You know, I’ve got to admit, I poked my head into Brentwood Library, this morning.
Amazingly, they were doing the much promised upgrades to the Library computers.
Well …
The assorted bods from Essex County Council were doing the upgrades to the library computers.
Nice shiny new flat-screen monitors, included.
Actually, I’ve got to admit, it was a little tempting to see if I couldn’t … ahhh … ‘borrow’ one: they didn’t half look rather yummy …
Or, at least, a bit bigger than mine.
Acreage, eh … ??
At any rate, it’s nice to see some work done. I just think it’s a shame that they chose not to try using Ubuntu on the system.
What a lost chance.
‹‹‹~›››
At any rate, let’s get moving on, shall we … ?
Yes, let’s …
Now, one thing I know caught my eye, on the news today, were reports on the BBC News Channel — and Radio 4’s 6 O’clock bulletin — about Tony Nicklinson, left is seriously disabled, after a stroke in 2005.
And whose legal team have started proceedings against the Director Of Public Prosecutions, in order to clarify the law on mercy killings.
Hmmm …
Now, as you may or may not know, I’ve had mixed feelings about this ethically tricky area, for some time, not helped by one of my grandparents dying of complications from Alzheimer’s Disease.
As has one of my favourite writers.
So the fact that a case like this is getting attention, shouldn’t be too surprising, given that Terry Pratchett has been one of the more vociferous people to talk about Assisted Death.
Which is where this case is somewhat different.
After all, Mr Nicklinson isn’t seeking to take his own life.
The clarification he seeks is on what’s called Mercy Killings.
Because of the state of his health, he can’t go through what’s called Assisted Suicide: in other words, he can’t swallow some pills, push a button on a suicide machine, what-have-you.
He’d have to have his wife’s help: from preparing whatever form of death he happens to prepare, all the way to putting the needle into his arm.
His intent in putting his case, is too make sure she doesn’t get prosecuted.
I can understand that, I think …
I hope that I will never need, or be involved in, assisted suicide or a mercy killing.
Either as the person who needs it, or helps with it.
But I’d hope that legislation could be drafted, framed and passed that meant charges would either be automatically dropped, or not laid, against anyone helping in such a case.
‹‹‹~›››
Let’s get movie on, again, shall we … ?
Yes, lets …
I’ve got to admit that, while I’ve been writing this post, I’ve had possibly one of the finest science fiction films ever made, playing gently in the background.
Please note, I say possibly.
Because, while I’ll happily admit to thoroughly enjoying the films I’ve seen, over the years, I’ll also happily admit to being no movie critic.
Or scholar.
Lets just say I tend to know what I like, when I see it.
And then sit back and enjoy it.
The film I had on, tonight … ?
Was the 1968 Stanley Kubrick directed, Arthur C. Clark written, film that was 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Phew!
Now I know it’s around 2 ½ hours long: and very aware that that’s a length that isn’t going to be everyone’s cuppa.
But don’t forget that, when released back in 1968, this was the 1960s equivalent of James Cameron’s Avatar.
And I can’t help but think that Avatar is a cartoon in comparison.
Almost literally, given the amount of CGI involved in Avatar’s making.
Don’t forget that, while 2001 didn’t use any modern effects to tell its story, it did use quite a bit of what was revolutionary model and photographic effects that were, at the time it was made.
As revolutionary as the CGI effect Cameron pioneered for Terminator 2: Judgement Day.
Or the cameron and model effects Lucas helped develop for the original Star Wars.
That’s not all, though.
While Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Avatar and Star Wars are fairly straight forward tales, 2001: A Space Odyssey isn’t.
Definitively isn’t.
After all, that plot covers some four million years.
In a cut from one scene to another, actually
It’s also a film that …
Well …
Literally tries to cover near enough all of human evolution, from apes wondering the African savannahs, to its first steps into space, to its first steps …
Elsewhere … !
Very portentous, that word …
But David Bowman, one of the central character’s of the film, is on that ends up elsewhere, and coming back.
In a form that is very different.
I think there’s really only one thing I can suggest you do, here.
I’m going to suggest that you seriously see 2001: A Space Odyssey.
There is still no other film quite like it.
And love it or hate it, you will have seen something that set the bar.
Others may have equalled or bettered it.
Visually or otherwise.
But I’m blowed if — right here and now — I could tell you what those films are.
‹‹‹Ω›››
Just so you know, I couldn’t put this clip up, with the original soundtrack, for some reason.
However …
The reason I did … ?
Is that I want to know how Kubrick filmed it … !
3 comments:
What a huge variety of topics in one post!
While I support a sane person's right to commit suicide there is some danger on allowing euthanasia.
How many disabled people would be murdered were euthanasia legal? A mentally disabled person cannot give informed consent. Elderly people might feel pressurised into death so as not to be a burden. Living wills are not always helpful either, as someone who signed one might have a change of mind should paralysis occur.
If some disabled people were "cleared out" there would be pressure to dispose of the rest. The facilities for caring for them would be closed so any that survived would not be properly cared for. Society would be even less caring and we could see Nazi-style roundings-up of disabled people.
Perhaps I am over-reacting, but you know I have an interest in this in a different area to you. Any moves towards euthanasia must be considered extremely carefully. It would be far better to improve care so that exhausted families do not feel killing is the only way out, and so that seriously disabled people might live in as much dignity as possible.
I would like to comment on several of Richie's points. I feel that if somebody's life is at the stage where they are trying actively to commit suicide then they are not sane; unbalanced yes, but not sane. I'm a great believer in euthanasia, but if it was left to debates, etc in Parliament it would produce loads of hot air and not much else. I think that the M.P's are far too fond of their cushy lifestyles to vote on something that extreme and risk losing their seats.
I feel that Richie is over-reacting by describing "Nazi-style" round-ups of disabled people. It seems to me that if you can't smack your child for misbehaving, we are far from any round-ups taking place?
With Living Wills, I would've thought that if you want to take charge of your life and and the end of it, you must also allow for all the possible options/outcomes; as with anything else it has a risk to it.
The cases I have seen in the media for euthanasia are not families saying "let's kill Grannie for her money", although I'm positive they do exist, but the individuals making it known that this is what they want. Looking at the whole thing from another point of view we as a nation can't afford to provide enough police, decent social workers, doctors, nurses etc to properly function now, so how on earth are we going to help the families who are stretched to breaking point caring for a loved one, or help seriously disabled people to live with dignity when we can't even help the elderly to live with their own kind of dignity, i.e. heat and food in the winter and the right to collect their pension without worrying about some thugs beating them up and stealing their money, or worse?
Paul I'm all for it. We put animals to sleep when nothing can be done for them. Why should we have to suffer a slow painful death. You should be allowed to decide when and how to end your life, it's your body and your life.
Post a Comment