The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

It violates the right to life.

It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.
As an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights, Amnesty International (AI) works for an end to executions and the abolition of the
death penalty everywhere.
The progress has been dramatic. When AI convened an International Conference on the Death Penalty in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1977, just 16 countries had
abolished capital punishment for all crimes. Today the figure stands at 88.

Each year since 1997 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has passed a resolution calling on countries that have not abolished the death penalty to
establish a moratorium on executions. The latest resolution, adopted in April 2005, was co-sponsored by 81 UN member states, the highest number ever.

AI issues updated information and news of developments, and maintains a library of reports on the death penalty worldwide.

AI is a member of the World Coalition against the Death Penalty, a coalition that unites national and international human rights organizations, bar associations,
trade unions and local and regional authorities in an effort to rid the world of the death penalty.
The death penalty is disgusting, particularly if it condemns an innocent. But it remains an injustice even when it falls on someone who is guilty of a crime."
Giuliano Amato, Prime Minister of Italy, 14 September 2000, commenting on a scheduled execution in Virginia USA
Euthanasia of humans as a topic is often highly-charged—emotionally, politically, and morally. Terminology and laws shift over time, geographically and globally,
causing a great deal of confusion. Many people have had their pets euthanized. This is often provides the person with a great moral conflict, whether to kill their
pet or not to.

Following the broad definition of euthanasia as outlined by Jeff Rachels, euthanasia may employ methods that are active or passive. Active euthanasia refers to a
physician painlessly putting to death some persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases. Passive euthanasia, in contrast, refers to any act of allowing
the patient to die, which may include failing to provide necessary medication as well as taking a patient off life support. Both active and passive euthanasia can be
voluntary, nonvoluntary or involuntary. (See Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche for one of the first uses of the three types of euthanasia.)

Physician assisted dying is where doctors provide a prescription for a terminally ill patient to hasten their death. This is seen as morally distinct from euthanasia
because the physician does not cause the patient's death but gives the patient choice of the time and circumstances of his or her own death. Physician assisted
dying is the terminology used by the state of Oregon to describe the action of its Death With Dignity law.

Responding to requests from Oregon patients and their families, the Oregon Health Division changed their usage in October 2006 from "physician-assisted
suicide" to "physician-assisted death." The American Public Health Association made the same change in November 2006.

Voluntary euthanasia occurs with the fully informed request of a decisionally-competent adult patient or that of their surrogate (proxy). (Example: Thomas Youk
with ALS was assisted by Jack Kevorkian.) This should not be confused with death after treatment is stopped on the instructions of the patient himself, either
directly or through a do not resuscitate (DNR) order. Enforcing a DNR order has never been considered assisted suicide or suicide of any kind, at least in the eyes
of the law. Patients of sound mind have always had a right to refuse treatment. It could be defined as a happy death.

Nonvoluntary euthanasia occurs without the fully informed consent and fully informed request of a decisionally-competent adult patient or that of their surrogate
(proxy). An example of this might be if a "patient" has decisional capacity but is not told they will be euthanized; or, if a patient is not conscious or lacks
decisional-capacity and their surrogate is not told the patient will be euthanized.

Involuntary euthanasia occurs over the objection of a patient or their surrogate (proxy). An example of this might be if a patient with decisional capacity (or their
surrogate) is told what will happen. The patient (or surrogate) refuses yet the patient is euthanized anyway. This is generally considered murder. If a patient
slated for euthanasia changes his or her mind at the last minute, the doctor is categorically required by law to honor that wish. In most countries removing or
denying treatment without the clear instructions of the patient is usually seen as murder.[citation needed]

Terminal sedation is a combination of medically inducing a deep sleep and stopping other treatment, with the exception of medication for symptom control (such
as analgesia). It is considered to be euthanasia by some, but under current law and medical practice it is considered a form of palliative care.

Animal euthanasia is commonly referred to by the euphemism "put to sleep".

Mercy Killing is a term used for some cases of euthanasia. Typically it refers to euthanasia by a someone other than a doctor, such as a parent, who perceives the
individual to be suffering. In some cases, the individual cannot consent. In other cases, the individual can consent, but is not asked or refuses. Lastly, in some
cases the individual consents, and it may even be them who initiates the discussion.

In Nazi Germany the term euthanasia was misused for the T-4 Euthanasia Program, which was actually a eugenics project. The objectives were to save expense
and to preserve the genetic quality of the German population by killing those considered unworthy of life and sterilizing those considered unfit to breed. Since it
was not for the benefit of the victims, it does not fit the definition of euthanasia as merciful. It has nevertheless tainted the word, especially in German-speaking
countries, as one of the main advocates of euthanasia in Germany after World War II was Werner Catel, a leading Nazi doctor directly involved in T-4. The
currently accepted German term is the older "Sterbehilfe" (literally "helping to die"), which is used in contemporary German discussions.

The law recognized a practice that had been tolerated for some 20 years. From the time that euthanasia first came to be widely practiced in the Netherlands, it
was formally subject to review by boards of doctors in each hospital. The law essentially codified what had already become tolerated practice and unofficial law by
judgments in the courts.

The law permits euthanasia and physician assisted dying when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:

• the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement

• the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request can not be granted when under the influence of others,
psychological illness or drugs)
• the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
• there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
• the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present.
• the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)
The doctor must also report the cause of death to the municipal coroner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Burial and Cremation Act. A regional
review committee assesses whether a case of termination of life on request or assisted suicide complies with the due care criteria. Depending on its findings, the
case will either be closed or brought to the attention of the Public Prosecutor. Finally, the legislation offers an explicit recognition of the validity of a written
declaration of will of the patient regarding euthanasia (a "euthanasia directive"). Such declarations can be used when a patient is in a coma or otherwise unable to
state whether they want euthanasia or not.

The legislation has wide support among the socially libertarian Dutch, who have one of the world's highest life expectancies. There is however persistent
opposition, mainly organized by the churches.

Euthanasia remains a criminal offense in cases not meeting the law's specific conditions, with the exception of several situations that are not subject to the
restrictions of the law at all, because they are considered normal medical practice:

• stopping or not starting a medically useless (futile) treatment

• stopping or not starting a treatment at the patient's request
• speeding up death as a side-effect of treatment necessary for alleviating serious suffering

Euthanasia of children under the age of 12 remains technically illegal, however Dr. Eduard Verhagen has documented several cases and, together with colleagues
and prosecutors, has developed a protocol to be followed in those cases. Prosecutors will refrain from pressing charges if this Groningen protocol is followed.

In 1992 a proposal was made known as Drion's Pill. This fictional drug would be a set of 2 pills. The first pill could be taken without any harm, the second pill
would have to be taken a couple of days later (and only then would work). This would give the patient the time to think things over. The drug was never
developed, the proposal however indirectly started up the discussion of euthanasia in Netherlands.

On March 15, 2005, six month old infant Sun Hudson was the first person to die under the law. [4]

In December 2005, doctors removed Tirhas Habtegiris, a young woman and legal immigrant from Africa, from life support against her family's wishes.
A machine that can facilitate Euthanasia through heavy doses of drugs. It is possible in this image to see the laptop screen that leads the user through a series of
steps and questions, to the final injection, which is done by motors controlled by the computer. This series of questions is supposedly to prevent unprepared users
from undergoing Euthanasia. [1].

Euthanasia can be accomplished either through an oral, intravenous, or intramuscular administration of drugs. In individuals who are incapable of swallowing
lethal doses of medication, an intravenous route is preferred. The following is a Dutch protocol for parenteral (intravenous) administration to obtain euthanasia:

There are a number of conflicting beliefs about euthanasia. Different aspects of euthanasia are supported by different people. Some people argue against
euthanasia based on the belief that only God should choose when someone dies. For the same reason, the Catholic church has long viewed suicide as a sin. Some
people approve of some forms of euthanasia in principle, but fear a "slippery slope" that will result in support of other forms of euthanasia they are opposed to.
With regards to nonvoluntary euthanasia, the cases where the person could consent but was not asked are often viewed differently from those where the person
could not consent. Some people raise issues regarding stereotypes of disability that can lead to non-disabled or less disabled people overestimating the person's
suffering, or assuming it to be unchangeable when it could be changed. For example, many disabled people responded to Tracy Latimer's death by pointing out
that her parents had refused a hip surgery that could have greatly reduced or eliminated the physical pain Tracy experienced. Also, they point out that a severely
disabled person need not be in emotional pain at their situation, and claim that the emotional pain, if present, is due to societal prejudice rather than the
disability, analogous to a black person wanting to die because they have internalized negative stereotypes about being black. With regards to voluntary
euthanasia, many people argue that 'equal access' should apply to access to suicide as well, so therefore disabled people who cannot kill themselves should have
access to voluntary euthanasia. Others respond to this argument by pointing out that if a nondisabled person attempts suicide, all measures possible are taken to
save their lives. Suicidal people are often given involuntary medical treatment so that they will not die. This argument states that it is due to societal prejudice,
namely that disabled people are of lower worth and that any unhappiness must be due to the disability, which results in greater support of voluntary euthanasia
by disabled people than suicide by nondisabled people.

In the last 20 years, some states in the United States of America have faced voter ballot initiatives and "legislation bills" attempting to legalize euthanasia and
assisted suicide. Some examples include: Washington voters saw Ballot Initiative 119 in 1991, California placed Proposition 161 on the ballot in 1992, and
Michigan included Proposal B in their ballot in 1998. Public opinion concerning this issue has become increasingly important because widespread support could
very well facilitate the legalization of these policies in other states, such as in Oregon.

While many people are aware of the ongoing debates concerning the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide, it has been unclear where the majority of public
opinion stands in the United States. A recent Gallup Poll survey did show that 75% of Americans supported euthanasia. Further research, however, has shown
that there are significant differences in levels of support for euthanasia across distinct social groups. Recently, these attitudes have been receiving more attention
since they not only could influence the legislation on this topic, but how patients are cared for in the future.

[edit] Religion

Some of the differences in public attitudes towards the right to die debate stem from the diversity of religion in the United States. The United States contains a
wide array of religious views, and these views seem to correlate with whether euthanasia was supported. Using the results from past General Social Surveys
performed, some patterns can be found. Respondents that did not affiliate with a religion were found to support euthanasia more than those who did.

Of the religious groups that were studied, which were mostly Christian in this particular study, conservative Protestants (including Southern Baptists,
Pentecostals, and Evangelicals) were more opposed to euthanasia than non-affiliates and the other religious groups.

Moderate Protestants (including Lutherans and Methodists) and Catholics showed mixed views concerning end of life decisions in general. Both of these groups
showed less support than non-affiliates, but were less opposed to it than conservative Protestants. Moderate Protestants are less likely to take a literal
interpretation to Bible than their conservative counterparts, and some leaderships tend to take a less oppositional view on the issue. Despite the fact that the
Catholic Church has come out in firm opposition to physician-assisted suicide, they share the nearly same level of support as moderate Protestants.

The liberal Protestants (including some Presbyterians and Episcopalians) were the most supportive of the groups. In general, they had looser affiliations with
religious institutions and their views were similar to those of non-affiliates. Within all these groups, religiosity (identified as being frequency of church attendance
and self-evaluation) also affected their level of opposition towards euthanasia. Individuals who attended church regularly and more frequently and considered
themselves more religious were found to be more opposed than to those who had a lower level of religiosity [1].
In Theravada Buddhism, a monk can be expelled for praising the advantages of death, even if they simply describe the miseries of life or the bliss of the after-life
in a way that might inspire a person to commit suicide or pine away to death. In caring for the terminally ill, one is forbidden to treat a patient so as to bring on
death faster than would occur if the disease were allowed to run its natural course.[2]

In Hinduism, death has been referred to both as the ultimate truth and as one of the stages in human life. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna urges Arjuna to
fulfill his destiny or Dharma, and not to worry about consequences as death levels all: whatever you give and take, you do it on this earth. In Hindu mythology,
some humans were given the right to choose the time of their deaths. This was awarded to only the most pure in heart, suggesting that Hinduism does not
disapprove of euthanasia.

[edit] Philosophy

Friedrich Nietzsche, in The Twilight of the Idols, calls for euthanasia, writing, "To die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly. . . From love of life, one
should desire a different death: free, conscious, without accident, without ambush."[6]

[edit] Ethnicity

On many social and religious issues, Blacks are more conservative than Caucasians [7]. In the specific case of euthanasia, recent studies have shown Caucasians
to be more accepting than Blacks. They are also more likely to have advance directives and to use other end of life measures.[3] Blacks are almost 3 times more
likely to oppose euthanasia than Caucasians. The main reason for this discrepancy is attributed to the lower levels of trust in the medical establishment.[4]
Researchers believe that past history of abuses towards minority in medicine (such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study) have made minority groups less trustful of the
level of care they receive. Studies have also found that there are significant disparities in the medical treatment and pain management that Caucasians and non-
Caucasian receive.[5]

Among Blacks, education correlates to support for euthanasia. Blacks without a four-year degree are twice as likely to oppose euthanasia than those with at least
that much education. Level of education, however, does not significantly influence any other racial group in the US. Some researchers suggest that Blacks tend to
be more religious, a claim that is difficult to substantiate and define.[6] Only Blacks and Caucasians have been studied in extensive detail. Although it has been
found that non-Caucasian groups are less supportive of euthanasia than Caucasians, there is still some ambiguity as to what degree this is true.

[edit] Gender

The research has not found gender to be a significant factor in predicting opinion about euthanasia. However, some studies have shown that there are differences
in views between males and females. A recent Gallup Poll found that 84% of males supported euthanasia compared to 64% of females.[7] Some cite the prior
studies showing that women have a higher level of religiosity and moral conservatism as an explanation. Within both genders, there are differences in attitudes
towards euthanasia due to other influences. For example, one study found that Black women are 2.37 times more likely to oppose euthanasia than Caucasian
women. Black men are 3.61 times more likely to oppose euthanasia than Caucasian men

Introduction

Religions preach resignation to the fact that we must die someday, however finding ways of curing diseases and, actually curing the sick are, and have been for
long, a central element of their concerns and imperatives. And yet, finding cures and curing mean interventions that impede dying and this is quite paradoxical.
Until now, these interventions have done nothing but postponed the time we die. But what should we do if curative interventions have the 'side effect' of
postponing dying indefinitely?

Stem cells since their discovery in 1998, have been one of the hottest scientific issues because they can be coaxed to differentiate into any type of cell in the
body. Consequently, they are opening up new possibilities, such as lab-grown tissues or even replacement organs to treat a variety of human ills, from diabetes
to Alzheimer's.

However, if "aging is neither inevitable nor necessary" as Tom Kirkwood[1] remarks then we should start to work out afresh the huge challenges these prospects
pose to society under this new scientific perspective.

This paper notes that stem cell therapies may prolong life indefinitely and discusses the forces that are hastening the search for such therapies. Consequently it
analyses notions of unrestricted longevity when dictated by 'normal' life span perspectives. Questions regarding timeless people and their possible boredom, the
novelty of fresh people and new generations, brain capacity, identity and global justice are addressed. Finally it asks the question whether we should we make
people to live longer along with 'normal' people when knowing how to do so.

Stem Cell research

Contrasting with previous knowledge regarding cell differentiation, stem cells can be found also in adults. Evidence is showing that those cells can become brain
cells, liver cell precursors, or all three kinds of muscles, heart, and skeleton.[2] Support for this 'unorthodox' view affecting the genetic 'fate' of already
differentiated cells is found also in the demonstration that DNA in the nucleus of a fully differentiated cell from an adult animal, when transferred into a primitive,
enucleated egg cell can be reprogrammed to encode an entire organism. The genetic expression is obviously affected by signals derived from its surroundings and
this means also permitting the generation of stem cells from the same individual. [3]

The forces behind curing the 'incurable'.

One of the main forces behind stem cell research is the fact that over 100 millions Americans suffer from illnesses that might be alleviated by cell transplantation
technologies that use these cells.[4] What makes stem cells so valuable is that they can restore bone marrow,[5] replace cells for Parkinson's[6] for spinal cord
injury[7] for new cartilages in arthritis patients, fix damaged tendons[8] to name a few at work already.

20 years ahead in the US alone, the population over age 65 is expected to double and the number of Americans over age 85 is projected to quadruple.[9] Age-
related disease costs billions of dollars and burdens millions physically and financially. The additional costs in medical and long term care that are incurred
annually in the US because of loss of functional independence are calculated at $26 billion.[10]

Not surprisingly then, human stem cells have become one of the hottest areas in biotechnology as several private companies have jumped in to try to exploit
them commercially. They have produced already cardiac muscle cells and three types of nerve cells from the stem cells. They have had also a partial success in
introducing new genes into stem cells to control their differentiation into specialized cells identifying genes that either initiate, or help maintain, the development
of specific cell types.[11]
ES may provide an unlimited source of replacement tissues for treating terrible human diseases.[12] Although the way forward will not be easy, and failures in
treatment would probably occur more than once,[13] appears clearly that there is a unique congruence of desires arriving from three angles: sick people hoping to
be cured, researchers, and the biotechnology industry.

Should we cure the 'incurable'?

Opinions may vary widely about whether the potential benefits outweigh the ethical costs of using life-extending technologies. Even though medical researchers
are already doing life extension research as they seek ways to prevent and treat heart disease, cancer and the other major killers whose incidence increases so
steeply as people get older.[14]

The question that follows is, what should we do when we finally find indefinitely prolonged lives. Questions regarding timeless people and their possible boredom,
the novelty of fresh people, the necessity of new generations, brain capacity and identity, and finally global justice should be addressed.

Never-ending people?

"You have been given only a limited period of time, and if you do not use it for blowing away the clouds of your mind, it will pass away and you will go with it,
never to return" [15]

But what if the time we have been given or have created for ourselves turns to be unlimited? Heidegger,[16] addresses time as "the phenomenal aspect of
temporality which is closest to us". And he adds that out of it arises the ordinary everyday understanding of time, which evolves, into the traditional conception of
time.[17] However it is more likely that the notion of time had its beginnings in the temporality of the sun disappearing every day and rising again the day after and
the measure of time evolved by the reoccurring of the seasons. The concept of time has not emerged necessarily by our own temporality.

Heidegger argues also that Being-in-the-world is being already been delivered over to death, that there is a lack of totality, in Being, which finds an end with
death. He adds that death is a way to be. He reflexes that in fact, as soon as man comes to life, "he is at one old enough to die"[18] and adds that death "is a
phenomenon of life"[19] and "a well known event occurring within the world" .[20]

That "there is a certainty of death"[21] was certainly true when he wrote this. However he suggests also the temporality of our notions when he says, "so far as
one knows, all man 'die'."[22] Interestingly, the most relevant idea to a possible near future in Heidegger's 'being-towards-death' is found in the notion that along
with the certainty of death "goes the indefiniteness of its 'when'."[23]

Evolution?

"The term evolution itself already reveals the creative role of individual finitude, which has decreed that whatever lives, must also die. For what else is natural
selection with its survival premium, this main engine of evolution than the use of death for the promotion of novelty, for the favoring of diversity, and for the
singling out of higher form of lives with the blossoming forth of subjectivity?" [24]

Jonas however seems to ignore the fact that humans have interfered and stopped evolution by their own doing. Vaccines, antibiotics, surgeries and in general
better hygiene and better health care prevent natural selection with its supposed 'survival premium' for almost everyone is surviving well passed the reproductive
age, at least in developed countries. Death or 'finitude of the individual' is already not necessarily required for the promotion of novelty.

Reaching ripe old age and dying from mere attrition of the body is, as a common phenomenon, very much an artifact as Jonas rightly puts it. But is Jonas
proposing to return to ancient times? Jonas provides a fairly answer to this question when he argues that the 'blessing ' of death for the individual person is true
only after a completed life, "in the fullness of time" yet what the word 'fullness' does mean? And what means "exhorting from nature more than its original
allowance to our species" ?[25]

Man's life span down the ages has changed radically. The Neanderthal man lived for only 20 years. In medieval England life span was 33 years, in early 20th
century in Europe life span reached the age of 50. And today life expectancy in developed countries has gone up to 80 years.[26] If what Jonas proposes as
'original allowance to our species' is to be followed, then in Sierra Leone where life expectance of humans is 26 years, people there are exhorting from nature
'more than they should' already, at least by prehistoric standards.

It could be argued however that Neanderthals were probably another species. But then a quick look at classical Greece and classical Rome shows a life span of 28
years in both, a third of current 'normal' life spans! [27] However if this was all they had, this was obviously the 'fullness of time' belonging to the human species
then.Interestingly the discourse of a being-towards-his-death by Heidegger[28] leads him finally to Nietzsche's idea "against one becoming too old for its victories'.
The anticipation of one's own death he says, "lies in giving itself up, and thus shatters all one's tenaciousness to whatever existence one has reached… it guards
from falling back behind oneself, or behind the potentiality-for-Being which it has understood."[29] but if this is so, if the anticipation of death means giving up,
then we would have never been able to reach the life span we meet today. At which age we should give up, before which surgery, which transplant, which cure?
Having a surgery to remove cataract at the age of 85 that will permit a man to continue reading the newspaper until the age of 88, or until he eventually dies,
does mean being too old for such 'victory'? But then, how many of such victories could we afford for there are others awaiting to be born?

Counting the numbers

"[I]t is one thing to contemplate our own 'immortality', quite another to contemplate a world in which increasing numbers of people live indefinitely, and which
future children have to compete with previous generations for jobs, space, and everything else." [30]

Dying of the old Jonas[31] argues makes place for the young. This rule becomes more stringent he says "as our numbers push or already exceed the limits of
environmental tolerance".[32] Yet although the numbers count, nobody is preventing from families to have as many children as they want. This is the case in
developing countries in which the number of children dying from diseases is high. But this is the case also in religious orthodox groups that are not using
contraceptives because it goes against their faith, in developed countries [where the rate of mortality of children is almost non-existent[33] ].

In any case apart from China, nobody interferes with natality rates even if those are raising the specter of population as well. On the other hand-developed
societies are making fewer children, owing to the fact that the life lottery has almost disappeared and a couple can have less children without fearing their
premature death. And yet who could have known at the beginning of the 20th century that the average number of children per family at the end of the same
century would drop from eight children to less than two?
Trained minds vs. fresh ideas.

"Natality …is as essential an attribute of the human condition as is mortality…. It denotes the fact that we all have been born, which means that each of us has a
beginning when others already had long been there, and this ensures that there will always be such that see the world for the first time, see things with new
eyes, wonder where others are dulled by habit, start out from where they are arrived… [34]

This is certainly true, but at what cost? The huge investment put on each child from its very beginning is enormous. Each child grows inside his mother's womb at
her expense, lowering her immune system, changing her body, and using her nutrients. A baby would be born with normal rate of hemoglobin while his mother
could have at the same time half the normal rate! Biologically, the embryo is a perfect parasite.

Children dependency does not end with birth, as we all know. The effort put into rearing a child to become a full human being - from birth to high school - is a
model of parents and teachers in deepest slavery for new generations. "Procreation, and the pleasures of having and rearing children"[35] could well be 'out of
date' for immortal humans. Especially if they had to choose between giving up their own lives to have a child. For children are happiness as the song goes, but
surely they are a great deal of trouble as well.

Moreover do 'fresh people' always have 'fresh ideas' as Harris and Jonas presuppose? Although all children 'see the world for first' not everyone really wonder.
Children also are easily malleable and as such they are prone to continuity rather than changes. History shows that this is mostly the case. One good example is
Galen's[36] concepts on medicine in general and on the structure of the body in particular, which survived him for fourteen centuries!

A quick and very basic calculus gives the astonishing number of, at least, 56 generations of lots of 'fresh people' that nevertheless sustained very outdated, and
wrong, ideas. Appears to be that 'fresh ideas' need more than 'fresh people' and that is an open mind, courage, and, at least some, experience. Moreover, Galen's
long-lasting theories show that 'fresh people' are not always a guarantee of 'fresh minds'.

On the other hand, what a waist of efforts and investment is to lose a well-trained mind. As Dworkin[37] puts it, though in a different context,
"It is a waste of the natural and human creative investments that make up the story of a normal life when this normal progression is frustrated by premature
death or in other ways. But how bad it is-how great the frustration-depends on the stage of life in which it occurs, because the frustration is grater if it takes place
after than before the person has made a significant personal investment in his own life…"[38]

This sound quite convincing as a justification for increasing life spans, for the more investment we make, the less we would like to lose it by dying. For should we
throw away the investment we have put in trained minds if we have the possibility of keeping them young for longer? If people were neither "old, nor frail, nor
necessarily retired"[39] we could use Dworkin's idea of the investment already made on a life from a new perspective, in order to justify its indefinite prolongation,
and in good shape.

Immortal Boredom

For some however, the prolongation of life means boredom, an existence that is worse than death. Bernard Williams [40] refers to this in 'The Makropulos case',
based in the imaginary story of Elina Makropulos [EM] who has been living to the age of 342 due to a magic elixir her father, a physician, prepared for her long
ago and she has been drinking it for 300 years, every year, making her immortal.

Williams tells us that for EM unending life has come to such a state of "boredom, indifference and coldness that singing or silence have become for her the
same."[41] So she refuses to take her elixir again and consequently she dies. The reason for her refusal is that she has been 42 years old for 300 years and so
Williams argues, this is enough time to get so bored as to prefer being dead. Although he thinks that if one had to spend eternity at any age, that age seems an
admirable age to spend it at, her problem he argues, lies in having been at it for too long. "Her trouble was, it seems, boredom: a boredom connected with the
fact that everything that could happen and make sense to one particular human being of 42 had already happened to her."[42]

Yet, Williams is over simplifying the issue, for nobody that lives 342 years remains 42 years old for 300 years. She might look 42, but where exactly is it written
that what person does at 42 he cannot do at 64? Or not have done it when 24? Or never try it again at 240? Looking like somebody that is 42 does not oblige her
to behave like a 42 years old forever, whatever this behavior might signify. A person evolves through her life as she wishes.

If for Williams immortality is defined as either "inconceivable or terrible" he can well speak only for himself. Glover[43] for example discussing the EM case argues
that boredom depends on one's character and that with the right company he would be quite happy to have the chance "to sample a few million years and see
how it went."[44] Kirkwood[45] goes farther, not only referring to continuity as Glover does. When he refers to a world of immortals he adds the idea of never-ending
personal development of pleasure and skills.

Well-trained minds may wonder, when doing new things. And longevity may well combine the investment of education with experience in life for further
development and skills. There are people that have understood this already: a physician, Head of Department, is starting law studies at the age of 52. She wants
now to become a judge.[46] At the beginning of the previous century however, she would have been most probably death already. So obviously 'premature' death
depends on which era we are living.
And yet could we go on and develop our skills endless?

Computerizing the mind

Jonas[47] argues that because we are finite beings, even if our vital functions continued unimpaired, there are limits to what our brains can store and keep adding
to. [48]

This might be so, but even if it is, we are using currently a minimal fraction of our brain and much of its functions, are still unknown. We have not worked out
even how memory functions. What we do know is that the capability of new storage declines while aging because brain cells die. We also know that the brain
shrinks with age owing to cell mortality. But if we could avoid brain cell death or replace death cells with new ones would it be necessary periodically to clear the
mind -like computer memory- of its old contents "to make place for the new" [49]? The answer is that we certainly do not know. However it seems that our
memory has a zip-unzip capacity and we do not remember everything anyway, as our brain cleans memory [or zips it?] all the time. I do not remember clearly
what I did at the age of 18 until 28, bored while changing diapers to babies. However the huge amounts of photographs I have with my children in those days
clearly show that I was there. Where have disappeared my memories then? Could it be that because I was storing memories in photographs my mind could spare
them? If this is so then our mind erases memories spontaneously. Also we seem to remember only exciting, pleasurable or traumatic events. Our mind loses
anyway recollection of events, unimportant or boring, and skills we don't use. However, not remembering 10 years of my life does not mean that my entity
changed. Nor does it mean that remembering my past looking at photographs makes me a different person.
Global Justice

"It is a duty of civilization to combat premature death among human kind worldwide and in all its causes - hunger, diseases, war, and so on." [50]

Although I certainly agree that this should be the ultimate goal, it is not quite clear what 'premature' should be. Although Jonas believes that the question of
immortality is rather academic "for no serious prospect is in sight for breaking the existing barrier" he recognizes also that "the dream is taking form" although he
refers to it as a result of a "technological intoxication".[51] But is not this technology that has been able to extend life spans of people and also to widen the range
of people that reach old age in the developed world during the last century? Also it is technology - mostly - which will prevent people from dying in the third
world.

Jonas however refers to global justice. Yet the question is whether should we avoid saving the life of a man aged 80 in Japan in order to prevent from dying a
man who is 27 in Sierra Leone? But in the name of global justice we should be asking the same question regarding people who need life saving therapies in their
forties, or their sixties. In fact by this line of reasoning we should be prevented from getting any form of therapy after the age of 27! And yet, not preventing a
person from dying at any age if this could be prevented means killing him. And if the same man chooses not to undertake a life saving therapy, he would be
committing suicide. Obviously people do not volunteer to give up their life at any age in order to save people in Sierra Leone, nor it seems to be justified by any
reasonable concept of justice for them to do this.

Giving up one's own life will not help the people in Sierra Leone anyway, for global justice is a matter of global policy, which should be aiming to improve health
care everywhere, for everybody by other means. Killing people by preventing from them life saving therapies at the age of 80 will not prevent from people in
Sierra Leone from dying at the age of 27 as it didn't when people in the first world had life spans of 50.

People vs. people?

What remains is to understand how mortal people could live along with 'immortals'[52] and who should be given prolonging life therapies and for how long? The
first question seems to be easy to answer. Although not yet 'immortals' we have different life spans anyway. Some die young because we cannot cure them and
yet we do not avoid curing somebody in her forties because her brother died from cancer when he was 32.

The second question is more complicated because it has to do with balance between society and personal choice. After all if the person who becomes 'immortal'
chooses also to reproduce as much as he can then we would be in a difficult situation. This will be for one person getting the best of both worlds.

Harris[53] suggests that society could offer people life-prolonging therapies only on condition that they did not reproduce, "except perhaps posthumously".
However, cancer for example, is a disease that is mostly age related and most of the remaining plagues of the last century, in the developed world are also
related to late onset genes. This mean that people needing such therapies today would already have procreated. The other possibility is that they agree that if
they did reproduce then they have disqualified themselves from subsequent therapies. Yet, such a possibility does mean again that nobody will get these
therapies in these days because everybody has reproduced already. Some people then will start avoiding having children in the first place, to get the chance of
having a prolonged future.

Kirkwood[54] pictures a world where every person is given the right to have two children during their lives. Yet, deciding to complete one's reproduction quota
signifies one's self-imposed death sentence. Such a world has reached the kind of "generational cleansing" by voluntary euthanasia Harris refers to as a future
possibility. This sounds better than a collective decision of what a fair innings of a 'full life-span' should be, because at least, the decision is autonomous and the
choice is made individually. However it is not clear which scheme of current morality would be behind it. Although there is no sufficient reason to prevent people
from prolonging their lives indefinitely, schemes of morality addressing the needs and the limitations of 'immortal' people should be discussed and renewed afresh
under this new perspective.

Conclusions

Stem cells, by their ability to replace damaged tissues and organs are opening new horizons for therapies related to aging. What is more, the forces driving
currently the research on aging are enormous: curing on one hand and making money on the other. These conclusions merge together producing one factual
frame that means prolonging life, perhaps indefinitely, in the future.

Although there is a need for a global policy scheme, which should improve health care everywhere for everybody, global justice could not require people of
developed societies to give up their lives if a cure for their diseases is found. We also could not prevent from people to live longer lives as a side effect of a
possible cure as much as we do not prevent from people cures while other die because there is not cure available for them. However a scheme of morality, which
underlies the needs, and limitations of immortal people should be worked out afresh under this new perspective