上星期一，新闻报导了一名22岁的大学生，快将毕业了，去见了他的教授后，不知道怎样的，发生了刺杀教授的事件。该学生也在事后发现倒毙在地上。据说有人曾经看见他在顶楼，目击者跑去找人帮忙的时候，回来发现他已经倒毙了。

24岁大学助理自杀

不到几天后，又报导了一名大学助理在大学员工宿舍里自杀，原因不详。

空军医生发现倒毙墨尔本某桥下

年约27的医生，生性活泼，是运动健将又是学有所长的，在去年擅自离开空军到墨尔本去，在几天前被人发现倒毙。他的死讯，家人和朋友都不能接受。似乎他的死，是非常难以想象的。是不是自杀，还有待证实。。。

发现某大学生尸体腐烂留下遗言

然后是一位在籍的大学生，因为发现自己患上了爱滋病后，决定自杀。死前告诉母亲要好好的照顾自己，留下遗书后悔自己追逐物质生活云云。。

自杀成了风气吗？

不到一个星期，我算了算，前后4宗自杀（或怀疑）被报导，在以前，我是很少看到这样的情形。我不禁的纳闷，我们这一代的年轻人，也成为草莓族了吗？

其实把又红又好吃的草莓，跟现在承担不了压力的年轻人挂钩起来，实在是有点冤枉。只因草莓是能看能吃却不能碰，一碰就会变坏。因此，把这个特性跟年轻人不能承担压力就成为对等的代号。

我很佩服那些敢自己拿掉自己生命的人。我在想，要这样做很不容易。因为，他必须要无视自己有亲人的关爱、友情的温暖；他要把自己的问题放大到世间上，再也没有比他遇到更难的事情。他必须要认为，自己其实是很尽力了，他其实是用尽了一切方法。但他认为，没有人能帮到他，也没有人遇到他的问题那样困难到无法提供任何的意见。因此，他的问题是全宇宙中最大的。是的，连那些在非洲挣扎求存的、那些在坍塌煤矿里等待救援的、那些被地震废墟压住、空气又快要断绝、连吃的都没有了；都不能相比。因此，他认为自己有足够的理由，可以亲手的把所赋予他的生命加以摧毁。

压力，这是一个连小学生都会说的词。因为压力，就有很多的理由要怎样怎样。。其实谁不会面对压力？小的时候有成长的压力、读书的时候有压力、体育竞赛有压力、考试有压力、然后升大学也有。。在狂欢庆祝自己毕业后，马山接踵而来的是职场的压力。。然后是找伴侣的压力、交际压力、结婚的压力、成家的压力、买房子的压力。。。。

当你用这样的眼光去看这个世界的时候，真的难怪有的人就会拿起勇气不要活下去。

压力是不能逃避，却是个祝福

其实压力是不能逃避的。有的人能够承担的更多，无怨无悔的，对他来说，压力是个成长的祝福。许多人不了解，同样的不幸，对一些人来说，是个压力。对其他的人来说，是个祝福。因为经历过，可以体恤别人，产生同理心。更进一步的，有的人甚至因此去发明改善、或者是去找寻解决的办法，让其他的人不用步自己的后步。因此，患上癌症痊愈后的小朋友，后来终于成为了医生。因为发现盲人无法读书，因此发明了凸点文字让盲人也能享受阅读。等等等等。。。我们享受许多的成果，是来自别人承担的压力下产生的。

自杀不能解决问题

很多人用自杀来解决问题。事实上，有一次我在置放先人骨灰的地方，看到一个很年轻的灵牌，前面贴了张小纸张。我很好奇的去看，原来是母亲的忏悔。母亲写的，都是满了后悔不好好关心他，不了解他面对的问题。。据我了解，好像是因为孩子不想参加某个课外活动，母亲似乎不能理解，孩子觉得没有人关心他，就自了算了。他才15岁。他还有个妹妹。。。我在想，他现在会不会后悔呢？留下的是老父母的一辈子内疚；留给自己妹妹的，不是有表率榜样的例子。。。令人不胜唏嘘。

我个人察觉到，很多的时候，想自杀的人都很封闭自己。他们往往只看到自己的问题，觉得自己就是宇宙的中心，旁人无法去接触他的内心世界。我不知道原因是什么，却觉得有个值得注意的：就是缺乏沟通或者沟通技巧。

当一个人有问题的时候，他觉得问题是冲他而来，因此他必须独自面对。如果要告诉别人的话，别人会怎样想？别人能理解吗？别人能接受吗？等等。。可是，就是把心里的话或烦恼讲出来，其实是面对问题的第一步。因为他其实不可能知道，说出去后别人会有怎样的反应，会产生什么效果。可是往往的，钻牛角尖的人，都会认为他已经知道别人会有怎样的反应，然后自己封闭自己内心，非常的有理由可以坚持自己的决定。

他没有勇气去面对其他的可能性：父母还是会爱你的、朋友还是会关心你的、虽然不一定有方法，可是有办法能面对（总是有人走过自己面对的路）。。。这些的可能，我们千万不能否定。因为当我们否定的时候，就是我们给自己宣布绝望的时候。

沟通似乎是个快要死亡的东西。因为电脑游戏、网络的一大堆信息，取代了我们最宝贵的＝时间。我们没有时间，我们觉得缺乏时间，我们觉得时间不够用。因此，压力也就产生了。更糟的是，它产生了一个恶性循环，它让我们感到压力，同时让我们认为没有时间去跟别人说，因此，这个循环把我们封闭起来，我们是情愿多用时间呆对电脑，却不能抽出时间跟三五个知己出来聊自己的问题。

科技虽然给我们方便，却剥夺了我们的许多技巧。科技的成长取代了我们年轻人的成长，因此，他们才成为草莓族。

I am not hear to defend anything but a concern in changing the nature of a day with meaning into another. Take the tradition of Chinese who celebrate Chinese lunar new year. The night before the new year is a night we called “tuan yuan fan　团圆饭“. It is a night where grown up children would go home to their parents, if they still alive to join for a feast. It is suppose to be meant for a time to gather as a family, not to forget each other, the relationships; a time to catch up, a time to express our thanks to our parents.

Over the years, this night has gradually become very commercialise. No longer, daughters inherit their mothers’ special dishes, a time where the in-laws were busy in the kitchen preparing food from everyone while chatting in the kitchen. The meaning of ‘tuan yuan fan’ means a perfect gathering (completeness) not missing anyone, also has the meaning of gather in harmony. But with commercialisation, the restaurants take the limelight over the dishes of the mothers.

Yes, it is very tiring to prepare a feast for a family, especially a big one. As parents grow older, children out of good intentions ask the parents not to cook but to go out, especially in good times when everyone’s earning has gone up.

Parents of course would say, yes it was quite tiring to prepare food at older age. They nagged, complained a little but it could be just for attentions, just want to hear us again to say “mum, your cooking is still the best!” Instead, with everything available as instant convenience like the 3-in-1 coffee, instant noodles, with money to afford, why not go to the restaurants instead?

It then changes the whole scene from a perfect gathering becoming a chance to show-off who would spend more to hold at a famous restaurant, arguments arise for who should pay more, which restaurants to go and so on and so forth.

The restaurants are here to make money, they won’t give you the luxury to relax and chat. A typical 10 course Chinese dinner won’t last more than 2 hours. And then what? Everyone say goodbye and go home. Communication is a luxury. Catching up seem to be really in need to catch up with time. More of hi and bye most of the time.

Christmas is the same. Too tired to prepare a feast for kins. Go to restaurants. Now even the supermarket would prepare the cooked for you, just order it. Buying a gift is so convenient now that you just pick and let the part time student working at the gift wrap counter to do the wrapping for you.

Called me an old fashion. I like to wrap gifts myself. It is a way to say “I love you”, “I care about you”. If they are so important to you, there is always time to do something for them. I love to cook food for our kins, my wife too. Actually to confess, we did wonder if we should go to the supermarket to order the cooked food. The problem we found out was that, it was only available after 12 noon and we planned to gather for lunch. So we had no choice but to prepare ourselves, of course not the ham but the beef, the salmon, salads and so on.. And the verdict? Almost all the food was consumed. Everyone happy and satisfied. We also managed to spend a couple of hours around the dinning table to chat, talk and catch up.

Yes, it is the problem with time isn’t it? Everything we want to do we ask “do we have enough time to do so?”. If not, we look for services to do it on our behalf. Many of us ended up in rushing to “been there, see that, done that” kind of going through the motion.

The commercialisation has in some way, I feel, eroded the meaning and values to become something very superficial. In the end, it becomes an obligation. Just like the Chinese ‘tuan yuan fan’ dinner, if both parents passed away, siblings couldn’t be bothered to come together, the connection is lost.

This Christmas, we were tired. But we were glad to have everyone together.

As the 21st century unfold itself, I sense we are marching towards a world whereby people want to redefine a lot of things, their bondaries and rights about many facets of life. Human right, I feel is a phrase many a times misuse to the extense that some laws are passed just to please these people hiding behind a mask, for other motives.

Euthanasia could be a topic originally on people who couldn’t suffer their pain and wouldn’t want to be a burden to others and choose to end their lives in a so-called “dignify” way, or actually, suicide. When this disucssion started in Singapore, yes, it is about dealing with patients suffering from terminal illness who couldn’t bear the pain. To be honest, I really empathise those in suffering and in pains.

However, my concern is, with this floodgate open, it would lead to something very scary, something people that had probably forgotten even history of just 50 years ago!

Euthanasia may start with people who are in the suffering asking to legalist to allow them to have that choice to end their lives. Yes, the key word here is “choice”. The very person in pain and suffering choose to end his/her life. The justifications of it, arise from debate are about: burden to the family, society, limited resources, costly to maintain blah blah blah.

I smell something that makes me uncomfortable that the value of human is measured most importantly is monetary. Everything seems to boil down to cost, $. We overlook the fact that to each his/her own that a life exist on this earth is purposeful and with respect to each of us, most of us, if not all, contribute to the country, society, the earth etc… big and small way.

It is such an irony that when asking for donation, we show our gratitude that big and small, we welcome your donations. But when come to a terminally ill patient, on the other side of the balance, is about the asscoiated medical cost/resources blah blah blah..

Yes, I empathise those in sufferings and in pains but when the argument to have the right to die with dignity is on monetary reason, that the whole situation will evolve and no one can stop that, lawmakers could pass law to ’solve’ an aging generation associated with problems on budget/resource constraints very conveniently. Hospitals, doctors would just default to the ‘convenience’ to recommend euthanasia for every single person who has diagnosed with terminal diesease. There is no cure, no purpose to treat them, they are burden to the society, resources should be put on to something worthy (and who is going to decide what is worthy?).

So, does that mean that it is therefore also eventually becomes meaningless to invest, to train, to educate and to innovate new treatment or to find cures for terminal dieseases?

21st century is also a century that science has broken many secrets about life i.e. genes. While there are scientists to work to understand how gene works and how a disease could be triggered due to a genetic weakness; others are started to look into playing God’s role in the direction of predicting how long a person would live, what would be the health problem that terminate a person’s life.

This, without regulation under the respect of human life, would one day giving the lawmakers the power for example: to decide who should be born and who shouldn’t be, envisaging that this person due to his/her inherited genes defect, would probably die after 10 years of living.

What about insurance company refusing your future insurance forseeing at 50, you would get heart disease? What about government employers turn you down on your job application because you are going to have cancer at age of 45?

The exertion of right for the present temporal convenience would only lead to opening the floodgate for mad people like H* during world war 2, experimenting the fastest and the cheapest way to wipe out an ethnic group of people. The justification? Oh sure he had. But who gave him the right to look at life in that manner? Was it just because of assuming political power that gave him the power (not really the right) to justify his right? It is no wonder that there are many groups out there trying to get their rights through political movements and influence and it can only be proven futile to the future generation/s, because of fighting the so-called right, defined by a particular group.

]]> http://stephmee.dintblog.com/2008/12/14/euthanasia-whos-right/feed/ 0 http://stephmee.dintblog.com/2008/11/12/%e5%ae%89%e4%b9%90%e6%ad%bb%e7%9a%84%e6%84%9f%e6%83%b3/ http://stephmee.dintblog.com/2008/11/12/%e5%ae%89%e4%b9%90%e6%ad%bb%e7%9a%84%e6%84%9f%e6%83%b3/#comments Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:52:40 +0000 stephmee http://testrun.dintblog.com/?p=7 死对我们华人来说，应该是个忌讳，尤其是老一辈的人，你问他今年多大，他几乎就要跟你翻脸。我以前很纳闷，为什么老人家不肯说自己活了多少；我觉得，既然能活得这样老，应该是感到自豪的（尤其是身体、精神都很健康）。后来我才知道，原来老人家是害怕说了就会折寿。怕被不好的东西听到了，就来减寿。这当然是没有根据的。。嘿嘿

因此，人都是希望自己活到老，能够继续的活下去。尤其记得许多感人热泪的求生故事，我们都称赞这样的人，他们的那种生命力、那种不妥协、不放弃，正是我们今天社会需要的。

可是，却有人在倡议安乐死，原因是，因为有的人得了绝症，对家人、国家、医疗资源等，都是个浪费；有的人在绝望中，想要死的有尊严，因此，寻求安乐死。

在看过许多的讨论中，很多都是因为沉重的负担、觉得对不起家人、不堪绝症在治疗上延长生命的痛苦；因此认为自己应该有选择，可以安乐死。

这样的想法，其实跟想自杀的人差不多。想到要自杀的人，都认为自己是个负担、对不起家人、觉得自己没有任何的存在意义等等，所以想寻死。

这样的想法是很自我中心的。把自己的价值用物质的贡献来衡量，觉得自己无法贡献了，成了家里的经济负担，就没有资格生存下去。可是，那些在面对死亡威胁的人，却不是这样想。他们想到的是：我还想跟家人在一起；他们想到的是，如果自己一旦离开，其实对家人、朋友都会有造成损失或伤害：现在不是时候，我要活下去，这样的呐喊，成为他们的动力去求存。

人生本来就是会有生老病死，如果人寻求安乐死，对他的后人来说，无形中成为一个榜样：受不了的时候，生命没有意义继续下去。这，跟去跳楼自杀的有什么分别？又有何尊严可言呢？我们到底要传递什么信息给我们的下一代？这不只是个立法问题而已。。。。。