Joe+M's+Letter

media type="file" key="joeym-wesleysmith-euthanasia.mp3"

Dear Mr. Wesley Smith,

I’d first like to formally thank you for taking the time out of your life to express your thoughts on the topic of euthanasia and for being open to criticism from my classmates. Your words are very insightful and hopefully you gain as much from our pieces as we have from yours.

Euthanasia is something that has been a question of morality, legality and ethicality. It has been argued for by people that support “Death with Dignity” and the right to choose, and it has been fought against by people of handicapped organizations such as “Not Dead Yet”, the Catholic Church and physicians themselves. It is a question of whether people have the “right to die”, yet, it is also a question of if other people should assist them in doing so. Euthanasia is an issue that people try to justify by creating melodramatic scenarios in which death seems like the only option, when, in reality it is not, and allowing it to seem acceptable in some cases will only lead to a path in which people will find it more and more acceptable in cases which death is not currently and should never be thought to be an option such as with cases dealing with psychological instability and temporary depression. It is promoting a culture of death, in which dying would be an allowed form of escape. Euthanasia is something that is ethically and morally wrong and should therefore remain legally the same.

Euthanasia makes sense because it is an apparent end to suffering; it is a quick fix to a problem that can often be complex. As humans, we tend to empathize with suffering because it is something that none of us want and that all of us have or most likely will experience. Euthanasia provides a means to an end that gives people “a way out” if they feel as though they need one. Yet, suffering is part of the human condition. Though suffering is not something that should be endorsed and nor is it something that we should inflict upon people, it is not meant to be cured by death. If suffering were allowed to be a plausible reason to accept euthanasia, a grey line would be created that would be hard to distinguish in a court of law. Endorsing euthanasia would, in a sense, be dictating that people that are suffering or disabled have a lessened value of life that makes ending their life acceptable. This position cannot be held because if we as a society to view this as proper, it would pave the way for people suffering from pain that is not necessarily physical or even permanent to justifiably kill themselves. Chris Hill, in his letter called //The Note//, expresses his want to die due an accident while hang gliding. Mr. Hill talks about how his life was adventurous before his accident and how he believes he had led a fulfilled life and that, because of this, he felt it was right for him to die. In his suicide note, Hill also mentions that he knows that there are people out there that have achieved success while still being disabled, but, that he is not one of these people. By doing this, Hill makes an incorrect assumption. Life is limitless until death, and is as undefined and as unknown as death. The mere essence of living does not necessarily solidify one’s current state, because there are so many things that are variable to change in a person’s life that could alter the state of the human mindset. According to the Catholic Declaration on Euthanasia, each and every person has is given the divine gift of life by God and people must defend it. This view is defended by the faith and hope expressed by the Catholic religion that life is a gift and people must use it to their advantage. To allow euthanasia is to sever this hope that life can be better than it is, and though not all people agree with that, there is no telling whether or not their opinions on if life will change for the better unless they give themselves the opportunity to thrive. Ramon San Pedro was an individual that strictly affirmed his belief that people should have the right to die. He spent his whole life in his bed and said that it was no way to live life. Though Ramon’s story is sad enough to gain sympathy, it should hold no ground in the moral fight for euthanasia. Ramon consistently refused to utilize the options that were available to him, and therefore chose to ruin his life instead of thrive. Not Dead Yet is an organization that is strongly against euthanasia and consists of handicapped people. This organization depicts euthanasia as demeaning people with disabilities when they believe that their disabilities are not truly diminishing of the value of life. Each and every single individual that is a part of this group believes that they are still meant for something that their handicap will not prevent them from achieving. Organizations like this sometimes refer to people in support of euthanasia as being similar to Nazi Germany. Though this seems like a stretch because Nazis killed people without their consent, the reference is being made because the Nazis killed people because they thought something was wrong with them, when, in reality, there was nothing wrong with them. Not all of these people will necessarily become successful or even accomplish their small goals, but they still have hope and some do actually make a decent life despite their physical obstacles. Mankind’s greatest weapon is their mind, and a disability that does not kill of the mind therefore does not kill off the person.

As modern society in America begins to shift towards an era that promotes complete individualism, there has also been a shift reflected in my classmates that attempts this argument for euthanasia, yet, this argument should not be applied to suicide more than it should be applied to murder. Yet, going back to the concept of the grey line euthanasia would create it would in fact be more individualistic to leave a clear line that does not necessarily inhibit people from committing suicide, yet, keeps it out of the hands of anybody but the individual themselves (though am I in no way endorsing suicide even by the hands of the individual). The Fourteenth Amendment exhibits a specific right to the people to life, and the question is whether or not this also applies to death. The answer is strictly no. The Fourteenth Amendment was created to ensure that people received equality regardless of race, religion, or gender and are, by law, guaranteed the civil rights that every other person has (Monk 213). To use the Fourteenth Amendment as an argument for euthanasia would be applying it across the board, and therefore enabling anyone and everyone to have access to suicide which just would not and should not be viewed as practical or ethically acceptable. Robert Beezer, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit in the case Compassion in Dying v. Washington, stated that, //“// Constitutional protection for a right to assisted suicide might spawn pressure on the elderly and infirm--but still happily alive--to 'die and get out of the way.' Also at risk are the poor and minorities, who have been shown to suffer more pain // ” (Compassion in Dying v. Washington //// ). // Beezer also continued to state, “The poor, the elderly, the disabled and minorities are all at risk from undue pressure to commit physician-assisted suicide, either through direct pressure or through inadequate treatment of their pain and suffering // ” // (// Compassion in Dying v. Washington //// ) //. He expresses this view to underline the fact that this apparent “way out” of suffering will prevent people that have the possibility of being healed from attempting to be healed or from fully facilitating the opportunities that are available to them. Beezer ended with, “ They cannot be adequately protected by procedural safeguards, if the Dutch experience is any indicatio // n” // (// Compassion in Dying v. Washington //). This refers back to the piece “Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way” that explains the Dutch way of carrying out euthanasia, which is legal there, and attempts to justify euthanasia (Pieter Admiraal). The author of this article takes the position that euthanasia should be allowed and builds his argument off of two cases of which he committed assisted suicide. Admiraal’s cases are built starting with an intro to the condition of the patients in which he attempts to create empathy to the suffering of the patients and then expands saying that it is a physician’s job to end this suffering. Yet, the Hippocratic Oath, taken by people of the medical profession, specifically states that physicians shall “do no harm”. It is this very code that causes medical practitioners to lose their license if prescribing too high of a dosage of drugs, which is what euthanasia is essentially doing. Though people may view as allowing a person to suffer as doing them harm, it is really not. Because suffering is a part of human life, not doing anything about it is not helping them, but it is also not doing any harm. In an email to Procon.org, Courtney S. Campbell, PhD, a Professor of Ethics, Science and the Environment at the Oregon State University stated, //“// While I respect and advocate for patients to have control and dignity in dying, it is contrary to the vocation of medicine to intentionally hasten or cause death” (Campbell). Campbell confirms that the practice of euthanasia would be a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath that all physicians must take in order to gain their license to practice medicine.

In the justification of morality, it is not a matter of human want. This argument is the most whimsical out of all others that attempt to justify euthanasia. Though some believe say that euthanasia and even suicide is acceptable because of the desire of it, when confronted with the question of whether or not it is okay to be cannibalistic because someone is stranded on a boat, the answer is no, and they would be just as uneasy to support a murderer or a greedy businessman. The justification of want supports these things just as much as it does euthanasia. It is hypocritical to expand an argument to uphold the moral value of a certain scenario and yet condemn something that would be defended by the same argument. Yet, murder and euthanasia, in the minds of some are completely different things. But think, if it is acceptable for someone to choose to die and a doctor chooses to assist in this death, how is it any different than murdering someone; the answer lies in the fact that the person murdered did not agree to be murdered. Yet, if the mindset of the human state is alterable and someone could or could not change from wanting to die to not wanting to die, how can we, as humans, say that it is okay just because they feel a certain way at the moment. We cannot allow people to die regardless of the situation if the mind is still alive. In the case of passive euthanasia with people in an irreparable coma that has caused the mind to lose function absolutely, it is more morally acceptable to allow this person to die because they cannot do anything to better their views of their condition considering they do know even know they are in that condition. Yet, this should not be carried out by a physician; it should be left up to nature which in turn will deliver the person.

In the case of life and death, it should not be left up to a physician or a person because the physician is meant to protect life and the person is in the mindset of the moment that could change for the better. We cannot disallow the opportunity for people to become better, especially at the rate medical advances are being made. We must allow life.

Thank You For Your Time, Joseph Malach