Forums | MacLife

Well I wholly disagree with him, his real arguments, and his straw men.

The man makes the mistake of defining dignity poorly. Dignity is not the same as self esteem, though the two are linked. Dignity is having control over ones self, and ones fate - so much as that is possible.

A big guy getting out of a small car may be embarrassed, but he still has his dignity. A guy getting a feeding tube stuck down his throat to keep him from committing suicide does NOT have his dignity.

I haven't read this book, so I'm not going to judge it, but based on the excerpt, I totally disagree with it. The biggest problem with medicine right now is that we are so focused on what we can do, that we fail to ask whether we should do it. We fail to ask those "quality of life" questions, that directly relate to a persons dignity.

We think it is awful when an 11 year-old girl determines that she would rather spend what time she has left lucid and able to enjoy what is left of her time, rather than getting chemo and puking her guts out to the end. We make it illegal for the elderly to end their lives on their own terms, and instead leave them on ventilators, unable to speak, until their immune systems can't fight off the bacteria anymore.

Medicine does a wonderful job of healing the body, but does a lousy job of treating the soul; and quite frankly, it's because doctors don't pay attention to patients dignity. We shouldn't need to have a lawyer draft a document to keep doctors off of us at the end of our lives.

The examples I gave are fairly dramatic, but lesser examples abound in modern medicine. The worst part is, we are just now realizing how powerful the mind can be, for both good and bad, and stripping a patient of his dignity can't be helpful in that regard.

Also, I've read quite a bit about "bioethics", and so far it looks like a pile of bullsmurf.  We are trying to find a substitute for morality, and coming up quite short.

radarman wrote:

Dignity is having control over ones self, and ones fate - so much as that is possible.

That's autonomy.

radarman wrote:

I haven't read this book, so I'm not going to judge it, but based on the excerpt, I totally disagree with it. The biggest problem with medicine right now is that we are so focused on what we can do, that we fail to ask whether we should do it. We fail to ask those "quality of life" questions, that directly relate to a persons dignity.

What book? It's a self contained essay--has TNR put it behind a paywall already?. He criticizes ]Human Dignity and Bioethics, but that's a 500 page monster, and likely a dreary read to boot.

Last edited by jerwin (2008-05-16 12:32 am)

Here's Ruth Macklin's editorial: Dignity is a useless concept.

Tallgeese wrote:

No, there are worse things than death. In fact, we all will die. It's not undignified to die. It's human. There are many people who would argue that certain kinds of dignity are worth keeping, even at the pain of death. One of the heroes of the America I like to belong to said something about losing dignity:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
And liberty is a fundamental part of human dignity.

It was his choice to die. His autonomous choice. No one made t for him, though they may have hastened it's coming.

Does "dignity" ever clash with autonomy? Which one wins?

Last edited by jerwin (2008-05-16 12:43 am)

jerwin wrote:

Here's Ruth Macklin's editorial: Dignity is a useless concept.

Dignity is a useless concept in medical ethics and can be eliminated without any loss of content.

That's exactly what I want to hear from the medical profession.

Dignity is "fungible"? that's a new one on me but I guess words don't actually mean anything anymore.

My Junior year for Ethics class I wrote a paper called "why be moral" that saved my grade.
I don't remember all the arguments but I believe it was along the lines that human advancement happens faster when we act as a social species, and the only way we can live as a social species is to have social boundaries which requires a sense of ethics and morality.

I do remember that I wrote it initially without any research - and after I wrote it - I flipped through the philosophy books looking for noted philosophers who had quotes I could use to support my argument (I figured no matter what I argued, I could find some noted philosophers who said something I could use as reference - I was right) and I'm guessing that helped me get the A. A on the paper anyway - C in the class. It was dumb class - we were forbidden to use the greatest philosophy book of all time to back up any of our arguments.

Anyway - I do think I hit the nail on the head as to why we have a desire for morality and ethics. Without it, we could not advance as a species.

Last edited by resedit (2008-05-16 7:08 am)

Actually, his definition of dignity is very well done, as are his other definitions. They are straw person definitions so that his argument sounds as if it is reasonable. Pinker is notorious for this style of argument. He generally will create two straw persons, and then argue that his position, in between them, clearly makes the best sense.

Its a shell game- when he writes for the public he knows that they have cherished notions about what they are. But if science is the model for thinking which society is to adopt in the wake of the death of god (figuratively speaking), they also have to give up those notions. "Morals" is too religious sounding, "ethics" sounds more technical and sciencey. The idea that "life is sacred" is too mystical- he wants a way to say the same thing by basing it on science. Its really really flimsy ground scientifically and philosophically because its looking for some objective evidence for subjective or universal values, but, because he knows the public wants a happy ending, the talk of it comes across as if they can keep their cherished notions so long as they call it something else or let science do whatever it wants because thats really what those values would want them to do.

Last edited by StaticAge (2008-05-16 7:47 am)

So smurf regulations.

Funny, I've always been under the impression that ethics was a way to apply moral principles in a consistent manner. Bioethics is a specialized ethical system used in health care that one would hope is informed by biology.

I don't think that a prostate exam requires giving up dignity.

dvpierce wrote:

We could have a much longer thread than this just arguing over the definition of dignity.

Well, yes.
My definition of dignity involves humans acting and treating others as humans. This means acting and treating others not as animals or instruments. It also means accepting being a frail, fallible, mortal human.