IMUSCHAMP

5 December 2011 Dear Mr. Wesley J. Smith, I would like to thank you for taking the time to share your opinions with my Bioethics course at Foothill Technology High School at the mere request from my teacher, Mr. Geib; it is greatly appreciated. As a class, multiple discussions regarding the practice of euthanasia have occurred, enough to where it stimulated agreements and disagreements amongst fellow colleagues. Because I have never personally experienced any situation involving euthanasia, it is disconcerting for me to create an opinion based on statistics, other individual’s experiences, the media, and other outlets. I find your passion comforting and your opinions worthy of note. I respect your stances regarding euthanasia although I find myself disagreeing with them.

Through my eyes, euthanasia represents a dignified death, an opportunity to leave without any unnecessary pain and suffering, an out that I would certainly hope to be offered if I would ever need it. Euthanasia represents convenience in the most untimely matters; even though there is no monetary value on life, euthanasia provides solace for not only the wanting individual but for loved ones too when it comes to financial entities, burdening, and distress. We do not have to live to see our one hundred and fifth birthday like some to say that we have lived a fulfilled life…we can choose to live day by day because we do not know when we are going to die. I would like to be reassured that if and when I am in a tragic accident or enduring a fatal illness that euthanasia will always be available to me. I am not saying that I would or would not take the opportunity; I am just clarifying that I would like a plan b just in case things do not go my way, hence, the beauty of free will.

The act of euthanasia rests with the wanting of an individual, a personal choice of sorts. I believe euthanasia is another form of suicide. You own your body; no one has the right to “preserve life” if the individual is not satisfied with it. If someone wants to do it, do it…no one should be allowed to intervene in the personal decisions that define us. Life is full of ups and downs and if an individual does not value their life enough to endure, their first thought is a way out, which I believe is absolutely spineless. Maybe I do not understand what drives people to the ultimate conclusion of death because I have never found myself in a situation tainted with it. What I do know is that killing yourself is cowardly. I am willing to respect people and their actions but suicide is where I draw the line. Committing suicide is not classifiable as brave to me; I view it as more of a desperate attempt to fix the wrongs in life. But no matter what I believe, both euthanasia and suicide are personal choices that must be respected, regardless of reason.

The subjects of euthanasia and suicide are different in more than one way. By definition, euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is the act of putting to death painlessly or allow ing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. According to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Declaration on Euthanasia”, “intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder”. The Sacred Congregation expands their beliefs by writing, “…it is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying”. I find myself agreeing with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Declaration on Euthanasia” to an extent. As Dr. Pieter Admiraal, a doctor for nearly forty who is Senior Anaesthetist in the Dutch city of Deft, proclaims, “ ‘Euthanasia’ means ‘a good death’…Letting a patient die of her disease may be anything but a good death. The patient may die slowly and painfully, and in what she regards as an undignified manner.” While believing life is a precious gift, I feel euthanasia should be made available to those suffering with incurable illnesses and the many bearing unmanageable disabilities. No matter religious affiliations or moral obligations, euthanasia must be accepted within society in order to satisfy the wishes of those who cannot persist, depending on the severity of the condition.

Those who believe that doctors play God by practicing euthanasia are correct. Doctors play God all day, every day by treating the patients who allow them to. The fact that a DNR exists and can be implemented or rejected by the patient or the patient’s loved ones shows that doctors are already playing God without practicing euthanasia. Respirators and other methods utilized to keep an individual alive by a doctor in these specific situations is yet another act of playing God. Doctors do not press matters regarding death to a dying patient unless it comes from the patient themselves. In //Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way//, Dr. Pieter Admiraal explains the job of a doctor by expressing, “As doctors we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients, and to respect their autonomy.” The first duty entails that doctors should seek to restore patients to health and, if they cannot, that they try to reduce their suffering. The second duty involves that doctors listen closely to, and respect, the wishes of their patients…Nobody but the patient themselves is in a position to decide when enough is enough. He describes that “it would be improper for doctors or other healthcare professionals to impose their values and their understanding of pain and suffering on the patient”.

Dr. Pieter Admiraal regards euthanasia “as sometimes morally right, as not only compatible with the property understood duties and responsibilities of a doctor, but as an act sometimes required by them”. If Dr. Jack Kevorkian were alive, even through his trials and tribulations, he would be in support of the Dutch and their methods regarding euthanasia. As Dr. Jack Kevorkian once voiced, “The American Medical Association says the humane way is to let people starve and thirst to death. If you did that to an animal, you'd be put in jail immediately...In the face of such insanity masquerading as authority, who wouldn't be strident?" I harmonize with both Dr. Pieter Admiraal and Dr. Jack Kevorkian when it comes to doctors participating in and supporting the act of euthanasia. It is a responsibility for doctors to disregard their own beliefs and put their patients first, rather than allowing their internal conflicts to intervene.

For you to bring up Christopher Reeve as a prime example of a quadriplegic living a fulfilled life in your article //Million Dollar Missed Opportunity// is utterly pathetic. At the time of his unfortunate accident, Reeve was a millionaire who was receiving continuous compensation for his past films thus, allowing him to, as you wrote, “…demonstrate famously that becoming a quadriplegic does not mean that meaningful life ends”. Not only was Reeve utilizing his own money to provide the necessities compulsory for a quadriplegic, his wife, Dana Morosini, too had an income. Even after his accident, Reeve was profiting from films relating to his life as a quadriplegic, a fact worth noting. Not every quadriplegic is as lucky as Christopher Reeve, which is a simple truth you should have addressed in your article. Reeve had major renovations completed in his home prior to returning from the hospital to accommodate his needs and those of his electric wheelchair according to Reeve’s website attributed to him. The fact that Reeve had a loving family supporting him, around-the-clock aids, and enough money to make life with his disability easy enough to work around should be considered severely before pressing your stances towards the public.

Instead of mentioning a movie star who was financially stable before, during, and after his near-fatal accident resulting in quadriplegia, you should have rather noted Alison Davis, a British twenty-eight year old suffering "from a severe physical disability which is irreversible": Myelomeningocele spina bifida. Despite her disability, Alison Davis has achieved much throughout her life by attending an ordinary school, going to university and receiving an honours degree in sociology, working full-time defending the right to life of handicapped people, and is married to an able-bodied man. She leads a "full and happy" life without the wealth many obtain, including Christopher Reeve. Alison Davis deserves to be recognized as an inspirational individual, more so than Christopher Reeve.

I respect those that have the self-determination and strength to live life with their conditions as well as those who do not. Take Chris Hill, a young man who had lived life day by day as a daredevil until an unfortunate hang-gliding accident. Hill described himself as, "paralysed from the chest down, more than three-quarters dead. A talking head mounted on a bloody wheelchair". With the partial loss of control over his body, Hill reflects, "...I lost so much more than mobility. I lost my dignity and self respect. I would forever be a burden on those around me..." Chris Hill condemned society for being "never given the choice of a dignified death". He felt "that the legislature's and the medical profession's attitude of life at any cost was an inhumane presumption that amounted to arrogance".

The Reinier de Fraaf Gasthuis, a large 800-bed general hospital in which Dr. Pieter Admiraal works, has already taken the necessary steps towards dignified deaths for their patients. Dr. Pieter Admiraal describes, “Even if a patient will never request it, the knowledge alone that we are willing to listen to requests for help in dying will alleviate much anxiety and fear, and will give many of those who are nearing the end of their lives peace of mind.” I feel that the fact of knowing there is the opportunity of an out is what will make the difference. The knowledge that the patients have a choice in the matter regarding their death, that their voice really does matter, that they will not be forced to live against their will. Just the thought of a possible exit out of the pain and suffering is a relief to me, if ever in the situation. Euthanasia, both passive and active, should be given the chance to aid the people because it would be ignorant not to give individuals the right to their own bodies. Those that choose euthanasia should not be judged by their lack of determination or value of life. Mr. Wesley J. Smith, thank you for your time and I wish you a happy holiday. Isabelle Muschamp