By Serge Kreutz
It is immoral to kill somebody. Human violence is immoral, because violence causes suffering. But resurrecting people with medical technology is also immoral. It ought to be recognized that if somebody would be beyond life without medical technology, then people ought to leave him there. Going through death is the most difficult part of life, and if somebody is unconscious, and would be dead without medical technologies, one ought to do him the favor and let him be dead.
Even if a death was painful, a death that was passed through is not becoming better by reversing it.
The greatest mistake of common current ethical theories is a lack of awareness that all will be dead. It is stupid to pretend that life is a value in itself. Only the absence of suffering can be an ethical value.
Absence of suffering includes the absence of the awareness of the immanence of one’s death (not just the experience of a death without physical suffering). Which is why the best fate that possibly can await anyone, is to suddenly be dead in the middle of one’s life, and preferably during one’s sleep. Medical technology that aims to eliminate this option is misguided.
On the other hand, medical technologies that help to preserve physical attractiveness, as physical attractiveness is of great importance if one aims for a sexually fulfilled life.
Many people feel this way, which explains the popularity of reconstructive dentistry, Lasik operations, liposuction, and facelifts, even though people have to pay for such procedures out of their own pockets, while being kept alive on ICUs is paid by the government.
There are far too many ICUs. If, for example after a road accident, a person is unconscious and could survive only in an ICU, let there be a blackout on the power grid and on the hospital’s emergency power supply, so that that person will be dead for good. It is much preferable over dying a prolonged death from cancer a few years later.