Isabel's+Letter

Dear Mr.Wesley J.Smith,

Hello Mr. Smith. My name is Isabel Asp, I’m a senior at Foothill Technology High School and I first would like to personally thank you for taking the time and effort to participate with my Bioethics class on the controversial topic of euthanasia. I thoroughly appreciated your professional response to our blog and agreed with your logic on quite a few of your statements. However, with all due respect, I cannot agree with your absolute opposition to euthanasia. I feel as though our right to die is equal in value as our right to live and that it should be fully respected. Although you would probably argue against my belief, I would completely respect your opinions; I cannot deny that you do hold some valid points which many others would also agree with. The entirety of the Catholic religion, for example, would surely back up your viewpoints.

As a class, we read and studied how Catholics view euthanasia. From the article //Declaration on Euthanasia- Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith// we were able to extract their beliefs which very closely mirror yours. The Catholic Church values life in the belief that it was a gift from God and that it should be seen as most precious. Like your views, the Catholic Church believes that euthanasia is essentially abandonment- that anyone who commits it is committing a crime against the person and God, “for it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity”. The Catholic Church states that suffering is important but if the life of the person is terminal, passive euthanasia would be acceptable.

They say that “today it is very important to protect at the moment of death, both the dignity of the human person and the Christian concept of life, against a technological attitude that threatens to become an abuse”, however, forcing the patient to live through a life of suffering- either mentally or physically- is not protecting their dignity, it is stripping it away. The lives of the patients prior to their tragic accident held their dignity. Now, they are just stuck in a body without any self-value. Is this what we should do? Force every patient to subside in personal worth to satisfy the beliefs of some people? What if this person was not at all Catholic? In fact, let’s say he is an atheist. Is it morally right to force the beliefs of a religion onto him if he does not even agree with their views? I do not think so. I think doing so “threatens to become an abuse”.

In addition, the Catholic point of view on the patients is that they simply need love and affection to bring them out of their depression. They also imply that anyone that is sick could be emotionally cured with support from loved ones, “what a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love, the human and supernatural warmth with which the sick person can and ought to be surrounded by all those close to him or her, parents and children, doctors and nurses”. It seems as though the Catholic Church knows that every person is the exact same. That is not the case. In a world of different cultures, personalities, and beliefs, it is impossible to say that everyone can be emotionally rescued with love. The most gothic people who suffer from chronic depression and who have no hope in their future, very well, might be incurable. Support and affection and maybe even “God’s love” might not be able to bring them back to viewing life as a wonderful gift. These people, under the beliefs of the Catholic Church, would be forced into living the rest of their life in misery and constant sadness. Their dignity would plummet as they realize that their life is no longer worth living. This is ironically immoral for the Catholic Church to enforce on any patient.

The argument over euthanasia would fall short if it were true that every individual could never recover from a tragic event. With every unique individual, a different future awaits them. Although some patients might choose to live the remainder of their lives in a hospital bed in utter depression, some might use the experience as a way to show the rest of the world that they could thrive even with their condition.

The opposite perspective of a patient after their tragedy is clearly seen through the life of Alison Davis as she explains her enduring happiness while in a wheelchair in her article //Right to Life of Handicapped//. Mrs. Davis was born with myelomeningocele spina bifida and was destined to a life in a wheelchair. As a newborn, her parents were encouraged to simply try again and give up on Alison Davis. However, they did not and now she is a grown adult who, while suffering with immense pain, was determined enough to receive an honors degree in sociology and now works “full-time defending the right to life of handicapped people”.

Her story is touching and she is indeed inspiring to other handicapped individuals. However, she seems to put a spin on euthanasia- making it seem like she is defending handicapped people from the forceful pressure of euthanasia which is completely not true. In fact, she states that “legislation of the type proposed could well also lead to the //de facto// decriminalization of the act of killing a handicapped person of any age, just as it did in Hitler’s Germany”. Euthanasia is not done without the consent of the individual.

Euthanasia is for those who desire it and ask for it. Doctors will not force euthanasia on any patient that does not want it. So, even though Mrs. Davis’s has her life to prove as a positive opposition to euthanasia, she ignores all aspects of euthanasia. Regardless of her incomplete understanding, others like her are alive and supporting life instead of euthanasia. Some patients like Mrs. Davis choose to speak out and publish their tragic life to the world in hope that other like themselves will join her in the continuation of life and happiness. What they accomplish is as a result of their desires, their motives, and their personality. Not everyone is destined to become a public speaker or passionate writer. Not everyone will have the desires, motives, or personality to conquer their suffering. It is because of the patients that have determined personalities that make euthanasia have a negative aspect to some people. Some people hear about how these people have made it through their tragedy and maintained happiness and believe that everyone could do the same. It is because of those patients that life is seen as precious under any circumstance and that //any// patient could survive emotionally. Unfortunately, that is not at all true.

Chris Hill was a man who had it all- an adventurous life, supportive family members, a good education, happiness. Soon after his hang gliding accident, he wrote out his life story and ultimate decisions in //The Note// just before committing suicide. Chris Hill had lived a life worth living but after becoming a quadriplegic, his dignity plummeted along with his final glider. Chris Hill did not thrive to become the inspirational speaker that Mrs. Davis became. No, he was destined to depression because of his personality. He was adventurous; he loved the thrill of being in the air and he loved his life. After becoming a “head in a bed” his personality made him thrive for an adventure that he would never receive again. Because of this utter unhappiness, he decided that suicide was the best option.

I will continue to forever believe that personal autonomy is significantly important to every individual and should never be undervalued in any scenario. Therefore, in my opinion, Chris Hill did have the ultimate right to do as he wished to his own body without the influence of any other person or the pressure of society.

From the moment we take our first breath, to the moment we take our last, we are given human rights as declared by our U.S.Constitution. The most basic of these rights is our right to live. We have ownership over our own body, mind, and soul. With the legal support of the constitution, no one can take our life away. However, what if we were to give someone the permission to do so? Patients who are chronically or terminally ill should have the right to end their life if that is what they truly desire. Everyone has the right to take their life and do what he or she wants with it; no one has ownership over anyone else besides themselves.

When a patient becomes a quadriplegic, like Chris Hill, suicide is essentially impossible. This is one instance when euthanasia should be offered if the patient truly desires it. A life should be lived and preserved for as long as the person believes his or her life is still valuable. Those who have lost hope in their life and who would rather leave their body with dignity are, unfortunately, being forced to live a life a suffering because of the society’s opposition to euthanasia.

I do realize, however, that the reason for having patients suffer without offering euthanasia is because there might be a chance that they could become a famous inspirational speaker who, while perhaps being just a “head in a bed”, promotes life and encourages people to overcome their own tragedy. Some might say that if Chris Hill had waited a little longer he might have viewed his new life a little differently. But some people, like Chris Hill, weren’t born for public speaking. Some people might have problems accustoming to their new life and feel as though their life just isn’t worth living. Every individual is different and may have different motives or desires. So, how is it humane to make //every// individual suffer? If they will be just as miserable as the first couple of hours of their tragedy, why should we have the right to force them to suffer with an unsure belief that they might recover?

I agree with you on the idea that time is very important in regards to a tragic event. You wrote that euthanasia “ … cheats people out of that most precious and irreplaceable commodity; time--time in which the person might have come out of the darkness and back into the light”. However, it is a fifty-fifty chance at guessing the future.You either make someone suffer, or you make them happy.But I don’t believe we have the right to make someone suffer for so long if they might ultimately end up being just as miserable as they were in the first few hours of their tragedy.

My beliefs would fall flat along with the beliefs of the article //Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way// by Pieter Admiraal. In the Netherlands, Dr. Admiraal would “practice active voluntary euthanasia – openly and unashamedly” with the consent of his patients. His means of doing so is to provide a mercy upon those who have suffered enough and are ready to leave the world, “suffering, loss of control, and physical decline are subjective experiences, and nobody but the patient herself is in a position to decide when enough is enough. It would be quite improper for doctors or other health care professionals to impose their values and their understanding of pain or suffering on the patient”.

Sometimes, even just offering the possibility of euthanasia for the patients is able to relax the patient so that he or she is able to live even through suffering with the knowledge that if he or she were to ever want to stop the suffering, it could be possible. The Dutch acceptance to euthanasia is like an emergency release button that is offered to the patients when their time is near and their suffering is quite immense. This option acts as a mental relaxation to their troubles. Instead of realizing that they might have to suffer for the rest of their lives, they are given this opportunity. Even if they might not result to it, it is available just in case, and that that knowledge is sometimes just enough.

Although contrasting the Catholic Church’s and Alison Davis’s assumption that euthanasia would be abused, Dr. Admiraal proves that the act of euthanasia would be distributed only to those who feel as though their life has come to a near end.

His act of euthanasia isn’t rash; in fact, a “team consisting of two doctors, a nurse, and one of the hospital’s spiritual caregivers- the Roman Catholic chaplain, the Protestant chaplain, or the Humanist counselor” would talk to the patient in regards to his or her desire for euthanasia. It after a steady and organized deliberation with clear mindsets, the patient still wants to die, Dr. Admiraal would then do the favor of agreeing to euthanize his patient. I believe this is the most moral action for the patient. We should model the way of the Dutch for the reason that it is the right thing to do.

I don’t believe euthanasia should be viewed with completely negative eyes. I believe it should be openly accepted in our society to mimic the ways of the Dutch. I know that if I were ever to become so terminally ill, or chronically handicapped, I would want to know that if I were to every be tired of living such a life, I could choose to die with dignity. Every person is different, like me and you for example. I might want the cushion of knowing that I would be able to take my life if I truly desired to do so, while you might choose to become a motivational speaker in promoting life. I am not that outgoing in the way that I would want other people to learn from my life, so I know that my personality would never let me become such a speaker- I would simply feel trapped in a body. But you might be different. And it is the personal autonomy for us to do as we wish with our lives. While you could express how everyone should value life even in the worst circumstances, I would want to have the option of ending the suffering.

I thank you for your time in reading my argument and although we still might not agree, it was a great experience to exchange opinions. We, at Foothill, greatly appreciate your participation.

Sincerely, Isabel Asp