Joe+S's+Letter

media type="file" key="joeys-wesleysmith-euthanasia.mp3"

Dear Mr.Smith,

Thank you for working with our class, it has really added another dimension to our studies! I respectfully acknowledge your stance and applaud your accomplishments, however I essentially disagree with you. Everyone is different in all aspects of life especially when it comes to death. The Catholic idea of love, faith, and compassion as an antidote to debilitating diseases, spinal injuries, and mental conditions, is a hoax. The reasoning behind euthanasia is not the same in every circumstance, and should not be blindly labeled immoral because some people have the mental and physical toughness to withstand suffering, more than others. In contemporary America it is illegal for a doctor to actively euthanize a patient upon request. Why? Why let the terminally ill suffer through the last bit of life in agonizing pain and die because of starvation or suffocation? Why let the paralyzed and the sick lead a life only because they are forced to? The injustice is not the act of euthanasia and it isn’t a doctor agreeing to inject morphine into a patient; it’s the complete disregard for a person’s autonomy and the twisted concept that suffering will somehow be rewarded. Just because we have the ability to keep people alive using feeding tubes and respirators, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. The quality is more important than the longevity of life.

There are two types of euthanasia: active and passive. Passive euthanasia, the widely accepted form, is defined as withdrawing medical treatment with the deliberate intention of causing the patient's death. Active voluntary euthanasia, the form with immense opposition, occurs when someone, usually a doctor, administers drugs in order to actively end the patient’s life, upon the patient’s request. If a patient asks a doctor to end life support, as a means to evoke passive euthanasia, the patient will die in a matter of days, usually caused by suffocation due to lung failure, starvation due to the lack of a feeding tube, or some sort of illness such as pneumonia; in other words a patient must earn his or her death through hours of immense suffering. Active voluntary euthanasia, only takes one dose of drugs, one needle, and one person to administer it, resulting in a painless death over in minutes. Yet passive euthanasia is considered to be the most acceptable form of euthanasia. Taking a step back, passive and active euthanasia both have the same outcome. Both respect the choices of the patient, and both are deliberate actions by doctors in order to end a patient’s life. In a contest of morality and humanity, active euthanasia has a first round K.O. on passive euthanasia. Active voluntary euthanasia, literally meaning in Greek phrase “good death,” is a dignified way to end suffering.

The majority of the opposition against euthanasia comes from a religious standpoint, primarily from the Catholics. However, after reading the official “Declaration on Euthanasia” written by Cardinal Jerome Seper, my position on euthanasia remains unchanged. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith talks about the value of human life and how it is immoral and unjust to take someone’s life without “violating fundamental rights and God’s love.” The crusades of the 11th, 12th, and 13th century blessed by the Catholic church were responsible for thousands of deaths, yet a simple injection in order to humanely appease the requests of a suffering patient in a hospital bed is considered a “violation of divine law” and an “attack on humanity.” The Catholic Declaration on Euthanasia also states that, “The pleas of gravely of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. What a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love.” This statement implies that a patient in the last stages of cancer and patient screaming with excruciating pain due to Multiple Sclerosis, should endure their last days of suffering, forget their deteriorating condition, and embrace the warmth of family and friends. Why? Sedatives, opiods, family and friends cannot quell some pains; sometimes the only real way to end the suffering is to end life. A life with no quality, no hope of recovery, only the imminent painful death, is required for all terminally ill patients who have the unfortunate religion of Catholicism.

Although I have strong opinions on the Catholics position on euthanasia, I myself am not a Catholic, and haven’t experienced the true love and grace of the Almighty God. I support Catholics practicing their own beliefs, just as I support anybody supporting their own personal beliefs, because I have respect for other’s autonomy. That is why I find it uncontrollably frustrating when the Catholic’s try to impose their strict, suffering-in-order-to-get-into-heaven-just-as-Christ-did-attitude, on others who have different beliefs, different faiths, and sometimes just flat out don’t believe in God. To me, active voluntary euthanasia is not a crime. When I say this, I exercise my right to my own beliefs, to my autonomy, just as I should be able to choose, for myself when I want to die, especially if I am terminally ill and suffering.

People unwilling to live with spinal injuries have evoked another round of ethical dilemmas involving euthanasia. I believe that life and death is totally up to the individual; if one is able to live with spinal injuries and lead a successful, productive life, I applaud them. The real nugget of bio ethics comes down to people like Chris Hill and Ramon Sampedro who decide that a life relying on other people assisting you, a life managed in a wheelchair or laying on a bed, is not a life worth living. I, in no way shape or form, feel that handicapped people are second-class. I merely wish to support and protect the decisions of the three people mentioned before in effort to support the concept of autonomy.

Chris Hill lived an above average life. He was born in Australia, received a good education, and as he got older was able to travel the world. He earned two degrees from universities and had friends around the globe. He was also known for his womanizing capabilities. Attracted to dangerous, death-defying activities, Chris was struck down by his own passions when he was paralyzed from his neck down in a hang-gliding accident. Years went by and he attempted to rebuild his life to a quality he sought fit. Despite his handicapped position, Chris still worked, hung out with friends, and went out to movies, shops, and even a concert. Chris wasn’t happy. He worked to make life enjoyable again but no matter what he did, his new life in a wheelchair was bitterly cold because of the shadow casted on it by his old life. Chris was trapped in the body that used to be a “player not a spectator”, he couldn’t do the things he loved and was unable to perform regular tasks, he even needed someone to help him manually perform his body functions for him. In short, he was completely dependent on his family, friends, and medicine to keep him alive. His family, friends, and medicine forced him to stay alive. All of this information I have obtained has come from Chris Hill’s suicide note. “I once lived life 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,” Chris describes in the note. “I felt that the legislature’s and the medical profession’s attitude of life at any cost was an inhumane presumption that amounted to arrogance. It’s a challenge, many of you said. Bullshit. My life is just a miserable existence, and awful parody of normalcy. What’s a challenge without some reward to make it worthwhile?” The most grueling thing to Chris was that his wife loved him so much, loved him enough to take care of him and stay with him despite half of his body’s uselessness, despite a loss in his masculinity and sexuality. He said, “I love Lee-Ann, but she deserves better than the pointless life I could offer, and I believe I’m giving her another chance at happiness no matter how much pain I cause in the short term.”

As humans, as doctors, as a society of great tolerance and acceptance, we can do better than pressuring a paraplegic man that does not want to live, into committing suicide. Chris’s family and friends offered him some comfort in his new life, but they didn’t replace the legs that used to carry him around the world. Our society fooled into thinking that the moral thing to do is to always preserve life, forced a crippled man to commit suicide. There should be a cleaner and more humane alternative, where a trained professional can give Chris Hill a dose of lethal substance, upon Chris’s request, in order to die in a dignified way.

Ramon Sampedro was paralyzed in a diving accident when he was 25, spending the next 29 years in a bed. From his bed he campaigned for the legalization of assisted suicide, because he couldn’t end his life by himself due to his condition. Like Ramon Sampedro, I believe that refusing to perform active voluntary euthanasia to a person who hasn’t come to terms with life being subpar and death as an end to the suffering, is denying someone a basic, fundamental right.

It may seem as if I love death and dying because I have so vigorously supported active voluntary euthanasia under the circumstances mentioned above. I’m actually strongly against death, especially in terms of violence. However, euthanasia is not violent, it isn’t immoral, and shouldn’t be looked as a blood paved road to a culture of death, because that is not what will happen. Euthanasia is for the terminally ill who want it as an alternative; it’s for the people suffering and dying that are forced to live. Passive euthanasia requires suffering, just as most religion sponsor’s suffering as a means to enlightenment, however, for the people who are tired of suffering, the people who don’t believe in God, their should be, as the last dignified approach to medical treatment, the option of euthanasia; and we should respect their decision.

By now, you probably understand my take on Euthanasia. Heck, you probably can tell what my political ideologies are! Good thing this country has the freedom of press and speech, or I’d be locked away in the Vatican, burning at the cross, while reciting Genesis from the Holy Bible. Once again I personally, and I know I can speak from my class as well, appreciate your participation with our class. It’s really interesting to see what educated professionals who dedicate their lives to Bio-Ethics have to say about things. Thank you for your time and patience.

Sincerely, Joe Spota

P.S. Happy Holidays!