When the dead are not allowed to die

In the United States the case of the 13-year-old Jahi McMath has regularly been making the headlines since December. The girl had had her tonsils removed surgically, but after the procedure she went into cardiac arrest and was declared brain dead shortly afterwards. Her family didn't accept her passing and wanted her to be kept on life support, while the hospital and the coroner wanted her to be taken off the ventilator, so they could start their investigation on Jahi's death.
The family moved to court, insisting the girl showed signs of life, but the judge declared her brain dead, too. Now - with the coroner's consent, since she's legally dead - the girl's body, attached to a ventilator, has been released from the hospital and transferred to an undisclosed facility while Jahi's family keeps on hoping for her recovery.

I of course understand the tragedy of the situation, the grief of the family and that they are hoping beyond reason that their little girl might recover, but the sad fact is that she's dead. Her brain has stopped working and even if they keep her on life support for the next twenty years that's not going to change, unless a true miracle happens. By prolonging her body's "life" they are just prolonging their own suffering.

If they let her die peacefully instead of clinging on to an irrational hope, they could start grieving and, over time, come to terms with their fate. Maybe this would also be in Jahi's best interest.
If I were to fall into a coma or be declared brain dead, I would want to be taken off life support as soon as possible. To me, the idea of being in a completely helpless state, only kept alive by machines, is utterly humiliating. I'm aware that probably nobody of my friends and family would want to make this decision, but if the doctors tell you that it's unlikely that I'm ever going to be my old self again, then please pull the plug on me. I do not wish to be, under any circumstances, some helpless, motionless, lifeless being that is nothing more than the focus of pity, grief, and sadness.

Do We Have a Freedom of Unpopular Opinion?

A&E's reality show "Duck Dynasty" has recently gotten some unwanted publicity. For those who don't know the show, it's about a Louisiana family who owns a duck-hunting business and consists of quite unique characters. I have never watched a whole episode myself, to be perfectly honest, because I don't feel that it would be the best way I could spend my time.

What has drawn my attention to this show is the recent controversy about Phil Robertson, one of the stars of the show. He was suspended by A&E after making anti-gay comments in an interview. Read for yourself:

"It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”  -Phil Robertson


First off: I, personally, totally think that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, to have children, and to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. But that's just my opinion and I respect the fact that there are people who don't share it.

The United States is a free country in which each and every one should have the right to express their opinions freely and without fear of consequences, however unpopular those opinions may be. For A&E to punish somebody for making use of their constitutional right of freedom of speech, is just plain wrong. Even worse, it's an act of pure hypocrisy. After all, they gave a show to a family that is "known for [...] their religious views" according to Wikipedia, and he didn't even make his comments on the show, but in a separate interview with GQ Magazine. Were they seriously surprised that a redneck duck-hunter living in the Louisiana swamps might not have an all too favorable view of gays???

Dear A&E executives: If remarks like the ones made by Mr. Robertson are against your station's policy, then don't freaking hire people who are highly likely to make them!

Were the above remarks offensive? Hell, yeah. But they were less so than some made by certain politicians. Robertson stressed that he was just stating his personal opinion and he also expressed incomprehension of the subject on his part, which - if you ask me - further weakens his statements.

Although I strongly disagree with Mr. Robertson's views on homosexuals, I disagree even more strongly with any infringement of the freedom of speech, and I'm glad that the suspension of Phil Robertson has been lifted after a few days.