Eric's+Letter

Dear Mr. Smith, First, thank you very much for collaborating on this discussion with us. Your insight and opinions are greatly appreciated, and I respect that you have a very clear-cut, articulate opinion. I have been wrestling my own opinions on the issue of euthanasia over the past several weeks. In this time period we have gone over several notable euthanasia cases as well as the opinions of well-known institutions such as the Vatican and Dutch methods of legal euthanasia. I will attempt to express mine and their positions as eloquently as possible.

Before I begin, I would like to pose a question. If you read any of the other letters, it is clear that several of my peers believe that personal autonomy is the greatest freedom above all, and that being denied the liberty to kill yourself is certainly a violation of this principle. In your blog on //Million Dollar Baby// you expressed that time is the “most precious and irreplaceable commodity” and that through time someone contemplating suicide may “come out of the darkness and back into the light.” What would you say to someone who is completely dead-set on committing suicide? Ramone San Pedro campaigned for a legal suicide for 27 years before he finally became fed up with the legal system and went ahead and offed himself anyways. It seems that Senior San Pedro has had plenty of time to see the light and has decided he would rather not live what some consider, however brusquely, a “second-class existence.” I personally believe that no amount of counseling, love, or affection could have changed this man’s mind. At what point do we give and become obligated to care for someone’s final wishes?

Pieter Admiraal, a Senior Anesthetist at the Reinier de Graff Gusthauis hospital in Delft believes that “to fail to practice voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient.” This form of assisted suicide – euthanasia in terminal cases – seems to be the lesser evil of any euthanasia case – if such evil is even involved, depending on one’s perspective. It is certainly less morally questionable than the curious case of Chris Hill, who is a quadriplegic. But I will discuss that later. In the case of terminal illness, the point that love and care will cure all wounds is moot because, well, they’re dying – I believe that hastening a death to prevent pain and not seeking to postpone the inevitable is the best decision. It seems like the practical application of an idealist, transcendental idea: it just sounds modern. Ask anyone who is died in mortal pain: I’m sure they will agree that euthanasia would be the way to go – unless they’re a martyr. From my point of view, the main argument against an easy way out for terminal illness is that it creates a “slippery slope”, which might lead to other progressive measures designed to extinguish life. However, these measures for the sick and dying will not lead our society into moral decay; having increased compassion for our fellow human beings makes it sound like we are going in the right direction. What would your argument be against euthanasia applied in the cases of terminally-ill patients?

The concept of a “slippery slope” brings us to the Catholic position. Believers of the catholic persuasion seek to promote a culture of life, and that euthanasia detracts from humanity. The official Catholic position on the subject of euthanasia, taken from Cardinal Franjo Seper’s Declaration on Euthanasia in 1980, says that a person has a fundamental right to live: euthanasia is a violation of divine law, an offense against the dignity of the person, and an attack on humanity. Although many people disregard this opinion depending on whether they believe in a higher deity or not, I have decided that regardless of one’s religious belief something valuable can be learned from the Catholic position. The idea that all life is precious is a fundamental aspect of our existence, and a failure to hold life in high regard will make a “slippery slope” that will lead our society down a path to “cleansings” and Nazi-style shenanigans. While it might not perhaps the outcome may not be that severe, the Catholics reinforce a very important point: don’t take life lightly. I full agree with this principle, however I disagree with the culture of suffering that the Catholics seem to want to propogate. It is not noble to suffer in an advanced stage of metastatic cancer when you are suffering some of the worst pain imaginable and will only live another three, four days. If I were put in the same position, I would want the personal autonomy to decide what was best for myself, despite what anyone else may say. We all have a particular issue or sentiment where we are a part of the minority, and believe the majority is wrong. This could be Prop 8 in California, or it could have been the Catholic’s general consensus that the earth was flat and that Copernicus was blasphemous for suggesting something as revolutionary as the earth was not the center of the universe. Similarly, some decisions seem erroneous and downright silly in retrospect. If someone wants to off themselves then so be it, the Tree of Life is self-pruning and any individual with a will to die will eventually do so.

In //The Note// by Chris Hill, he proclaims himself to the former champion of the world. He speaks of exotic orgies, motorcycle rides, and travel. He claims that he has lived several lifetimes in one. He explains all this so that his readers will know just how debilitating it is for him to be paralyzed from the chest down. He expresses nothing more than a wish to die saying, “I do not want to be a burden or a spectator.” Personally, I can’t help but agree with Mr. Hill, imagining myself in his position. I am an athlete and although I understand that my ability to move does not define me, I would be similarly crushed if I lost the use of my legs.

An activist for the “right to life” cause, Alison Davis, was born with myelomeningocele spina bifida and has been confined to a wheelchair for her entire life. First off, I would like to say that I strongly admire Ms. Davis for her courage and strength, her handicap is no small… handicap. Ms. Davis campaigns for babies to be given the chance to live, even if it is claimed that they would have “no worthwhile quality of life.” Ms. Davis feels so strongly about this because she was one of these babies herself, but was given the chance to live and is now greatful for everyday she spends on this earth. She poses a terrifying moral question: what about babies, for whom the outlook doesn’t look so good? After pondering this question, I have come up with an answer which is morally acceptable to be, and to you I’m sure. Personal autonomy is to be respected, but because this baby has none; we must use medical technology to the best of our ability to help him or her live. In recent years, medical technology has become incredibly advanced, with inventions such as the ventilator in the 60’s extending the lives of patients who might otherwise be dead indefinitely. Because the infant has never had the opportunity to choose their fate, never given the opportunity to decide what quality of life they would like, I would like to give them A life, rather than no life at all. Mr. Smith, I’m sure you can agree with that.

In conclusion, life is short, and I am in awe of those who would be willing to end their life and enter the void over a non-terminal “speed-bump” in events. Although I do believe personal autonomy should be respected, I do not suggest that the decision to kill oneself be taken lightly. I am sure you can respect this caution, Mr. Smith. Take into account the concept of the death penalty. After the plaintiff has been sentenced to death, sodium thiopental is not injected into their veins that afternoon. There is a process of direct review, state collateral review, and an additional option of federal habeas corpus. It is not uncommon for the lethal injection to be administered ten to fifteen years after the fact. A parallel should be drawn to euthanasia. If a person indeed desires suicide, they will feel the same way a couple years down the road like Ramone San Pedro. It is undeniably unjustifiable to kill someone on death row as soon as the jury reads the verdict. Similarly, it should be immoral and illegal to administer euthanasia to someone with a non-terminal condition until their decision has been given due process.

However, after a decision has been made I believe that it is morally acceptable to aid a person in fulfilling their last wish because it seems impossible to argue against the concept of personal autonomy and free will. If a fellow wants to kill himself, I will not stand in his way. However, I would not give him the tools to commit this act of self-destruction until all other hope for enjoying life has been lost. Thank you for taking the time to collaborate with us Mr. Smith.

Best Regards, Eric Birdsall