Jasper Dan Medina

Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen

I am jasper Dan A. Medina

It is both and honor and a privilege to be able to speak here infront of you as a speaker

Before I begin my speech thankyou for coming here

Lfe is too short. Perhaps no single force has worked so powerfully on man as his knowledge that he must surely die

First of all what is death?

Death is the cessation of the connection between our mind and our body. Most people believe that death takes place when the heart stops beating; but this does not mean that the person has died, because his subtle mind may still remain in his body. Death occurs when the subtle consciousness finally leaves the body to go to the next life. Our body is like a guesthouse and our mind like the guest; when we die our mind has to leave this body and enter the body of our next rebirth, like a guest leaving one guesthouse and travelling to another.

But most specialy when we die where would us all will be going?

Although intellectually we all know that one day we shall die, generally we are so reluctant to think of our death that this knowledge does not touch our hearts, and we live our life as if we were going to be in this world forever. As a result the things of this world such as material possessions, reputation, popularity, and the pleasures of the senses become of paramount importance, so we devote almost all our time and energy to obtaining them and engage in many negative actions for their sake. We are so preoccupied with the concerns of this life that there is little room in our mind for genuine spiritual practice. When the time of death actually arrives we discover that by having ignored death all our life we are completely unprepared.

Regardless of race, religion, geographical area, or time period, every human has wondered about the one fact of life that unifies us all.

Human beings are totally powerless to prevent or overcome death. Our mightiest efforts to defend ourselves from the grave ultimately end in failure. Everyone dies. We can be thankful, however, that not everyone is as powerless over death as we are!

Indeed, death is a grand mystery. Throughout time, every major religion, philosophy, and spiritual train of thought has sought to explain this mystery. It is a subject that touches the life of every man and woman, uniting the entire human race under a cloud of inevitable mortality. The rich and the poor alike meet the same end; the black and the white both go to the grave; the powerful and the humble all leave this planet eventually.

Imagine that you are now well over ninety years of age; the time for passing from this life has come; you lie in bed waiting for the inevitable. You’re not drugged. There is no pain. Your mind is clear, and your memory takes you back over the lifetime you’ve led. What would be of importance then? What would come up? Where and to what would your attention go? For those moments before we die – assuming we’re not in trauma – are peaceful enough once we accept. And accept we must, for we can do nothing else.

You see as time goes by your memory of your past is flashing back to your mind, menories when you are still young memories of happiness indeed those memories are keep flashing bac in your mind and suddenly you eill not notice that you are crying.

We want us all to be going back to the past and enjoy the memories that we created.

To have a society which upholds the entitlement to life, we must advance our capacity for both health and longevity. Longevity is beneficial, but longevity alone is not enough, as we can see in the way people nowadays live lives of protracted and undignified senescence. Health is beneficial, but health alone is not enough, either: health goes only far enough to ensure that you are free of pain and disability for the duration of your life, however short it may be

We must therefore strive for both: health, for being capable throughout our lives, and longevity, for having lives that are long enough for us to conduct our life's projects.

Health and longevity together are required for soundness in body. Yet ultimately, we want soundness in body not for its own sake, but so that we can exercise our capacity for a flourishing, fulfilling life. Thus, as we look for ways to enable individuals to live as they like, we must simultaneously look for ways to empower them to thrive.

This raises a second point: although bringing about the entitlement to life would represent a revolutionary triumph of humanitarian and technological innovation, it addresses nothing more than our most basic human needs: a commitment to alleviating suffering, to promoting choice, and to protecting our welfare as human beings. Only as we protect these fundamentals of survival can we turn our sights towards thriving.

On the one hand, we want to face the problems in our life with dignity. We all face challenges, and while we aren't always in control of what problems befall us, we can at least take control of how we respond to them. In such cases, we hope to hope to have the strength to meet our problems with grace.

Perhaps it is with this mindset that many of us instinctively reject the idea of doing something about our own mortal fragility: we know we must face aging and death eventually, but struggling to live fighting to retain our diminishing capabilities seems like too hysterical and undignified an end.  We might as well make the best of what we've got while we can.

On the other hand, when we look beyond our own predicaments to the suffering of others, basic human compassion often compels us to do something about it to ask how we might do better than the generations before us, and to ask what we might do personally to help. It is in this spirit of alleviating the pandemic suffering and indignity of old age, disability, and death that the entitlement to life takes place.

Thus, while you may find it egotistical to fight for your own longer and healthier life, personal enrichment is not the point of the entitlement to life. Instead, it flows from the aspiration to advance the welfare and dignity of all.

In these speech,  I advocate for a movement to pursue technological and social change that will promote both life and unprecedented capability in one's life choices. However, I do not strive to engineer a society of obligate immortals who are incapable of dying. On the contrary, my goal is to secure the freedom of individuals to choose for themselves exactly how long they would like to live

Isn't natural death the most timely end of life? Aren't all attempts to tamper with it self-destructive? The claim is that to die before your natural end is to cut life short, and to live beyond your natural end is to stretch life too thin.

There is only one right time to die, namely when you're ready. We do not always get to choose when we die, but each of us is the only one who can mark an imminent occasion as "the right time to die" — you decide whether the time is right or too soon or too late.

Imagine we have discovered how to innoculate children against senility: by default, people will remain indefinitely healthy and vigorous. Under these circumstances, you can't depend on eventually succumbing to pain or indignity to make dying easy and automatic — so when would be the right occasion for death?

I imagine people would choose to die when, for example, they felt that they had finished all of their projects. The empowering choice to end one's life on one's own terms alone is a paradigmatic exercise of the entitlement to life, and a standard against which we should measure our current levels of empowerment and choice.

With today's less-ideal circumstances, people manage their life and death to a much smaller extent — yet still they do manage it. For example, I know that many elderly individuals who choose to die are making the best choice they have available, but I'm troubled when I wonder whether they would make the same choice if society were better equipped to help them flourish. I wonder whether they are making the choice because it is a perfect expression of their own will, or whether our incapacity to give them a pain-free, healthy, and dignified existence is to blame.

Death is fair in the sense that it excludes no one. But is it just? You can imagine, by analogy with the freedom of speech, a society in which no one is allowed to express their opinions publicly. Such a system would be fair it would apply to everyone equally  but would be arguably unjust because it violates our right to freedom of expression, without which we lack our full capacity for human dignity.

For the foreseeable future, we will have more diseases than cures. Over time, science makes great progress, to be sure, but all the while individuals run out of time: Imagine that you, or someone you care about, contracts a fatal disease. The prognosis is a few months on the outside, but a cure is at least ten years away. What can you possibly do?

As I end my speech let me say one qoute “Death is not the opposite of life but it is a part of it”

Thankyou very much