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 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
