Currently, bourgeois writers are once again preoccupied with an old theme: speculation about an afterlife. While the economy prevents them from even offering the majority of their citizens the usual necessities—namely, a regular working life—the newspapers let people report on those who have "stood with one foot in the afterlife." The enlightenment of the age is reflected in these accounts of the briefly "clinically dead" in such a way that such experiences have made those affected more resilient, because, firstly, they are pleased to have been "given" a second life, and secondly, death has lost its terror for them. Only seemingly contradictory to this is the fact that dying itself has become a problem, and that process at which a person ceases to be a person is discussed as a matter of human dignity. While the everyday demise in conflicts between states and the commonplace breakdown of work life are at best registered as a statistic, the press discusses the fate of those who survive all this as a problem, to which, ironically, the progress of medicine—that science concerned with the natural causes of death—is supposed to have contributed. The following will demonstrate that both versions of the bourgeois engagement with death and what is supposed to come after it are based on nothing other than an interest in conditions for which even death itself is to be functionally shaped.
Dying is the most beautiful death
While at Easter the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is presented to unbelieving Christians as the most ingenious of his countless miracles and the crowning finale of a four-part television series, the rest of the year is spent discussing the question of whether there is life after death, entirely in the spirit of the Enlightenment, namely, with rigorous scientific rigor. Faith has become entrenched, which is why science strives to refresh its beneficial functions for the average person by problematizing the content of faith and demonstrating, with the help of logic, that this question is beyond its competence. A modern person must therefore be prepared for both:
"Not immortal – not mortal" –
On the one hand, it is entirely possible that he continues to live after his death—transformed into "another existence"—but on the other hand, it is also not impossible that he is truly dead. This is why he recovers from this soul-straining doubt from time to time by watching an Italian-Anglo-American co-production . This doesn't mean, however, that he wouldn't also enjoy the "protocols from the afterlife" interpreted for him by the most modern offshoot of psychology, thanatology. Oblivious to the fact that these chroniclers of a better world can only give their accounts because they have narrowly escaped death, the researchers of death take their statements as proof of the possibility of "a disembodied consciousness." They transform the annihilation of human existence through death, which, with the cessation of bodily functions, also brings an end to all mental activity, into a new reality based on the reports of these afterlife seekers, which they seek not to explain, but to confirm.
"However, the authors believe that this physical explanation is insufficient to fully explain the phenomenon..."
"This is merely a statement; it cannot be explained here." (Spiegel)
into a separation of body and spirit, so that with death the long-overdue "self-departure" can take place. This not only confirms Paul's "presumption":
"If there is a natural body, then there is also a spiritual body."
but also the ancient Egyptians and Tibetans, Paracelsus , Descartes , C.G. Jung and parapsychology were not wrong in assuming that there must be an "astral" or "fluid body", an "original form".
If all the superstitions of the last millennia – unfortunately, no “death experiences” have been handed down from Neanderthals – are treated as material worthy of discussion, as a serious contribution to the problem of whether death really ends human life, because nothing is more familiar to a psychologist who never views humans as anything other than a bundle of separate functions that he has to get into shape, than the “assumption” of the “division of the self”:
"That is death. That is what we humans call death, this division of the self." (Dr. Ritchie, psychiatrist)
Today, one tends to view one's own desires critically and considers the possibility that death could bring the bitterest disappointment of one's entire life. Ultimately, one must remain realistic and admit that...
"Reporters of near-death experiences were not dead themselves... At best, they have 'looked over the fence,' gained an outside perspective on another existence." (Spiegel)
The “last happiness”
But even if the hope for a better afterlife remains vague, modern psychology offers a consolation in dying that replaces the satisfaction previously associated with it:
"Man learns that he can be who he likes.
A final happiness and a final day." (Goethe)
"Before Heaven's Gate, before Heaven's Gate,
all are equal, whether rich or poor." (Peter Alexander)
far surpasses anything else. The "ultimate happiness" is, in fact, death itself, which, contrary to everything one might have heard about it, is "completely different," namely "beautiful."
"I felt as if I were floating and at the same time heard beautiful sounds. I saw harmonious colors and shapes. Somehow I had the feeling that someone was carrying me, calling me, comforting me, guiding me, ever higher into the other world, where I was now allowed to enter as a newcomer." (An accident victim in the ADAC newspaper)
The “most important thing in life”...
Dying offers what life itself denies us:
“Feelings of joy, love and peace” (“Spiegel”)
The glorification of death as the crowning achievement of life is nothing new. Rilke, for example , proclaimed with his propaganda for "one's own death" that the individual's uniqueness is realized in dying in the most original way possible. Fascism, too, made it clear that dying for the fatherland represents the "most inherent possibility of the 'one'" to force meaning into life—which must be relinquished. What is new about the discussion surrounding death is merely its psychological treatment. Because dying is "the most important thing in life," the ability to die must be learned, which is why schools for dying are springing up in scenic locations. These schools teach their students, in their engagement with the "fear-laden object" of death, to endure the fear of what is not, and to dispel their fear of dying as unfounded, because the final seconds are, in truth, beautiful years, in the face of which the death struggle becomes irrelevant, because they compensate for an entire life. If the irony of the debate surrounding death and dying lies in the fact that it is now taking place within academia, then a modest expert reveals why it doesn't allow any criticism of irrationality:
"Humanity should not presume to act in a necessarily 'rational' and 'sensible' way in this matter. It should retain the human humility to remain perplexed and irrational in this question." ( Eugen Loderer )
Given the widespread certainty that "we all have to die someday," humanity, which clings to this belief without much fuss, is confronted with "the question" of how it deals with death in order to better cope with its miserable existence. With the lie that it represses death, it is accused of not allowing the "fear of death to arise." By thus aiming not to eliminate, but to maintain, the fear of death through "engagement" with it, and by eliminating the "disrelation to death," which is supposedly repressed as "obscenity," through an "attitude" towards it in which the megalomaniacal individual remembers their creatureliness and thereby returns to their inherent humility, science is also launching an attack on the materialism of the bourgeoisie, which, in this fast-paced age, prevents reflection on the essential: the awareness of one's own mortality. Unlike the Christian Church, which, with the proclamation of the resurrection, declared death insignificant and, with the promise of a better afterlife, offered the abundant reward of an earthly existence in which there were only sacrifices to be made, modern morality only propagates with regard to death what it propagates everywhere: the meaning of life is missed without the right attitude towards it, namely, resigning oneself to the inevitable.
"Human death has become the exception, where the denial of death, this almost hysterical flight from the inevitable, is considered a social rule." (Fred Hepp, SZ/25.2.74)
... in "this world"
"What comes after death, I don't know, but what lies before death takes place in capitalist class society." ( Max Horkheimer as Heinrich Regius, in: "Twilight")
Because an enlightened person today knows that there is indeed something to be gained on Earth, but only if they are willing to make the corresponding sacrifices, morality has become second nature to them—which is why the allure of the afterlife no longer holds water, and modern activism no longer needs to focus exclusively on the afterlife. On the other hand, the uncertainty surrounding whether one truly perishes upon death is linked to the materialism of "You only live once," which expresses anything but the certainty that life ends with death—after all, the original version of this saying is "You only live once in the world" ("The Armourer" by Lortzing ). Therefore, one side tends to trot out this phrase with a guilty conscience after indulging in a indulgence to forget daily deprivation, while the other side, which has no need to excuse its daily pleasures, uses this saying to demonstrate that it is self-evident to them that there must be a life of prosperity and a life of misery. While both sides agree that it is still better to be dead than red, one suggests to the other the serious consideration of finding the meaning of life in dying, which will not reveal anything new about the former, but nevertheless sheds a revealing light on life, in which a part of humanity apparently fares so well that its "dignified end" is supposed to be the pinnacle of its content.
They must live, they may die
The glorification of death as a human rite has led progressive Americans to take their grandfathers out of intensive care units (or not even let them in in the first place) so that, surrounded by family, they can prove in their suffering that the struggle with pain truly makes a person great, and to pass this experience on to their children, because in this way any weakness is eradicated from them at an early age:
"Dying is as natural as living, and those who are afraid to die are afraid to live." ( Clark Gable in "Misfits")
Socially conscious dying
Because everything depends on the "death experience", "Der Spiegel" also draws a courageous lesson from the afterlife reports:
"And don't the experiences from the borderlands of death testify precisely to an 'extraordinarily heightened activity of consciousness' in the moments before biological (!) death?
Then, of course, it can, indeed must, be concluded from these accounts that modern medicine opposes this heightened activity of consciousness... with all its means, not making dying easier, but harder.
Then the accounts from the borderlands of death teach us that one can not only deprive a person of life, but also of the experience of dying."
This bold attack against intensive care units –
which now cover the Federal Republic so densely, as if they were the nodes in the social network, into which the most expensive and best is injected, and where nevertheless the battle is mostly lost: six, in some places even eight out of ten patients are wheeled out of the intensive care unit dead, feet first.
The state, in the name of humanity, demands that it spare the dying this "limbo" and the unnecessary costs by initiating a discussion about the "right to a dignified death." Where life is considered the highest good because it belongs to the state, the true dignity of the individual lies in fulfilling the state's austerity program regarding death, something a responsible citizen should recognize in good time.
“I am taking up a hospital bed from someone else, probably quite needlessly. I am causing work for the nurses and costs for my family and the state (the money could be given to the living). For me, it would be (and will be!) an act of conscious social action based on religious principles and an act of the highest freedom.” ( Luise Rinser )
When to unplug it.
This selfless, noble fascist soul, however, is denied the freedom to have the plug pulled, because the right to one's own death cannot be granted as long as there is still life—not in it, but in its body. Because the question of when a person is dead is determined by whether there is still life in them, the state insists on its duty to keep alive the body of a person whose individuality has been destroyed by the destruction of their brain cells, through the use of modern medicine. Although today, thanks to advances in medicine, no one would have to suffer Poe's nightmare of being buried in a state of suspended animation, because brainwaves can be measured using an EEG and it is known that a brain deprived of oxygen for more than five minutes cannot be repaired, the party that wants to allow bodies without minds to survive still resorts to the lie that "the boundary between life and death" cannot be determined (which is why Hartwig Steenken should also be revived by his horse's neighing):
"In my opinion, the boundary between life and death cannot be precisely defined by natural science." (Forensic pathologist Spann, whose practice contradicts this view.)
"No life is truly over, and we cannot decide between life and death in hopeless cases until death has actually occurred. There are things between life, dying, and death that remain hidden from reason." (Nurse with thirty years of professional experience)
So, it's not a scientific discussion when we consider when we can pull the plug. Instead, the achievement of medicine in determining the time of death is denied, and medical progress, which is limited to keeping a body viable even as its functions are ruined, is presented as an achievement in prolonging life—as if that were the goal of a medicine that uses Mildred Scheel , who makes television viewers unhappy with smoking, as its main weapon in the "fight against cancer." Indeed, because the natural sciences can ensure the body's survival for a time, their progress is seen in their ability to abolish dying.
"Since healers, by virtue of their knowledge and technical power, have truly been able to defy death..." (Spiegel) –
What leftists like Bloch believe will only truly be possible under socialism, while even wealthy Americans expect it will be some time before that happens, which is why they no longer opt for embalming but cryopreservation (in Germany, the land of Jungborn, however, fresh cells are still preferred). If modern medicine thus has the power to keep a body alive without will, the accusation that it is to blame for the dilemma that the democratic state is supposedly facing is inevitable.
"A dilemma of powerlessness that medicine, with its vast array of equipment, can perhaps mask but not eliminate." (Spiegel)
A matter of conscience
The dilemma cannot be resolved rationally, since both sides are operating with the abstract concept of life (for example, Karen Quinlan 's parents did not withdraw artificial nutrition from her after she continued breathing after the machines were switched off, which was intended to bring about her natural, dignified death, because there was still a "low quality of life" and thus "something of Karen" remaining), because both recognize the power of the state to grant the right to life:
“My God, I thought, such a private matter and such a huge circus.” (Father Thomas, the spiritual advisor to the Quinlan family, who wrested from the state their daughter’s right to a “death with dignity”).
Therefore, a "collegiate body, a council of priest, doctor, and judge" (Werner Höfer – "To Live, To Be Allowed to Die") is needed to deliberate on when and how to switch off the machine (or, ideally, not switch it on in the first place) without breaking the law. But since these three are already plagued by uncertainty, only conscience remains, which can be relied upon even in this situation, because it always asks itself how the living corpse would have decided.
"If uncertainty is increased by the fact that authorities which, for millennia, have always been absolutely certain in their judgments—be it jurisprudence, religion, or the healing arts enshrined by Hippocrates—are suddenly all uncertain: What remains? Apparently, only this poor institution of last resort called conscience." (Höfer)
"Karen herself never wanted her biological death to be forcibly delayed should any misfortune ever befall her." (Karen's devoutly Catholic parents)
While in fascism it is self-evident that only useful members are entitled to exist and therefore "life unworthy of life" is destroyed, in democracy we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of having a state that grants the right to life because we have a duty to preserve it – so that the consequences drawn by fascism can only be discussed. Thus, on the one hand, speculation about who and when should actually be eliminated enjoys great popularity, while on the other hand, there is always a careful attempt to distance oneself from fascist euthanasia using fascist rhetoric.
Rationalization in dying
Thus, discussions are held about all those deemed useless, exploring how the state can save money by ensuring their lives are lived in the most dignified way possible. Dying can be made considerably cheaper by keeping the elderly away from intensive care units and bringing the elderly (there's no need to exterminate them outright) home from inhumane nursing homes to the bosom of their families. Mentally ill children are also a hot potato, one that no one likes to tackle more than the clergy, who don't risk getting burned because their unwavering conscience protects them from "abusing the concept of euthanasia." For example, a bald-headed professor of ethics and religious philosophy from America named Lachs advocates "mercy killing" for those children who are "not persons" because they have hydrocephalus.
"They have no chance (this is generally agreed upon!) of surviving the struggle for survival or even achieving a modest degree of independence... The only way to treat such beings humanely," he says, is therefore "not to treat them as human beings."
Since the cost of prolonging life is also what drives the entire discussion – after all, medical progress that merely preserves a life that brings no benefit to the state is as expensive as it is useless – the destruction of the individual is never used as an argument for letting the dead die. Instead, the whole thing is transformed into a question of conscience as to whether life should be preserved in principle, with those who advocate shortening life defending themselves against the suspicion of murdering life by "shuddering" at their actions, which they no longer refer to with the ugly foreign word but as "assisted dying," even though they are only doing what, according to the opposing side, the body itself should do:
"The Quinlans' goal was to free Karen from artificial respiration and thus return her to her natural state and to the hand of God." (Father Thomas)
Life and death for the state
The democratic state enjoys hearing both sides argue because they not only fully support it as life-loving enthusiasts, but also raise public awareness of the problem of expensive medical advancements, thus allowing it to forgo enshrining the right to one's own death in its constitution. It resolves the cost issue in its own way by spending only what is necessary to preserve life, so that doctors consider, before admitting someone to intensive care, who will benefit from the treatment. Because it is self-evident that life belongs to the state (this ownership is drastically demonstrated in times of war by those who attempt to evade military service by cutting off their fingers, declaring their right to life forfeited because they wanted to escape the duty to die for the state), and because the first duty of every citizen is to remain capable of working, he also has no objection to discussions about whether dying isn't more beautiful than living, since this discussion cannot be misunderstood as an attack on the quality of life the state offers its citizens—after all, it only serves to make a worthless life bearable. And finally, in a democracy, one can also say with impunity that suicide is an act of the highest human freedom, because that is, in any case, only a topic for intellectuals. And when young students and workers put these ideas, with which they have been corrupted, into practice:
"You can't imagine what you can do with freedom. I made sure to find out what happens after death, and I stumbled upon something that helped me. I don't know exactly why I do it. But now I know what happens after death, and it's not so easy to keep it away from me anymore." (Farewell letter from a 14-year-old elementary school student who took her secret to the grave.)
Thus, the state takes control of those who have failed and sends them to its "closed wards" – thereby making it clear that it is not willing to tolerate unstable types who want to evade a life of duty.
From: MSZ 22 – April 1978
Comments
Post a Comment