Ben's+Letter

Dear Mr. Smith-

I’d like to begin by thanking you for taking the time out of your day to speak with us on this controversial issue; it means a lot to me when I know that my letter on this important ethical dilemma will be read by one of the nation’s leading bioethicists. Throughout the past few weeks I’ve read many diverse views on the subject of assisted suicide, including your own, and after analyzing the numerous moral quandaries within this complex, multi-faceted question I’ve come to the conclusion that euthanasia is a personal choice that ought to be both legal and respected under a narrow set of circumstances; such as when a sane, competent, and terminally-ill or severely-disabled individual desires it.

While I’m certainly not defending the decision of a perfectly healthy person to kill him/herself--to possibly leave behind a spouse, parents, or other loved ones (most of whom will be scarred for life as a result)--I am defending the legal right of someone who is under severe, irreversible pain due to some terminal illness or has a highly-debilitating handicap to end their life if they choose to do so. I’ve come to believe that death, and the right to die at the time and place of our choosing, is one of the most fundamental liberties we possess as human beings. And I would certainly defend the right of anyone who is terminally-ill or severely disabled to choose assisted suicide as a last-resort to continuing life. In a 2005 article for The Weekly Standard on the film Million Dollar Baby you wrote, “In the world of the script, she (Maggie) is plunged headlong from triumph to utter hopelessness. Indeed, the script writers manipulate the audience emotionally into thinking, ‘Of course she wants to die. Given the same situation, who wouldn’t?’” You then go on to say that “the bigger sin of the movie is its peddling of dangerous ignorance.” You compared Maggie’s situation to that of Joni Erickson Tada and other notable disabled adults who overcame their disability and managed to live happy, fulfilling lives, but why should everyone, regardless of their unique case, who suffers from such a disability be forced to choose life over death? Why isn’t death an option if that’s what someone truly desires? It seems to me that for some people, especially those who honestly feel that they’ve accomplished their purpose in life, assisted suicide provides a final solution to a life they no longer desire to continue and that they feel has already been lived to the fullest. I’m not saying that euthanasia is, by any means, the only option for the handicapped or terminally-ill, but if after careful, prolonged consideration and consultation with various loved ones and medical professionals someone still chooses to end their life, why shouldn’t they have a humane, legal way of going about it?

The Catholic church, one of the most vocal opponents of euthanasia, promotes a pro-life point-of-view on every issue involving human life. The official Catholic “Declaration on Euthanasia” states that, “Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder...For it is a question of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.” While this perspective is probably more faith-based than yours, the core belief against the practice of euthanasia remains the same. You’re views also seem to bear some strong resemblance to those of the handicapped rights movement, including those of disabled rights activist Alison Davis in her article “Right to Life of Handicapped”, in which she said “Who could say that I have ‘no worthwhile quality of life’? I am sure that no doctor would have predicted when I was 28 days old...that despite my physical problems I would lead such a great life. I do not doubt that they were ‘acting in good faith’ when they advised my parents to abandon me, but that does not mean that their advice was correct.” While I certainly agree that the doctor’s advice was incorrect, I don’t believe that comparing the advice of a doctor concerning a new-born baby is a logical comparison to an adult requesting euthanasia. Some disabled advocates also refer to the slippery slope theory, in which the legalization of voluntary euthanasia sets the precedent for a morally-corrupt society in which involuntary euthanasia becomes legal. Davis goes even further in her article, saying that “Legislation of the type proposed could well also lea the de facto decriminalization of the act of killing a handicapped person of any age, just as it did in Hitler’s Germany.” I don’t buy into either of these arguments because in a democratic (and not to mention conservative) society like the United States the idea of Nazi-esque eugenics is ludicrous considering that the populous would never allow such crimes to occur. Just as the establishment of the Miller Test for determining obscenity under the First Amendment didn’t lead to massive government censorship in the US, the legalization of a carefully controlled system for assisted suicide won’t lead to a morally-corrupt society either.

Not to mention, the current practice of doctors being forced to end lives of terminally-ill patients secretly in the dead of night is both cruel and morally ambiguous, but if doctors and their patients were given a legal means for accomplishing this task, would it no be more humane? The fine line between extreme end-of-life care and euthanasia is ambigious, just as the line between a doctor injecting enough morphine into a patient to make them comatose is minuscule compared to injecting them with that extra amount that causes their death. Frankly, I don’t see an ethical difference between giving a dying patient enough morphine to make him numb and comatose, and giving him that minuscule extra amount that finally stops his/her heart.

Some US states and European countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland have long had well-established systems in place for the application of assisted suicide in a tightly-regulated and humane manner. Looking at the Netherlands's system of euthanasia in particular points to the national implementation of a program that, to me, not only appears to be both humane but even morally admirable as well. As you’re probably well aware, the law there stipulates that patients may undergo assisted or physician-assisted suicide if the following factors are met: “the patients suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement, the patients request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time, the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options, there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above,” and that the death must be carried out in a “medically appropriate fashion” with the doctor present. The minimum age for euthanasia is 12, and anyone between age 12-16 must receive consent from their parent or guardian. It seem to me that in a country like the Netherlands, where the procedures for euthanasia are so carefully laid out, that euthanasia is both ethically and morally right in certain situations. Of course, in the case of someone like Maggie, the death might be a bit more ambiguous.

In the article “Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way” by Dr. Pieter Admiraal (a doctor actively practicing active voluntary euthanasia), he explains “I practice active voluntary euthanasia--openly and unashamedly. I practise it because I am fortunate enough to live in a country that allows doctors to do so...And I practise it because I regard it as...an act...required by my duties (as a doctor). To fail to practise voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient.” While some argue that it is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath to carry out euthanasia on a willing patient, yet this doctor seems to believe that it is not only morally right to practice it, but also required by his duties as well.

Even for those who aren’t terminally-ill, such as quadriplegics and other severely handicapped individuals, I still believe assisted suicide is a viable option if they have carefully considered the alternatives with family, friends, and medical professionals over an extended period of time. In the case of UK rugby player Daniel James, who was paralyzed from the neck down in a major sporting accident, many criticized the decision of the young man to end his life at Swiss suicide clinic Dignitas. “The young man, Daniel James, did not need to kill himself: he needed help to live with severe disability...He was still in the acute stage of loss and he was almost certainly profoundly depressed. It is a terrible tragedy.” said Dr. Peter Saunders in a 2008 article by the London Telegraph. While Dr. Saunders was almost undoubtedly correct in his assertion that James was severely depressed at the time, who is he to criticize the man for making such a deeply personal decision? Life and death, in my view, are personal matters that deserve the respect of everyone; especially those who didn’t know the person who choose suicide personally. For some individuals, perhaps the option of continuing life with such a disability truly diminishes their quality of life to the point where it’s no longer worth living. Others, like Joni Erickson Tada, made the decision to continue on with life and “seize the day”; yet for some like James, perhaps the day has already been seized. But for us to judge others based on their personal decisions is something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong.

Thus, it seems to me that for anyone to draw these incredibly thick and broad conclusion on such a nuanced, deeply complex issue seems irresponsible at best. Religious and spiritual beliefs aside, when one truly examines the arguments for and against euthanasia, how can a person come to the conclusion that assisted suicide is wrong in every situation?

-Respectfully, Ben Gill

P.S. I would love to hear your response to my questions if you’re able to find the time in your busy schedule. Thanks again for taking the time to listen to our opinions.