Connor's+Letter

Connor James Fenwick

Dear Mr. Smith,

My name is Connor Fenwick and I am a senior at Foothill Technology High School enrolled in Mr. Geib’s Bioethics class, and while I lack your fancy title of “Professional ethicist” I do have one thing, common sense. Before I leap headlong into a stanky pool of ethical and moral issues on euthanasia and other end of life issues, I would first like to simply take the time to give my sincere gratitude for you taking time out of your very busy schedule to give our class a much needed fresh point of view. How ever while I do respect and appreciate your views and beliefs I can in no way shape or form agree with them. I personally believe that those who oppose Euthanasia and other ways of ending peoples suffering are in fact cruel and selfish and slightly ignorant for attempting to force people to remain alive in a world where they themselves may not want to live. Now of course a topic such as euthanasia will always have its what ifs and various other extreme situations, but never do I think that it (being euthanasia) should be black listed as an extreme taboo. People should not be expected to have to suffer, be it a terminal or non-terminal situation. When I think of the most basic human right, I think of a persons right to live. Now if we were all given the right to live (according to the bible…. a story book) by god, didn’t he also give us the right to die? It truthfully makes me sad that now a day’s people have the gall to say that a person’s autonomy should not always be respected. Suffering is in no way a beautiful or admirable thing, what’s admirable is living life to its fullest and enjoying every moment of it, and finally when that time comes, to decide how you leave the world. All people should have the right to if they choose leave this world peacefully through non-natural and possibly self imposed ways.

From your writings in various articles as well as your piece “ Million Dollar Missed Opportunity” I can clearly see that you have a very strong and devout Catholic faith. Well here it appears we find our first disagreement. Now I myself am a devout atheist, raised in a non-religious home has helped set my point of view on many touchy subject like death and euthanasia. According to most of the countries population, it has also secured me a permanent lunch date with Satan as well. On May fifth nineteen eighty, Cardinal Franjo Seper published the Catholic churches official stance on Euthanasia in the article “ Declaration on Euthanasia”. Now one of the main points that the cardinal strived to get across in his declaration was that life is a “ gift of god’s love, which they (the person) are called upon to preserve and make fruitful.” So from this it we can clearly discern that the position is that all humans have the basic right to life, and the duty to honors god’s gift and honor that gift by living their live to the fullest. However as the article goes on, the cardinal’s points seem to drift from the broad and general advice, to ridiculous claims on how to live one’s life. The cardinal can be quoted that “ intentionally causing one's own death or suicide is therefore equally as wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection of god’s sovereignty and loving plan”. When I first read this, I could but laugh at its ridiculousness, I find it hard to find respect for a God, who lets so many bad things happen in this world, all in the excuse of them “ being part of God’s plan”. Tell me, where does the three-year-old little girl dying of leukemia have a part in “God’s plan”? Where does Timmy Mc Veigh the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombings who killed 168 people have apart in “God’s plan”? Why should “ by the grace of god’s power” the young innocent little girl happen to die, and people like Mr. McVeigh be graced with the gift of life? It’s a question I often ask myself. The way I see it, Gods either an ass, or a sadist. Take your pick?

Now the Catholic Church has always had a reputation of its beliefs being as solid and unmoving as Dollys Parton’s bosom. With the Catholic churches staunch points of view on Euthanasia I was in fact quite surprised when I read in the cardinals doctrine that Passive Euthanasia was an acceptable thing “for the purpose of putting an end to extreme suffering or saving abnormal babies, the mentally ill or the incurably sick from prolongation, perhaps many years of a miserable life, which could impose too heavy a burden on their families or on society”. This was perhaps the single most important piece of this article as it arises the most questions. What is extreme suffering? Does this mean that assisted suicide is only permissible in terminal patients, or is it allowed with people who hold grave yet non-terminal injuries such a Paraplegia or Quadriplegia? What defines justified suffering? Shouldn’t those who deem themselves in pain have the autonomy to make decisions whether or not they wish to continue living? Apparently to the church it would seem the answer in no. Already when I first read this article it had my blood boiling, I couldn’t understand for the life of me, the church would disallow people the most basic of rights, to do what the wish with there own body? From the Catholic position they make it seem that our bodies are merely “property of God, that are on loan to us, and that we can’t really do what we wish with them” That’s funny, have you seen my free will? I think I lost it! However the most ridiculous part of the article comes when the cardinal states that suffering is good. Now please allow me to directly quote this, as I wouldn’t want to misinterpret this. “ According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in Gods saving plan; it is in fact a sharing of Christ’s Passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which he offered in obedience to the Father’s will.” This is absolute lunacy! The notion that all people should suffer towards the end of their life so that they can be pious like Christ and share his pain? This is ridiculous, if God is truly such a loving father (which I believe the old testament shows he certainly has some anger problems) why does he want his children to have to suffer? If god truly were the loving being that people say he is, wouldn’t he want his children to have the autonomy and free will (that he gave us) t do what we wish with our lives?

So with the Catholic position established, we have learned that they are strictly against active Euthanasia, but are ok to let passive Euthanasia happen (ex-removing a feeding tube). Now maybe it is just I but it doesn’t seem humane to allow some one to die by having them starve to death, rather than giving them a single painless shot of morphine. It amazes me that we treat animals better than we treat fellow human beings. When a dog is suffering inconsiderable amounts of pain, we have the decency to give that animal a humane death rather than let it suffer. Why should our loved ones have to suffer, why should they not be given the same courtesy as an animal?

Not everyone however thinks that Euthanasia should be outlawed. Pieter Admiraal, a Dutch doctor who works in a clinic in the city of Delft in the Netherlands, is one of a small amount of doctors who practice voluntary active euthanasia. Dr. Admiraal says, “ I practice it openly and unashamedly because I regard it as sometimes moral right.” I absolutely agree with the Dr. I believe that sometimes as harsh as this may sound, people are better of dead. Sometimes people shouldn’t have to cope with the hardships of life, sometime people should be given the security in knowing that they have a “ gentler” way out to them. In Dr. Admiraal’s article “ listening and helping to die: the Dutch way” The doctor gives a personnel anecdote and story of a woman named Carla. Carla was dying of a malignant tumor found in her ovaries and it was causing extensive pain, with no hope to removing the ailment, Carla went to the clinic in Delft hoping to rid herself of the constant pain she was in. Under complete clearness of mind, and personal decision Carla was given a shot of drugs that ended her life. Is this murder? No, rather I think it is an act of compassion and respect. No one, even if they think it is right can easily take the life of another human being, so what Dr.Admiraal did was utterly and completely an act of mercy and respect. He gave Carla the relief from her unbearable pain and respected her autonomy in acting upon her wishes. In the article there is a section where the Dr. is asked whether he believes that active or passive euthanasia is ok, he replied that in the end there is no moral difference between the two. “ In both cases the doctor acts out of respect for the patients autonomy” I absolutely agree with this, that in the end while there is a massive difference between the two legally, that ethically and morally the doctors can be sound of mind, knowing that they simply helped their patient achieve peace. I think that euthanasia should not be something shoved under the rug at medical conferences. While it is a touchy subject it is one that certainly should be addressed. People regardless of their ailments should always have the personal decision whether to live or die? Isn’t euthanasia simply just letting some one die with dignity rather then spending there last moments in agonizing pain? People are not perfect, there human and no human should be forced to suffer towards the end of their life.

Perhaps one of the most powerful and haunting pieces of literature supporting assisted suicide and euthanasia is Chris Hill’s “ The Note” The piece itself was the suicide letter written by a young man named Chris Hill who had become a quadriplegic after a devastating hang gliding accident suffered in nineteen ninety one. Highly emotional Chris Hill tells the readers why he chose to end his own life. Chris speaks of the amazing physical life he once had, swimming in the Bahamas, soaring thousands of feet above the ground and simply living life to the fullest. As Chris said himself “I once lived to the max, always grateful that I had the opportunity to do just that, and always mindful to live for today because there may be no tomorrow.” Chris tells of the amazing times in life he had, but the joy is cut short when he tells of his accident. “No more of the simple pleasures I once took for granted. No walking, running, swimming, riding motorcycles, the wonderful feel of grass, sand or mud underfoot, nothing.” The way Chris describes his life after his accident makes you (the reader) feel trapped yourself. I truly sympathize with him and completely understand why he wouldn’t want to live his life in such a way after he had lived his life to such an extreme prior to his accident. I believe the Chris Hill’s suicide is absolutely justified and I believe that no one has the right to judge him for what he did. For Chris it “was quality of life, not quantity that’s important” I can honestly say that if I were in Mr. Hill’s position, I would do the exact same thing. What’s the point of being alive, when you cant actually “live”? However while I do agree with Chris Hill’s decision to take his own life, there are many activist groups who think it is wrong.

In a 1983 letter in the “journal of medical ethics” Allison Davis, a twenty eight year old handicapped woman is on the opposite spectrum as Chris Hill. Here Mrs. Davis tells an amazing story of how despite suffering a major handicap; she was able to live a very normal life. However while Allison Davis’s story is truly one that is inspiring its also one that is very rare. Allison Davis in her letter speaks out against euthanasia and other assisted suicide issues. However I don’t believe Mrs. Davis is necessarily qualified to write on the subject, as she doesn’t seem to understand what she’s writing about. Euthanasia is not about the idea that we should kill every handicapped child at birth, that’s called genocide. Euthanasia is about giving some one the right to decide the terms of their death, that’s not anything wrong, that’s human autonomy; to say other wise is ignorant and quite frankly stupid. On the other side of Mrs. Davis’s views, one can look at the story of Dan James. Dan James was an English rugby played who paralyzed in practice. A year later Dan James with the help of his parents ended his own life at the Dignitas clinic in Sweden at the age of twenty-three. While some (including yourself) would say his parents helping end his life is an act of abandonment I would argue on the contrary. When Dan James paralyzed himself, his life was over. Everything he knew, or wanted for him, was over. Trapped in his own body he elected to have “ death with dignity” and not live as a “head in a bed”. As Dan James parents said, “ when he heard about Dignitas he wanted to go. It was simply his decision and no one else’s”. The fact that his parents had the compassion and basically the cahones to respect their son’s final wishes shows their true love for their son. I certainly know that with they type of life I have lived, that if I was in his situation, trapped as a "head in a bed" I would ask my brother to put me down like old yeller.

I’m not a man of god, I don’t believe that in the end I’ll stand in front of a pearly gate with a floating man with wings beckoning me in. Rather I believe that I will die, and that my life will continue on in form of memories and the impact I had on my family, my friends and possibly the world. So when it comes to death, I plan on going out my own way, on my own terms. That’s what Euthanasia and assisted suicide is, its people who believe in thinking for you giving the world and God the middle finger saying, “ this is my choice”. I’m for Euthanasia one hundred percent, before you call me an advocator of murder or a heathen, I can only defend my beliefs by saying that I believe that people have the right to choose for themselves. I don’t believe in the hocus pocus of religion or a “prophet” telling people that God said not to kill because he found it written on a rock. I believe in common sense, and living ones life the way they want to live it, and if by some horrible means you do want to die, then you have that right. Because as soon as you came into this world, you were guaranteed nothing except one thing, the guarantee of you leaving it. I stand by my belief of human will, of autonomy, and if you can maybe throw in a prayer or two in for me. Because with what I believe (according to god), I will surely need them. Once again Mr. Smith I greatly appreciate you helping expand out views and assisting in our education.

My regards,

Connor James Fenwick