Joanna's+Letter

Dear Mr. Wesley J. Smith,

My name is Joanna and as you know I am senior enrolled in the Bioethics class at Foothill Technology High School. I would first like to thank you for your valuable time. I find it quite wonderful that someone as busy as yourself would take time out of your schedule and join our class for discussion. I feel I should also tell you that I admire the passion you have for what you believe in, your insight is thought provoking and I have enjoyed reading your opinions on this particular subject matter. Nonetheless, my personal opinions have not changed. I was never, not for one moment, tempted to change my mind even after reading the other side of this controversial argument. I should mention that although I was baptized Catholic, I am for the most part not religious but I will tell you that a part of me does believe in God. Regardless my opinions do not lie with opponents of the practice of Euthanasia.

It is my belief that under the right circumstances, euthanasia should be perfectly legal. As human beings, we should have the right to die by our own terms. And even more than that, no one should have to suffer in their last days on this earth. Euthanasia allows for, in my opinion, a dignified death. In terms of suicide, I for the most part see little distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia. Both practices rest on commitments to respect autonomy and prevent suffering. To be honest, I see no point in suffering; it’s not something I feel makes someone brave in the least.

I do believe that life in general is the most precious gift we have and should be lived to the fullest. However another part of me knows that terminally ill people or those who are in a paralyzed state should have the right to end their suffering, and more than that, they should have the right to end it quickly, and remain with dignity in their death. Even though we have institutions such as the hospice that have the resources to keep a patient alive indefinitely, is it right? If a patient has the chance to speak his or her wishes then shouldn’t we give them the chance to end their painful lives? There is clearly a desire – whether we like it or not – among a number of patients at the end of often terrible battles with debilitating, incurable diseases to end their suffering. And even more so, sometimes this includes the support of their relatives. To deny this right to end their life is to prolong the suffering for individuals and families.

However, according to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Declaration on Euthanasia”, “intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder”. The Sacred Congregation expands their beliefs by writing, “…it is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying”. These opponents of euthanasia who are most notably religious institutions, argue that suicide, assisted suicide, and almost all forms of euthanasia are morally wrong. They argue that only God gave us life so he is the only one who can take it away. They believe that “life is namely a gift of God’s love, which they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful”. The Catholic Church argues that no one can make an attempt on someone else’s life without opposing “God’s love” for that person, and if they do they are committing the worst crime. Even more than that, these people believe that we should all lead our life the way according to God’s plan. In other words, they feel that euthanasia is an attack on humanity. As I stated before, I do understand and agree that life should be preserved, however, at what cost? I don’t think life should be preserved if the individual no longer wishes to live and is suffering. Of course human life is precious, however, this does not mean we should subject another human being to mental and physical suffering especially when many do not subscribe to the same religious view.It is thus unacceptable to increase suffering of a patient in the name of a God in whom they do not believe.

As a proponent of the practice of euthanasia, I have to state once again that I strongly believe it is our freedom to make personal choices. Is the right to die not one of these personal choices? In my opinion, it’s the most important one. The catholic church states “ furthermore no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it” To me, this is a bit absurd. Individuals have a fundamental right to direct the course of their lives, a right that should encompass control over the timing and circumstances of their death.  Individual beliefs about the meaning of life and the significance of death vary greatly. Society must allow each individual to decide. Who are we to decide what someone can and cannot do with their own body? Is it right for one human to prevent another human from making a free choice?

And as for the people who believe that doctors play God by killing their patients, I have to say that for one, it’s the patient who tells them they want them to end their life. The doctor didn’t decide for them. And these doctors who perform euthanasia are really just allowing people with terminal illnesses to die with dignity. In my opinion, the doctors who do this are brave and they are ultimately doing the best thing they can for their patient. I feel that it also important to mention Dr. Jack Kevorkian who is best known for publicly encouraging a terminal patient 's right to die via physician-assisted suicide. Although some saw him as a man who seemed to have no value in human life, I have to say that in some ways I admired him. I feel that what he did was so brave and more than that, just. He famously said, "dying is not a crime" and I fully agree. Although there is some speculation about whether the patients were terminally ill or what not, I believe that his actions were in the best interest of the patients. Another point that he once made that rang absolutely true with me was the fact that we put down animals to prevent suffering but we won’t do the same for human beings. One of the most persuasive lines he said were “My intent was to carry out my duty as a doctor, to end the suffering. Unfortunately, that entailed, in their cases, ending of the life.” And the one that really summed it all up was “If we are free people at all, then we must be free to choose the manner of our death.”

In “Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way”, Dr. Pieter Admiraal regards euthanasia “as sometimes morally right, as not only compatible with the property understood duties and responsibilities of a doctor, but as an act sometimes required by them”. Dr. Pieter Admiraal explains, “As doctors we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients, and to respect their autonomy.” It also states “to fail to practice voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient”. I couldn’t agree more; sometimes ending a patient’s suffering is the best form of care they can offer. Take for example a patient named Carla. Carla’s condition deteriorated quickly, and life for her was utterly miserable. I will spare the sad details, but Carla was a strong catholic woman, who when she knew death was on its away already, requested to end her suffering. The doctor stated that they do usually hesitate in situations like this, when a patient requests to have their life ended but in this case Carla had already received the best care possible and there was nothing that could be done to alleviate her suffering. This wasn’t a plea for help as some would argue. She really did want to die and go on to heaven, as those were her beliefs. Some people will be shocked that a doctor chose to go along with this, and end her life. The critics will say that regardless of the fact that she was terminally ill, and had the right state of mind and knew what she wanted, which was to die, does not make the doctors actions morally right. I however feel that it was most certainly morally right. He goes on to say “the first duty entails that we should seek to restore patients to health and, if we cant, that we should try to reduce their suffering”. Next he states “the second duty entails that we listen closely to, and respect, the wishes of our patients”. To me, this sounds like the right thing to do. Another point to be made is that although some people request euthanasia to end their suffering, their suffering is not always pain related. More than anything, it seems is that its loss of their own human dignity. They are completely dependent on someone else, and for them that’s no way to live. We also have to understand that sometimes, try as you might, a patient, regardless if they receive the best care they might still feel the need to want to die.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Another thing we must come to terms with is the fact that sometimes, its not only the terminally ill who wish to end their suffering, but also those who suffer from <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">quadriplegia. Perhaps the most powerful article we read was the Note by Chris Hill. This is the account of a man who is telling us why he is choosing to end his life. Chris was a young man, who by chance was paralyzed after a hang gliding accident. Chris had live life to the fullest, he wrote “I once lived to the max, always grateful that I had the opportunity to do just that, and always mindful to live for today because there may be no tomorrow.” However, after his accident, life was all but miserable to Chris. The reader cannot help but feel his pain, you feel it in your heart, you understand his reasoning, you understand why he wishes to end his life. I mean to go from an amazing active life, to being bed ridden and paralyzed seems like the cruelest punishment life can give you. “No more of the simple pleasures I once took for granted. No walking, running, swimming, riding motorcycles, the wonderful feel of grass, sand or mud underfoot, nothing.” In the end you cant help but reason with Chris’s decision to end his life. I know that it was justified, he did what he felt he had to do. And I feel everyone should have that choice. No one should be judged for what they feel is no longer a life worth living. This was single handedly the most important piece that convinced me that I have taken the right position on this issue.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Another persuasive case that highlighted the fact that euthanasia is in some circumstances the best for the individual is the movie Million Dollar Baby. It was panned by those who work with people who in fact suffer from quadriplegia, who said the movie promised the concept of “better dead than disabled”. I however do not believe that this movie promoted this concept. It was simply an individuals choice. Its the person themselves who decides if they would rather be dead than disabled. Everyone is different. Sometimes people can come back from injuries like this and sometimes they can't. And if the person decides they can't, than by all means, in my opinion they have the right to choose to end their own life and end their suffering. Maggie lived her dream, and then just like that, it was over. She lay bed ridden, and more than that completely miserable, in her eyes, her life was over, it wasn’t worth it. After asking Frankie to grant her, her final wish, which was death, he did it. Was what Frankie did in acceding to Maggie's final wish, in fact, wrong? Legally speaking, this act of active euthanasia was first degree murder. The film, on the other hand, suggests it might have been the right move, considering the circumstances and I fully agree. I don’t believe it was a “million dollar missed opportunity” as you stated in your article. Now I know that while perhaps people believe he should have given it more time and more thought, I believe that it wouldn't have mattered. Maggie wouldn't have changed her mind. She was unwilling to live that way, a life like that wasn't much of a life at all, in her eyes at least. I mean no one should be forced to live if it makes them suffer, and so much that they would rather be dead. What kind of life is that? Maggie lived, I mean she really lived.Nonetheless, as always there is an exception, the other side of the argument.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">In the “Right to Life of Handicapped” Alison Davis is a 28 year old who suffers from myelomeningocele spina bifida. She writes that despite her disability, she was able to live a normal life due to her loving environment. She feels that nowadays, handicapped people are in some ways not fully recognized as human beings. It is no surprise that I do not find myself agreeing with her. I don’t think people who are handicapped are any less of a person. I believe that they can live a full life, but it has to come from within them, as it did for Allison.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">It always depends on the individual, in all cases. I am someone who will always champion our rights as human beings. The most important one it seems to me, is the right to die on our own terms. American society has long embraced individual liberty and I feel that they should embrace this as well. Euthanasia can in the future be a viable option under the right circumstances. If we make it legal, we can prevent abuse and more than that it should be stressed that relatively few people would be affected, I mean its not like we would have people dying by the masses.Allowing the practice in carefully defined circumstances would lead to greater professional accountability and fewer cases of abuse. I along with other proponents of euthanasia favor prospective guidelines: for example, requiring that the attending physician consult with colleagues and that the patient voluntarily and repeatedly request assisted suicide or euthanasia. The patient should also receive psychological evaluation and counseling, and express their intolerable suffering with no hope for relief. And if the meet the requirements, then why shouldn't we do it? All I know is, I personally would take comfort in the fact that in the future, suffering would no longer be mandatory. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Thank you again