Alright so, can someone else tell you what to do? Should people have a "right" to decide what happens to them when they lose the ability to take care of themselves? I'm considering this to be the point at which you can't feed yourself or physically move yourself. At first I would think the answer is yes since we're in America and all and there's that whole "free will" thing. If you were stuck where you couldn't take care of yourself yet wanted to live where ever you wanted to live, you'd want people to obey your wishes. Then again, what kind of person have you been? Are you good to other people? I think this matters because if one person has a right to decide where and how they live then others do too. The person who can no longer take care of themselves can sit at home but no one has to take care of him. I guess on paper and in philosophical discussions, you could say that one should be able to live as they choose but in reality, what you choose may not end up how you envisioned simply because no one else has to agree with you.
Let's say that you are adamant about living at home so that you can enjoy your home in your later years, sit in a chair and look out your window and not be bothered. The kicker is that you possibly would be bothered. Your image of peacefulness and contentment could be shattered because you need help to sit in that chair but there doesn't have to be anyone around to help you get in that chair.
When I try to force things outside of myself, it's resulted in a large amount of anger, frustration, pain, mostly anger, a lot of anger...but if I can somehow remove myself and not try to force, then I'm more relaxed. I might be sad at the outcome, but it's way better than anger. Anger is exhausting and futile.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment