I’m joining an increasing number of people in the world who want the right to die. I want the right to decide when my life can end. In my case I don’t mean suicide, and I don’t mean avoiding the pains of living, I mean dying on my own terms with dignity to preserve the purpose of my life and to avoid being a burden to those around me. In 1997 Switzerland was the only country were assisted dying was legal. Now 11 countries and 10 US states allow it. It has several names and no matter what name it is given, it is still very controversial. In the UK for example, where only 35% of Parliament favors such a law, and of course in socially conservatives US states, such laws will not be enacted in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless much progress in this area has been made, Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, the Netherlands, Columbia, Germany, Austria, Portugal, five Australian States have legalized it. What is very interesting to me is that countries which are largely Catholic like Ireland, Chile, Italy and Uruguay are in the middle of legislation that will legalize it. The impetus behind this movement is credited to the many people who have witnessed loved ones suffer because of chronic or incurable illnesses, and too the fear that this could happen to them. The state of Oregon became an example in 2015 when it passed the Death with Dignity Act, which has been copied by several countries and several states. Classical liberalism invokes the right to self-ownership and the sovereignty of the individual, that is not what motivates me, nor do I think what motivates most. Personally I do not want to live without a sense of purpose, if I can no longer do my work, then my life as I understand it is finished. Others want to be able to have a certain quality of life, be conscious, be able to greet others, still others want to be able to make their own decisions. Motives may vary, but the issue is the same, we want the right to have a say when and how we die. And that movement, I’m happy to say is gaining.
Danielle Levy
-
3-D Printed Eyes
Someone I know slightly has a prosthetic eye which she has already lost twice. Due to the involved process and cost of a prosthetic eye I am told she has been wearing an eye patch. So when I read about a man in England who has been fitted with a 3-D printed prosthetic eye, my interest peaked. When I first read about 3-D printing it was about how easy it would now be to make guns and it felt alarming. Since then the possibilities of 3-D keep unfolding. I recently did a podcast about 3-D homes, and 3-D prosthetics for limbs are being used in several countries helping with land mine victims and others. 3-D makes what it creates more affordable. And so it is with prosthetic eyes. They usually run several thousand dollars. With 3-D it could be as low as $50 although it is doubtful that is what they will end up costing. The man in England, Steve Verze is the first. They are looking for 40 more people to continue the clinical trial. They are assessing the 3-D printed eye for things such as movement, fit, comfort, mucous discharge. Already they know that the initial scan to print the eye which takes only a few seconds can lead to a better fit than a regular prosthetic eye and can better replicate the natural color of the eye. What is important about this news is that it is happening right now at the Fraunhofer institute for Computer Graphics Research and Fraunhofer noted that the process is made possible by the algorithms of its Cuttlefish:Eye software. In plain English that means it is not a dream, it is real and here now. To me it’s not just the 3-D printed eye, it’s what it stands for, the promise of it coming to life. When 3-D is used to better the lives of people as it aims to do with 3-D printed eyes, it is not only extending the potentials of 3-D, it is contributing to using technology to do what it was to do, that is to make a better world.
-
Non-Citizens Voting
New York City has done something which some will consider wrong but which according to my understanding of what’s good is a step in the right direction. It has given some 800,000 non citizens the right to vote in local elections. It only applies to green card holders and those holding work permits and the first election where it would apply is in January 2023. It goes without saying it is a debated law and some including experts say they do not know if New York City’s city council has the right to pass a law affecting voting rights. Still, it remains that in a democracy people are to have a voice in their fate, and voting is how we do it. Non-citizens live in the community, and pay taxes, they are involved and it seems only fair they ought to have a voice in the affairs of their city. There’s also the issue of inclusiveness. To my understanding humanity has to learn to be increasingly inclusive as a means to reach unity millennia from now. And this would be a small step. New York city is the largest city to pass such a law, towns in Vermont and Maryland already allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections and non-citizens can vote in school board elections in San Francisco. It’s worth noting that several other towns in Illinois, Maine and Massachusetts are planning to allow non-citizens to vote. Needless to say it is controversial and some states like Colorado and Arizona have already passed laws preventing non-citizens from voting. It will continue to be controversial and as it does it is bound to foster discussion—perhaps a discussion that will deepen our understanding of what inclusivity means. That I believe would be very helpful to better understand how democracy works.