Patrick's+Letter+(Bower)

Dear Mr. Wesley Smith,

My name is Patrick Bower and I am a republican Catholic in Mr. Geib's BioEthics class. I agree with what you said in “Million Dollar Missed Opportunity.” I thought, although cliché, that the story up until the climax was inspirational and exciting. However, after Maggie broke her neck, the entire storyline went downhill. I’m not sure I would describe it as Eastwood’s “easy way out,” but I definitely think it was an awful, poorly planned, unlikely ending. The movie was cut short of what should have been and jerked more tears of sadness than joy. This all could have been changed if there had been a buildup to Maggie’s new form of success, even through paralysis. The facts behind the hospital care were wrong, nothing was done to abolish depression in her, and the plot got lazy after she bit her tongue the first time. Not to mention the poor time lapse, creating the idea that all this happened within several weeks to a month of the accident.

To get straight to my point, I am against euthanasia.I think it is wrong to end innocent human life no matter the case. I believe that it is interfering with God's plan for each one of us. And if nothing else, euthanasia and suicide are selfish. Whether it is easily observed or not, people are inspired by those who endure suffering. It gives others hope and strength. That may be God's plan for someone who is quadriplegic or has multiple amputations or is on a ventilator. We can't know unless we try. There are many things I would describe it as: murder, hospital purging, the devaluation of human life, and a coward’s way out. Euthanasia essentially condones the ending of innocent human life prematurely. It is one way that people give up when life starts to get tough instead of “carrying their cross.” There are many people who succeed even through disability (Stephen Hawking, Christopher Reeve, Allison Davis) and see how rewarding human life truly is, even that of the disabled. However, once we begin to end human life prematurely, we begin to become no different from a common murderer. On the side of euthanasia, I have thoroughly read “Listening and helping to Die: The Dutch Way” and “The Note” by Pieteer Admiraal and Chris Hill, respectively. In the former, a Dutch volunteer states, “I practice active euthanasia…unashamedly.” He believes it is morally justifiable and sometimes required as a valid medical procedure. Admiraal says that refusing to euthanize someone who has requested it is not his duty. He is a strong believer that it is his duty to “…listen closely to, and respect the wishes of the patients.” He says that a “good death” to some only comes through a swift end from euthanasia or suicide. Admiraal chooses not to evade what he so boldly calls the “moral responsibility” that comes with being a human being. I hardly think it is our responsibility as humans to kill off the weak, sickly, and dependant. In fact, it is our duty to do the exact opposite; to preserve human life and do everything in our power to aid it.

Chris Hill shares the same point of view on the matter at hand as Admiraal, only his opinion comes from a different experience. Hill was a bit cavalier with his life. Openly expressing his overactive sex drive, lust for adrenaline, and thirst for adventure, Hill was a slight mishap off of serious catastrophe. That’s exactly what happened. Hill suffered a traumatic hang-gliding accident. Hill ended up a paraplegic with a bitter attitude on life. Hill is now openly for euthanasia. He states, “The medical profession’s attitude of life at any cost was an inhumane presumption that amounted to arrogance.” Hill says it is against basic human rights to deny the right to die and a violation of independent thought. He does not condemn those who choose to live; he just thinks it is pointless. Hill even goes as far to say that there would be less trouble for the able if euthanasia were legal. Hill says all this as if disabled people are useless or a burden to society. This sort of devaluation of human life is relatable to that of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s purges. It is just inhumane.

To support my opinion on the matter, I have also analyzed the short essay by Alison Davis titled, “The Right to Life of the Handicapped” and the official Roman Catholic declaration of euthanasia and the right to die. Davis is a twenty-eight year old woman who suffers from Spina Bifida. Davis is happily married and has graduated from a 4-year university, something that many able people do not experience. She explains that she feels that the legalization of euthanasia will devalue the life of handicapped people. She also explains how letting the handicapped die off, or even killing them actively, is much life that of Nazi Germany. Using her own experiences, she has proven that the handicapped are equal to others and deserve to be treated as such. After all, without the handicapped, we would not be near where we are in medical technology. It may sound like a farfetched idea, but if you think about it, it’s true. If every disabled person had the right to die or be killed off whenever they please, we would have no motivation to develop treatments, cures, and solutions to these disabilities because it would be an inappropriate allocation of resources. That money would most likely be put towards America’s food industry or tobacco industry or something else that we obsess over and eventually kill ourselves with anyway.

The Catholic Church views the “right to die” from a more traditional, orthodox perspective. It begins by explaining the value of human life, saying that “No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental right…Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance to God’s plan…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.” In other words, the church rightfully states that all innocent life is of utmost value and must be preserved. The Catholic declaration then blatantly states, “For it is a question of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.” This is true, as devaluing human life gives victory to the murder, the tyrant, and the psychopath. “The pleas of the gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia…” This also is true more often than not, as depression and mental trauma are unavoidable after a serious accident. What these victims need is love, compassion, care, and antidepressants. We cannot expect the disabled to automatically have a fantastic outlook on life. I’m not saying that. What I am saying though is that once someone can get through to them, miracles will follow.

A counter to this would be the story of Spanish native, Ramón Sampedro. Sampedro became a head in a bed for twenty-nine years, a quadriplegic that openly requested to die. During his time post-injury, Sampedro once had a quadriplegic Catholic priest come and try to talk sense into him, which ended as a two hour long argument in which the priest walked out. In this case, I would describe Sampedro as lazy, immature, and apathetic. He had the idea from day one he wanted to die, and refused any other thoughts or opinions from there on. He was stubborn and could not benefit from the mental and emotional care he was offered. He, as I mentioned earlier, used his invalid “right to die” to take the easy way out. It was easier for him to argue that he should be able to die and then kill himself than it was to learn to live without use of his limbs. It was easier to be selfish than it was to go out and help and inspire others. It was easier to refuse love and compassion and be bitter than it was to flash a smile here and there and work towards something greater. He could have easily survived and succeeded, but chose to take the easy path and stay bitter. Sampedro then committed the selfish act in which he killed himself on national television, undoubtedly traumatizing many unknowing citizens.

All of this is also transferrable to //Million Dollar Baby//. Maggie had to have another person or machines do everything for her, even breathe. Maggy started off with an awful child hood, in which her dad died and her family was awful. But Maggie never gave up at that. She waitressed for a living and saved up the money for a boxing gym every month. She persisted and persisted to be trained and was finally successful. Her limitless potential took her all over the world and helped her achieve great success. So why did Maggie consider paralysis to be the end of her life? She could still talk. She could still see. She could still hear, and comprehend, and have feelings. The only thing was that she had some severe physical restrictions. But why did it end there? God could have had something great planned for Maggie. Maybe she was to become a great speaker, or dictate great stories, or make a difference in someone's life. No one will ever know. The reason being for this is that she destroyed that opportunity. She cut her life short when it wasn't even over.If Maggie never gave up in boxing, why did she in life? Why did she end it prematurely? She was depressed and panicked. She felt like there was nothing else. What she needed were antidepressants, love, and good care...and a calling. She could have been an announcer for fights, or a motivational speaker, or any number of other things that others enjoy.

There is nothing that can justify euthanasia. No situation, no circumstance, and no person can make it right. It is equal to murder, in the sense that is the premature end of innocent human life. I come from a moral and religious standpoint. I think it is wrong to end life and in turn, God’s plan. Legally, I believe that the law should uphold the unjustified killing of innocent humans, whether they ask for it, or do it themselves.

Thank you for your time, Patrick Bower.