Death has reared its head. The one thing that every human is forced to face kicking and screaming is coming, knocking at my door. And provoking many questions I have about the living, and what is value in a life where death exists. I’ll start somewhere.
A person in my personal circle of friends is in critical condition. I visited the sick in my moral social obligation. X kept repeatedly explaining the winning position of the sick, how the best doctors were afforded, the best treatment given, the suddenness and unexpectedness of the sick’s critical condition, basically saying in many different ways, “I did the absolute best I could, here’s exactly my evidence so don’t blame me for the departure of this sick person. It was a decision by God.” I noticed Y, in searching for some kind of reaction in herself, what kind of attitude she should hold towards this particular almost certain death, beginning to chat with the most closest to the sick. Chat about the practicalities of a death, how certain things need to be done, demonstrating an understanding of what she guess is going through the life of these people closest to this sick person. Not through their minds, but through their lives. The whole idea that death is allowed to be a business of profit is insane and criminal. What things do these great doctors say to X, that gives her the confidence and the stature to explain her husband’s near death as if the best treatment was actually administered, that these doctors know what they are doing, that these doctors have done everything they could in the context of the limitation of their knowledge to supposedly help this poor man. How do the doctors get away with charging exorbitant amounts for medicine, labeled medicine, and get the man’s wife to accept that the best was actually done for the sick man. To the extent that X would defend her husband’s critical condition saying all was done to help her husband and in spite of that, her husband fell into coma. I heard from X that her husband’s liver was failing, most likely due to the effect of the medicine. When do we say a doctor is prolonging the suffering of a person to profit off of death, and when do we say that a doctor is saving a person? Do we really get to decide who lives and who dies, that’s what’s being implied by all of X’s talk about the best doctors and treatment. When is a doctor selling futile hope in the man’s survival, and when is a doctor caring about the man?
But death is unanimously agreed by all affected by the death, to be an absolute loss. We lose the character that the man played in our lives, we lose all future contact and potential experiences with this man, and the man loses – everything. I looked at the sorry state of my friend, thinking that if he actually had a choice, he would not allow anyone to see him in such a sorry state. Why do we believe in an idea of choice when someone’s death is already decided by the physical forces of this reality, that we clearly don’t understand in its totality, but an idea is sold that we’re constantly almost there to understand physical reality in totality? When do we say a doctor is giving false hope to this man that he has a chance to continue living, and when do we say a doctor is healing him? Death has the last laugh. What can I do to honor the dead, physically practically? I know it’s not giving fake hugs to ‘comfort’ X, it’s not to play the role of concerned and place X in a role where she has to be the spokesperson on behalf of this man. All of what X said about this man’s convictions and desires is mere conjecture. But in our rare dealings with death, we collectively play the specific roles of concerned – but what are we really concerned about? – and those closest to this man play the role of seeing that the funeral and all the practical points surrounding this man’s death, is done. What will happen to X and her children without this man being the breadwinner? What is being done to ensure that this future widow and her children have a future?
We all act concerned, and one saying pops up in my mind: good intentions pave the road to hell. What amounts to all of our collective emotional concernings? When is it just lip service and a moral social obligation to act concerned? When is the concern made real and we really concern ourselves with the practicalities of this family’s future? What is a family’s future with the husband dead, in an economic system that preys on the living? It’s preying on the future widow’s money.
How much will be said about this man after visiting him, how much of what will be said gossip, how much will be care, how much will be concern, how much will be concern that is practical and practically assists and supports the family involved, how much will be an empty thought spoken out to the cosmos? And where were all of us when this man was struggling for his life? Have we limited our extent of concern to only show up when he’s literally dying, say a few I guess comforting words and a hug, ask and demand answers to his present condition from X? Is that real concern? Is that real care? Within a context of a predatory economic system that everyone needs ways to generate money?
Would real care and concern include doing what is possible to maintain the money that’s required in this family, or is that really a boundary or chasm separated by blood? A blindingly obvious fact is the living absolutely requires money to continue existing, no exception with this family whose money earner is dying. Is having money and being able to spend it on the treatments available within a system that imposes profit over life valid? Are the treatments all valid from the perspective of being developed to actually cure the illness? Or are the treatments the products of a twisted economic system that only values profit? So are the treatments ways to make money off of the dying and dead? Death and business and money should not even be a question of whether these things should be allowed to exist in a dependent relationship. But you will observe that death is the business of many on Earth. How do we even verify that these doctors actually know what is happening and what they are doing to the patient, in the context of a system of specialization? Does paying top dollar for a treatment mean we administered the actually best treatment for the patient? Why are doctors both responsible for the treatment and understanding of such conditions as illnesses, that means they can spin any perspective through their spoken words and cheat people of lots of money, and actually have them believe that what was given, is value in fact. But what decides when an understanding and treatment is actual value, it’s when it’s effective isn’t it? That’s for our physical reality to decide, and the decision was already made because it’s already functioning in spite of our ignorance. What gives the doctor so much apparent power to apparently decide life and death of another human, it’s our perception and belief in the doctor that he has these powers when truthfully, with chronic illnesses, the doctor does not understand how it works in fact. Because if they understood how it works in fact, effective solutions would have been allowed to be researched and marketed for the world to see. But that’s absolutely controlled, by whether these medicines and treatments will make money, profit. If they don’t you and I both know already what will happen! They won’t reach our eyes or ears. It will be kept an unknown secret.
When is it right and good that money is being charged for the treatment of a man whose illness is not understood in fact, and is known to cause death? When an illness presents a 90% chance of death, is it right and good to emphasize the 10% chance that he will survive? Is it right and good to suggest treatments that truthfully, everyone doesn’t know will work until it does? What justifications are made that the money charged for a treatment that doesn’t work is rightfully the doctor’s? What are the doctors actually doing when they are suggesting solutions to a problem that they do not understand? It seems to me they are selling hope and chance and the 10% encouraging people to gamble on treatments. Is it really better to gamble on an expensive treatment and have 10% chance of winning/surviving, than if death was accepted as an inevitability and the man is allowed to die? What do I mean by allowing the man to die, that’s already a decision made by Death as this physical world, allowing would imply some form of a permission when no permission was asked or given. Is it morally justifiable to profit off people’s deaths like the doctors do as their business? Does it make sense that this business exists? Does it make sense to allow and embrace an economic system that promotes gambling on people’s lives, pushing an idea of control and choice when there’s no choice to begin with? What is real and what is fiction spun by doctors and widows and family?
Erroneously, we give doctors too many opportunities to keep secrets because of embracing a system of specialization. What if the doctor is claiming to know the solution therefore the problem, when they actually don’t understand the problem or the solution? Is it possible to ask for equality in understanding when our money system profits from secrecy and lies presented as if they are real? Is it possible to examine the doctor’s work and say when it is valid when the doctor’s living is using and abusing a money that systematically pushes the leading cause of death poverty starvation and inadequate hygiene? What happens to doctors if they made a wrong guess at how an illness works? Profit and doctors do not belong to each other, if they mix corruption thrives. That’s why you will observe how much doctors are paid and regulated in China. Not much, and regulated extensively. What happens when a doctor’s living is dependent on a system of profit, with profit as the guiding principle that decides literally, who lives and who dies? A Basic Income Guaranteed would change how medical research will be done. It means doctors won’t have to depend on organisations that rely on profit to survive. So the doctors won’t have to fear for their life, as they currently do under the auspices of profit.
Where is responsibility being taken by doctors if and when patients die in spite of their treatments? How does acting sorry and constantly saying ‘we did everything we could’ take responsibility? A doctor brings onto him/herself the responsibility of understanding illness to prevent unnecessary deaths. Is it responsibility to admit that we don’t understand, and still suggest solutions that aren’t 100% effective reflecting an absolute understanding of the illness? Is it responsible of the doctor to insist on money demanding treatments and medical care, is it responsible to be claiming to save patients when what doctors are really doing is prolonging suffering? It’s the family’s bloody choice to spend money on treatments, is it a choice, or is it rigged choice, where all the options are only available because it is proven profitable, not because it’s proven to save lives, how can it be a choice when all the family knows is this illness is causing the man to die, it wasn’t a choice for anyone involved to have this man sick and ill. Greater forces that are physical in nature made the choice to have this man ill. And when fear of death and fear of survival are triggered by someone’s illness, I would say the seeming choices made are emotional in nature, so is being compelled by emotion to “make a choice” a free choice? Or does a choice exist only when we aren’t ensnared by the emotion’s hypnotising tunnel visioning influence, and consider all things and make a decision within absolute limitation?
What I see when I see the family speaking and explaining to the friends of this man is a group of people frantically organizing how to live the rest of their days without the financial support of this man, without the existence of this man. Death really makes apparent the business of the living.