Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1881-10-28
SOME REASONS FOR 4 NEW DE.
PARTURE.


der any circumstances, either as q punish
ment for crime, or by the .telo dc Sc 4; and the
argument is quite as cogent against terminal
ing the life of the most agonizing sufferer
with his consent, by the mildest means known
to medical science. An examination of the
argument will show its fallacy and we shall
discover, moreover, that because we have not
been consulted in the matter of our advent
into the world, our obligation to remain in it
after life has become an intolerable burden,
IL changed at all by that truth, is greatly di-
minished.
We came into the world without our con-
sent and because we could not avoid it. A
very large majority say 800 in every 1000
persons are delighted with the new world
and its diversified charms its objects chal-
lepge our attention upon every hand, end af-
ford unending qualification to the eye its
symphonies of animate and inanimate beings
awaken responses Of music in the soul its
flowers and fruits, and the inimitable land
scape give delight to the senses the oppor-
tunities for knowledge and social improve
ment afford unceasing pleasure, and healthy
physique free from pain, and a mental organ
ization capable of appreciating these invalua-
bic objects fill up the measure of bliss and
render the individual contented in his new
situation If he has not been consulted, he
has no cause of complaint so long as the con-
ditions of the new existence are productive
of his happiness and well-being. Without re-
Election, and judging from his own stand
point, he does not see why every human be-
ing should not appreciate and enjoy these
natural objects that environ him, and which
are so well adapted to the wants of man. He
is situated like the man who has become heir
to a valuable property, or like the recipient
Of a valuable legacy without being consulted
or informed Of the intent Of the donor, and
comes into possession with many expressions
Of gratitude for the valuable gift. If instead
of the valuable gift he had been left den Of
rattlesnakes, it would be unnatural for him to
regard the gift with feelings of joy, or graf
itude II, however, he had entered into
contract to accept whatever the donor should
leave him, to preserve and cherish it as
part Of his possession, he would be estopped
from complaint-at least he could not annul
the contract-though the legacy be a den of
BILE at first, should finally prove the source of
intolerable annoyance and discomfort the
donee would not feel bound to retain what he
did not contract to accept il he could discover
some means to nd himself Of the annoyance.
This reasoning is simple, not to say super
Auous, il we admit the evidence of the senses,
that mans ingress and egress into and out of
the world are as entirely natural as any phe-
nomenon in the material world. Hence il
will appear, that as there is no contract by
which man is compelled to remain here dur
ing a stipulated period, his obligation to wait
for the natural summons when tortured with
distress, without hope of improvement, is
certainly not increased thereby, but rather
diminished
Man employs the power he possesses in
many ways, and chiefly among objects he can
not produce. Indeed, strictly speaking, he
can produce nothing He can do little more
than ito change the form, combination and local
ity of crude material substances If he deems
it for his interest or happiness to destroy
(Which means only to change the form of
any OF natures works, or divert her processes,
or convert any form Of matter that environs
him TO his own use, he never hesitates to do
SO if the value of the happiness to be gained
equals or exceeds the value of the labor to be
expended. Bot in his labor in the dominion
of matter there is bound he cannot pass
with impunity. In seeking his own happi-
ness, or in following the lead of his ambition
in any of the walks of life, he must not con-
travene the rights of his fellow beings, but
always grant to others the same right to lib
erty and the pursuit of happiness possessed
by himself. These works of nature which he
subverts, and over which he exercises domin-
ion, are parts of the aggregate whole, himself
constituting the remaining vulgar fraction !;
all have q common origin, whatever that may
be, and each has the right to be SO long as
the chief object in view, mans happiness, is
not contravened. II it is true that man has
the right to destroy, change and convert nat
ural objects to preserve his own happiness
and well being and secure freedom from pain,
it is difficult TO see why he does not possess
the right, being one Of these natural objects,
to decide, under proper authority, whether he
will leave time and sense that have lost all
their value through intolerable suffering, or
live on in agony and despair. Without this
right he is abridged in his pursuit of the
main and ultimate object.
In order to the perfeotness of life, and the
harmonious, functional motions of the living
body, it is indispensable that the body be
complete as at birth, without mutilation or
loss of member or organ. When limb is
amputated, an important part of the organ
ization is destroyed, and there is entailed up
on the remaining part a corresponding injury
Connection with the digestive organs is sew
cred, and the circulation that carried aliment
TO the tissues of the amputated member is
suspended. The limb is dead. The atoms of
the rejected limb viii now dissolve their un-
ion, and the mutilAted structure must hence
forth adapt itself to the new and impaired
condition. II the body as an integer is invio-
liable, the several parts that constitute the in
teger are inviolable also, for the whole is but
an assemblage of parts with individual rights
and individual functions like the members of
social compact And yet, nobody objects
upon moral grounds to the dismembe berment
of the body, if the operation holds out the
faintest promise of restoration to health Up
on careful examination, the moral law that
discriminates bet Seen the death of the whole
and part of the body, when the one or the
other is indispensable to relieve suffering,
will be found to be more of fiction than a
fact.
The suffering from the amputation of a
limb is much greater than from the destruc-
ton of the entire body by anesthesia or cleo
tricity, and no doubt its dread is not less il
the person has abandoned all hope of resto-
ration to health. Indeed, death by these
agents is painless but the amputation of a
limb, though the operation is painless under
an an@sthetio, causes much suffering before
the patient can be restored to health.
The commiseration of friends, not less af