Brian's+Letter

====Thank you for taking the time to help better our class's understanding of the views on euthanasia. We appreciate that you have shared your opinions with us. Although I respect and understand your stance on the Right to Die and euthanasia, I disagree. To force any person to stay alive on Earth when they truly do not wish to be, is a violation of their basic freedom of will. If I ever want to leave this life, it is not anyone's place besides my own to tell me what I can and cannot do. People are afraid of a “Culture of Death”, but is a Culture of Death worse than a Culture of Suffering? Why is it that suffering is held up as a righteous act? When it comes down to it, we are mammals. We end the lives of other mammals, like cats and dogs, all the time in a humane way to end their suffering. Why is it so different when we consider humans? Why is it humane to end the suffering of a dog, but not of a person? Although my knowledge of euthanasia is still young, I believe that I have made up my mind on its morality. Many agree, and many disagree, but I think that euthanasia should be widely thought of as a morally sound act. ====

====In the article, //Right to Life of Handicapped //, Alison Davis explains how she lives a happy and fulfilling life as a handicapped person. And that is wonderful. If she is not unhappy and she likes her life, then she has the free will to choose to live. In the article she explains how it was lawful to have killed her after she was born because doctors predicted that she would probably have “no worthwhile quality of life”. I disagree with the doctor's assumptions completely. I think that every person should have the chance to decide for themselves whether or not their life is worth living. It is not the decision of the parents to kill their baby, unless the baby is in obvious pain, and going to die either way. While it is not normally right to end a life, if the suffering is so great, and death is imminent, hastening the death seems morally sound. The story of Alison Davis is inspirational, but I think she also needs to know that not all people are like her. Some people simply can't deal with their sorrow. ====

====Chris Hill is one of the people who became handicapped and could never recover fully, not because he was lacking love and compassion, but because he knew all the things he was missing out on. Chris Hill led an adventurous life, filled with travels and new experiences. He had hang glided, driven 265 km/h on a motorcycle, and indulged in love. But this lifestyle ended when he got into a hang gliding accident and became paralyzed from the neck down. He was not someone who just needed more love. He was surrounded by happy people and had good reasons for living, the greatest being his wife Lee-Ann. He says that without her, he would have gone insane much earlier. He had friends that he loved and wished “health, wealth, and happiness”, yet he still could not be happy himself. He met with people like him. People who had para or quadriplegia, who lived a happy life. He respected them, but he still could not love his life as they did. He didn't just give up on his life after his accident. He tried to return to life and do everything he could to enjoy it. He says that he went out to “shops, theaters and restaurants, even a concert.” He learned to drive again, and he worked. Nothing made him happy. The problem was that he still remembered what his life was like, all the adventures and wonderful times he'd had before, and it was too painful for him to keep living. So he killed himself. Legally, this was not something he was allowed to do. The law tries its best to preserve life at all costs, like the Catholic church says it should, even when the people don't necessarily want to preserve their life. Chris Hill did not want to preserve his life. He felt that he had a good life, and that adding more years to it was not going to make it any better. He was satisfied with the experiences he had, and there was little more that he wanted to do. If he believed that life was no longer worth living, who are we to force him to live a life he does not enjoy? Suffering is not righteous, and it was his Right to Die. ====

====In the Netherlands the stance on euthanasia is much different than America's policy. In the Netherlands doctors have the legal right to perform voluntary euthanasia. In the article //Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way //, the story of a woman named Carla is told. Carla was a happily married 47 year old with four children. She had a growing tumor in one of her ovaries and was in great pain. As you can imagine, her stress level was high, but it was lessened by the knowledge that she could, if it came to it, have her life ended when the pain became too great for her. She persisted for a long time. She lost weight, the tumor grew, and she vomited constantly. Finally, the doctors decided it was necessary to put a tube up through her nose and into her stomach in order to empty it. She was also given liquids through a tube. Finally, when doctors suggested they put a feeding tube in her, Carla refused, not wanting to prolong her suffering. Could God want us to suffer? Carla didn't think so, saying, “God could not have wanted this,” requesting her death. Her family accepted her wish realizing it would be selfish to deny it to her, especially in her state of great pain. In the end, the doctor, Pieter Admiraal, took part in active euthanasia. He administered a dose of a lethal drug and ended Carla's suffering. She did not want to suffer any longer than she needed and chose to take the easy way out. Is that so wrong? Persisting through pain is strangely respectable, but that doesn't mean we should force people to suffer if they are not up to it. Some people believe that it is cowardly not to suffer. Cowardly? Why suffer when we can... well I don't know, not suffer? I think it's fine if people want to endure life till the end. Kudos to them for pushing through the pain, but I don't think that their views should be forced upon anyone else. Just because someone decides that they would rather not be in pain, does not make them cowardly. Carla was not a coward, and as far as I am concerned, Dr. Admiraal did not do anything wrong. Many people view active euthanasia as sinful because the doctor actively causes the death to happen, usually through some lethal injection. The article defends Dr. Admiraal though, arguing that active and passive euthanasia amount to the same end. “In both cases, the doctor acts out of respect for the autonomy of the patient. In both cases life is shortened. In both cases, the doctor has performed an act which has led to the patient's death; and in both cases, the doctor must take responsibility for that action – regardless of whether this involves, say, turning off a respirator... or the administration of a lethal injection.” It is arguable even, that passive euthanasia is worse because it is a slow death. Either way, I believe that both forms are morally sound. ====

====It should be the patient's choice whether or not they want to die. Shouldn't it? What a doctor thinks, and their advice, is important, but in the end it should be up to the patient, as it was in Esther's case. Esther was another one of Pieter's patients who had multiple sclerosis and was quickly getting worse. She wanted to die before she became completely paralyzed. Isn't it alright to help people to die with their dignity? That's all that Esther wanted. She already was almost fully paralyzed, but she felt that her dignity would truly start to wash away once she depended completely on others. Dr. Admiraal consented to her wishes after he was absolutely sure of //her //certainty. Again, he performed active euthanasia. Some argue, with good reason, that it equates to murder. It makes sense. He puts the needle in her, injects her, and she dies. But we do this to animals because we think it is humane, why not humans? Are we that much different? Defending the morality of active euthanasia, Dr. Admiraal states, “Active voluntary euthanasia is but one more way of delivering human medical care”. I agree. Why should we force people to endure suffering to death, when we can cut the suffering part out? ====

====Some people disagree with euthanasia because they feel that suffering //is //a necessary component of living. One group like this is the Catholic Faith. In the //Declaration on Euthanasia //, as approved by Pope John Paul II, the need to preserve life at all costs is clearly underlined. “Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God's plan”. Even, they say, if that plan includes suffering. But what if God's plan is for us to die from euthanasia? Is that not a valid argument? How do we know what God's plan is? If euthanasia is messing with God's plans, then what about Tylenol, or Advil. Maybe God //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">wanted //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">us to get a headache, so we shouldn't take any pain relievers, because suffering is the plan! And God forbid we get a flu shot or any other vaccine. We might not suffer in sickness according to God's Plan. But apparently pain killers are acceptable for use, and to me it just seems to go against the whole, God's plan thing. Euthanasia goes against God's plan, but relieving pain does not, even if according to Christian teaching, suffering has a special place in God's Plan. The whole thing just feels confusing. If a person is suffering with little time left, and wishes to die, is it moral to make them suffer? I don't care if the Christian faith feels that person should push on, they should be able to choose their own path as it affects themselves. ====

====<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">The //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Declaration on Euthanasia //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">states that many times, what a sick person needs when they ask for death is help and love. But that is not always that case, as I described earlier in Chris Hill's circumstance. He was surrounded by loving friends and family, his wife... But as he said, “I couldn't live my life vicariously through other people's satisfactions and achievements”. He still wanted death through it all. Shouldn't he have the free will to take his own life? Maybe he needed to keep going because things would get better as time went on. As they say, “time heals”. 29 years should be enough time right? 29 years. That's how long Ramón Sampedro was forced by society to live his life as a quadriplegic. After all those years of trying to get the law on his side, he gave up on the law and committed suicide. Ramón Sampedro is an extreme example, but he does demonstrate that time does not always heal, and I'm sure there are more people like him who persist through life but still want to die. ====

====<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Free will over one's own self is the reason why euthanasia is moral. Some decisions can be impulsive, and a permanent solution to a temporary problem is not the best answer. For this reason, a person not in any life threatening situation should have to wait some specified amount of time before they can kill themselves. If, after the specified amount of time, they still wish to die, then we should not stand in their way. The terminally ill should not be forced to suffer until their death. If they wish to die in order to stop their own suffering, then it is their right to die. Once again, thank you for listening to my argument. I don't believe we will ever agree with each other, but perhaps we can agree to disagree. ====