When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
Germany

Death Is Not Defeat: The Courage Not To Fight A Fatal Disease

We have a tendency to extol our late loved ones for having "fought" against the illnesses that struck them. But those who peacefully succumb to terminal disease are no less brave.

Bravery, too
Bravery, too
Uwe Schmitt

-Essay-

BERLIN — "He fought to the end..." So read last month's obituary of former German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, who died after a battle against the ravages of leukemia. His husband agreed, and he's the only one who has a right to do so.

But no one seems to be disturbed by the latent implication of this deferential praise. It's as if to suggest that Westerwelle was defeated by cancer when he died. It also implies that a terminally ill person who doesn't try to fend off death, but rather accepts it as a part of his being, is essentially a coward — that he did not love life enough to fight.

But is it really any less brave to submit to the inevitable without a struggle, with composure and peaceful dignity? Does it really demonstrate courage for patients to expose themselves to the enormous agonies of long-shot treatments?

The fight against death is always, ultimately, a futile one, and the entirety of the world is a giant hospice. Only the wise among us live by the credo carpe diem, or "seize the day." Others follows the motto of Spanish philosopher Seneca: "To live is to fight." Or German poet Bertolt Brecht's: "Those who fight may lose, but those who don't fight have already lost."

This may apply to people like Westerwelle and everyone else who strives for political change, but it doesn't necessarily apply to people who are terminally ill. It would be more respectful to allow people to choose for themselves whether they want to expend every effort to live or whether they want to succumb to their illness without such a struggle.

It's not the intention of this article to condemn orthodox or alternative medical practices as interfering with God's work. It's about the freedom for people to choose their own approaches to illness and death, not about sanctioning these choices with moral judgments.

Siddhartha Gautama taught us that the greatest fighters aren't those who conquer a thousand enemies but those who conquer themselves. His Buddhism teaches us to "learn to let go, as this is the key to happiness." And for some ill people, letting go may be the key to a peaceful death.

Cancer never wins. Sometimes it simply doesn't respond to the treatment that's supposed to eradicate it. Those who die don't lose. The dying aren't less courageous or less happy than those who continue living after successful treatment.

We are now able to express our chosen manner of dying through legally binding documents, such as living wills, and it therefore seems only fair to spare the terminally ill and those who have died our admiring celebrations of their bravery. Let's save these for athletes and soldiers and celebrate their victories instead.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Society

Sleep Divorce: The Benefits For Couples In Having Separate Beds

Sleeping separately is often thought to be the beginning of the end for a loving couple. But studies show that having permanently separate beds — if you have the space and means — can actually reinforce the bonds of a relationship.

Image of a woman sleeping in a bed.

A woman sleeping in her bed.

BUENOS AIRES — Couples, it is assumed, sleep together — and sleeping apart is easily taken as a sign of a relationship gone cold. But several recent studies are suggesting, people sleep better alone and "sleep divorce," as the habit is being termed, can benefit both a couple's health and intimacy.

That is, if you have the space for it...

While sleeping in separate beds is seen as unaffectionate and the end of sex, psychologist María Gabriela Simone told Clarín this "is not a fashion, but to do with being able to feel free, and to respect yourself and your partner."

She says the marriage bed originated "in the matrimonial duty of sharing a bed with the aim of having sex to procreate." That, she adds, gradually settled the idea that people "who love each other sleep together."

Is it an imposition then, or an overwhelming preference? Simone says intimacy is one thing, sleeping another.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

The latest