not care other.

Death is consequential to life. It is the when of death we need to focus our attention on. Maximising for everyone born, their opportunity to live an enriching and fulfilling life is the overarching priority. After that the when of death. When is it right and proper and when should we utilise all possible skills and techniques to defray. Not to get side-tracked into issues of means or timing. These follow on from that prior decision, when is death acceptable. We kill routinely so let us not be too squeamish about talking of decent and humane methods of bringing a life to an end. When it is decided, it is due time.

So how do we square a surgical procedure that will cost in excess of say £50,000 to give a chance of life to a deficient baby that has no meaningful prospect of a 'normal' life when millions of otherwise perfectly healthy babies die for want of 50p spent? I have difficulty squaring 100,000 babies saved against one damaged baby being given a compromised chance. Stark, deliberately so, as there are mountains of ethical issues out there of how we prioritise and choose to save here or let die there. What it comes down to is, there is no such thing of a sanctity of life. We every day, we all make choices, about who will live and who, without our support, will die. What better then than to face up to an easy choice. Let those whose life has reached an end, arrange for a dignified death at their time and place. If that is their own free choice. And that is the only moral dilemma. Is it their free choice?