To Live or Not to Live Longer

To Live or Not to Live Longer

A conference, convened by Dr. Arthur L. Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics with support from the John F. Templeton Foundation, was held in Chicago in early March to debate the ethical implications of extending human life. Although disagreement arose regarding the means, with some scientists arguing that eradicating the major diseases would do much to extend life, the larger part of the theoretical discussion focused on gene manipulation as a way of slowing the aging process. All this, however, was not nearly as interesting as the ethical debate these scientific prospects engendered. Ethicists and religious leaders argued passionately about both the advantages and the evils that a longer life span would bring about. Those against life extension argued that death helped shape the meaning of life and that 80 years of life were adequate for career and family purposes. Rev. Richard J. Neuhaus of the Institute of Religion and Public Life, described the research as "a pagan and sub-Christian quest" propelled by an "essentially amoral and mindless dynamic of the technological imperative joined to an ignoble fear of death."

Pardon me, no disrespect intended--but WHAT A LOAD OF NONSENSE! Ask a healthy octogenarian whether she has had her fill of life. Is there a point at which she could simply cease enjoying the company of her children and grandchildren? Or can she suddenly become impervious to the beauty of spring and autumn? If human life is sacred, who is to say when it 'should' end. As the saying goes, G-d helps those who help themselves. If another forty years of life were possible, I'd take them. Who in all honesty wouldn't? Permit me to make a toast to all those who share my view--live, live at least until one hundred and twenty?