Care of Souls

In the Stonington and Ratanakul article, it is argued that part of the problem with removing people from ventilators is that the soul of the person doing the operation is in jeopardy.  It is further argued that this is not merely a self-interest dilemma, because it in the Thai view, the conflict between self-interest and ethical duty is indistinguishable, and it is impossible to remove the ventilator without ill-will. 

To me, this part of the argument is a bit waffley because the authors cite a good explanation from a physician that “it may be the best thing for the patient [to withdraw the ventilator], but how could you find someone who would do it?” but they also say that it is impossible to end a life without ill will toward the person.  In order to accept this, we must accept that even if you do something for someone because you feel it is best for them, you still automatically have ill will toward them.  I think this is ridiculous, but for the sake of argument, I will concede the point.

Even if some people take this strong stance about souls, there is no reason that it should apply to everyone.  A soul is extremely personal, I would argue the most personal thing in the world, and I see no reason to give political credence to views based on telling everyone else how to take care of theirs. 

A similar view is taken in the Harry Potter series, in that killing rips the soul apart.  When Dumbledore is dying, he asks Professor Snape the favor of using a killing curse on him so that the causes Dumbledore lived for could be furthered, and so that Draco Malfoy would not have to kill.  The following dialogue takes place between the two of them:

Dumbledore: "That boy's soul is not yet so damaged. I would not have it ripped apart on my account."

Snape: "And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?"

Dumbledore: "You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation."