Dr. Futurity Analysis

1778 Words8 Pages
What if one day you suddenly awoke in a completely different society where people were willing to die, the age median was fifteen, and a professional euthanizer replaces doctors? Dr. Futurity is a science fiction novel written by Philip K. Dick in 1960. In Dr. Futurity, death is a prominent theme. In the year 2405, society lives in tribes that are continuously trying to improve their genetic make-up and unlike today, they embrace death. Euthanasia is a welcome event because death brings new life. As we review the purpose for death in their society, we uncover what appears to be a business operation, sacrificing one for the sake of the many. Similarly, the practice of health care is a business, with direct intent to keep people alive. The…show more content…
Parsons is against the principles that the future society has towards embracing death and equating it to life. He believes that a man is supposed to instinctively protect himself and should place his life above all else. He does not believe in forced euthanasia taking away the life of innocent people and the citizens willing to die that way. In an article called “Euthanasia: When doctors say no” written by Martin Patriquin (2009), it discusses about doctors having the choice for whether or not to euthanize their patients with terminal illnesses. Dr. Daneault, a member of palliative care at Montreal’s Notre Dame Hospital, shares his views on why doctors wish to not perform this operation and states that “Doctors won’t perform euthanasia, because it’s considered homicide.” Parsons shares the same views that the future society’s ability to have control over who dies and when is wrong. He believes that the citizens of the society should have the right to live a prolonged healthy life, and that medicine is the solution, not
Open Document