Jeanne Clement Photo: The Guardian Sipa/Rex/Shutterstock
Over the weekend an article published by The Guardian about a (pseudo)scientific row over Jeanne Clement, the woman from Arles who supposedly lived to 122, set me thinking about the fascination so many of us have with longevity. It seems Clement could have been a fraud, with her daughter impersonating her, soon after she died, to evade taxation. Yvonne, Jeanne's daughter would have died at age 99. The camps are divided, Jeanne is a cherished national treasure and admitting fraud is difficult in the circumstances.
Jeanne and Yvonne Clement aside, people, in general, are positively captivated with the idea of living a very long life. But why? Would it not be a bit boring to live for well over a century?
Apparently, not. People want to live forever, if only they could. According to this article, "funded by Silicon Valley elites, researchers believe they are closer than ever to tweaking the human body so that we can finally live forever (or quite a bit longer), even as some worry about pseudoscience in the sector."
The idea is dystopian, frankly repulsive. The complex technology behind such experiments makes this quest for longevity extremely costly and any of its results inaccessible to those who are not super-rich. It is, in many ways, profoundly unjust. Why don't we try, instead, to make the world a better place for the young, who are faced with terrible ecological threats and many of whom live in abject poverty, with very few prospects? A recent science fiction series Ad Vitam (2018) depicts a future world in which giving birth is outlawed, as everyone over the age of thirty can be regenerated. It's chilling.
Longevity and quality of life are intertwined. An often-overlooked side of longevity is illness. people imagine a state of eternal youth, but that is very far from the truth. There is no fun in a life ridden with ailments yet prolonging the life of a very ill person is regarded as mandatory. It is often cruel to do so but this is what those of us who belong to the baby boomer generation are forced (or have been forced) to do with our ill, ageing parents.
Mary Beth Bowen Photo: Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post
Michael Wolff wrote in 2012, inspired by watching the steady decline of his elderly mother, a poignant piece about the growing ageing population in the US alone: "by promoting longevity and technologically inhibiting death, we have created a new biological status held by an ever-growing part of the nation, a no-exit state that persists longer and longer, one that is nearly as remote from life as death, but which, unlike death, requires vast service, indentured servitude really, and resources.
This is not anomalous; this is the norm." Strong words, yet they resonate.
We don't allow, by and large, assisted suicide, it is regarded as immoral. I passionately believe we should have a choice. The only one available is VSED, the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking. But that requires an iron will and the death it brings is very slow. It is a wholly inhumane process. I read with great interest about the film made by Mary Beth Bowen about her mother Rosemary's decision to end her life by VSED. I salute Rosemary for her bravery and Mary Beth for having the courage to film her (with Rosemary's consent), at one of the most distressing moments of their lives. VSED is not prohibited by any law but it is inconceivable that this should be the only way to stage one's exit, short of resorting to violent suicide.
I may be in a minority but I do not want to live to a hundred. Having reached my sixth decade, I want to be able to die when , objectively, it feels like the only available option (for whatever reason), and I want this to be as dignitous and pain-free as possible. I might need a friendly medical hand to achieve it. For now, it will remain wishful thinking.
Comments
Post a Comment