Lauren's+Letter

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

Dear Mr. Wesley J. Smith ,

Let me begin by saying I completely respect your opinion and have read through and listened to a considerable amount of your work and having grasped the gist of your views, I would now find it incredibly gracious of you to listen to mine. In short sir, and no disrespect intended , I think you’re completely wrong. While I agree that Frankie may have reacted too hastily in fulfilling Maggie’s wishes, I believe every person has the right to their own body. Therefore, each individual has the right to make that decision for him or herself. I would like the best for everyone. And personally, that would mean each individual would have the desire and will to live. However, this is clearly not the case , and we come across people on a daily basis that prefer what some would call ‘the easy way’ , what others would call ‘the courageous way’ , and what I would call ‘the tragic way’ out. It’s inevitable. We can do the best we can to encourage life and reassure that their existence is worth exploring and stretching beyond its comfort zone, but when it comes down to it , I believe that each individual has the right to their own body. The fact that suicide is considered illegal is ludicrous to me. You have the right to your body. You have the right to your soul. No one should legally be allowed to take that from you without reasonable cause (such as a murderer who unwillingly took the life of another into their hands). But I digress. The real purpose of this letter is to show you the other side of your argument. My purpose is to convince you, to open your mind to new ideas , and to hopefully give insight into an average teenagers view on euthanasia and the value of life. I want you to understand why Maggie knows what’s best for her better than you, or I , do.

I think it was incredibly selfish and unfair of Maggie to ask Frankie to complete the task, just as selfish and unfair as it was for the staff to sedate and stitch Maggie after she attempted twice to bleed out by biting her tongue. We can debate whether or not Maggie had it in her to go on to have a career as a motivational speaker or an artist who paints with her teeth, but these are all what-if’s. We won’t know how long it could take for her to recover mentally. There’s always a chance that something good could come out of this type of tragic situation, but what’s the appropriate waiting time before carrying out her wishes? You could argue that even after 29 years quadriplegic Ramon San Pedro still had a chance at ‘making the most’ out of his handicap. However, how long are you willing to let someone suffer so you can make them your project , or wish the best for them. What’s intolerable for you and what’s intolerable for me may be different. If you are able to sustain injuries similar to that of Maggie’s and you manage to become a public speaker, then more power to you. I, on the other hand , don’t have that desire in me. If I was satisfied with my accomplishments in life I would willingly go, accepting the tragedy for what it was and keeping the most recent memories of me in my former state as alive as possible. Every individual knows what’s best for themselves, especially at Maggie’s age , and it’s not anyone’s place to judge that.

I was raised a liberal Catholic, so from the start I’ve had conflicting opinions towards the topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide. From what I’ve read, primarily in the Catholic’s //Declaration on Euthanasia// the church believes that everyone has “a duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God’s plan” , so therefore ending a persons life prematurely conflicts with God’s plan. I could go into great depth on my religious beliefs, but let me simply state that it is not the government’s job to protect non-religious people under religious-affiliated people’s beliefs. That’s not anyone’s place to force their beliefs on another person. It’s similar to the abortion debate. Many Catholic’s and Christian’s are extremely opposed to the concept of abortion, except just because that’s their belief doesn’t mean it’s the governments place to enforce it. And they don’t. They enforce the freedom of a woman to do what she wants with her body, understanding that it’s a serious situation and the mental consequences may be great. If you simply replace the word ‘woman’ with the word ‘person’, then you’d easily be able to relate it to euthanasia. Those who make the decision in a sound state of mind to be euthanized should have that right.

A reoccurring motif in Catholicism is suffering. “Suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life , has a special place in God’s saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ’s Passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which he offered in obedience to the Father’s will” , states the //Declaration on Euthanasia//. This is just another case of religious inflicting their beliefs on other people. Non-religious people don’t urge others to get euthanized, just like religious people shouldn’t urge others to not get euthanized. It’s simply not your place. Dogs are allowed to be euthanized. No one protests animals on the verge of death being euthanized. Why is it that we’re more compassionate to animal suffering than we are to human suffering? This //Declaration// also states that passive euthanasia is acceptable. When the case is terminal, it’s alright to remove the feeding tube , letting the victim slowly starve to death. How is that any more humane than active euthanasia? In my opinion it’s far more twisted and sick to prolong the suffering of an innocent person when death is imminent and the pain is excruciating. While the intention of the Catholic’s is to refuse a ‘culture of death, there is no evidence of this happening. I truly believe that instead of promoting a culture of death it would be promoting a culture of dignity and respect to the sick and ill. It’s about respecting their wishes.

An argument against euthanasia is brought up in the article //Right to Life of Handicapped// by Alison Davis. She predicts that if we start euthanizing people who aren’t terminally ill, and just handicapped , that it will deny “the right of handicapped people to be recognized as equal human beings in a caring society , and it makes a mockery of the goodwill which seems abounded in the International Year of Disabled People. ” The idea that making euthanization legal to those who are handicapped will lead to the idea that those who are handicapped should be euthanized is ridiculous. It’s not anyone’s goal to encourage them to end their life, but to accept that if they are in a certain state where they don’t to live their lives with a condition that they have the autonomic right to do so. Davis compares the act of allowing euthanasia to handicapped people to the act of euthanizing the elderly because they’re not going to be considered “useful”, another hyperbolic statement that plays on the elderly’s lack of ability to function as well as a healthy able-bodied person. As a matter of fact, it’s not the same situation whatsoever. It’s almost more insulting to say to a handicapped person, that you’re not suffering enough to be allowed to take control of your situation. It’s like saying if you were terminal, then you might have a legitimate problem , but you’re just handicapped so now it’s your duty to be a motivational speaker to others with the same problem. It’s not your place to say what a person has the ability to do. Not every person has the ability to become a motivational speaker after a tragic accident. If they do, then more power to them , but let’s be honest , Maggie was never going to become a motivational speaker , nor would she go on to paint with her teeth. She was a boxer. It’s all she had, she said it herself. She was lucky enough to do what most people never have the chance to do, and reach her nirvana and in her opinion it was her time to go , and with a character like Maggie , there was no point in trying to sway her perspective. She knew what she needed better than anyone else, and what she needed was to go before she laid bed-ridden for so long that the sound of cheers from her boxing matches faded.

Who came up with the idea that suffering was “courageous” or “admirable”? I find suffering as a tragic symptom of life that everyone must go through. Despite what the Bible says, I cannot imagine a God or a greater being who encourages suffering , it seems very masochistic to me. Maybe you can write it off as a naïve view from a teenager, but I genuinely don’t see why we force those who we love to suffer. If you want to inflict suffering upon yourself then that is your choice, and many people will admire you for that , but it shouldn’t be looked down upon because you believe the person who chooses to die is not as strong as the person who chooses to live with a disability. Maybe you think it is taking the easy way out and I think that it’s brave of them to enter the ultimate unknown, but when it comes down to it , it’s not about what other people think. It’s not about what you or I think. It’s not even about what God thinks. It’s about what you, as the person with the disorder , want. It’s about self-worth. And we can do all we can to try and change that, but people are stubborn , and it may not be affective. You could say, well what-if they went on to live their lives as an artist painting with their teeth , or what-if they accepted that someone else will be in charge of taking care of their bowel movements for the rest of their lives. But, you can’t live your life based off what-if’s.

Chris Hill lived a life almost anyone would envy. He was born in Australia and grew up jet-setting around the world, ‘riding across the desert sands around the Egyptian pyramids” , “swimming with a wild dolphin in the turquoise waters of the Bahamas” , and more. He experienced more in his lifetime than nearly any other person I know. He had what most would call an ideal life until the lower half of his body became paralyzed due to a hang-gliding accident that resulted in him becoming “a talking head mounted on a bloody wheelchair”. He had to pull feces from his own ass daily, and if he felt that was too gross and he slacked off a day or two , he would end up in the hospital with autonomic dysreflexia , a potentially fatal rise in blood pressure and excruciating headache that occurs if body waste isn’t removed. He said in his suicide letter titled //The Note// that he lost his ‘dignity and self-respect. I would forever be a burden on those around me and I didn’t want that no matter how willingly and unthinkingly family and friends assumed that burden. Every time I had to ask someone to do something for me, every time I was dragged up a damn step , was like thrusting a hot blade into the place where my pride used to be’. There was no changing this mans opinion, just like there was no changing Maggie’s opinion. He was living what he saw as a half-life. Why force someone to suffer through shame, humiliation , loss of dignity , and self-respect , along with the physical pain , just because you don’t want them to die. I find that completely selfish: understandable, but selfish. And who’s to say she would’ve gone on to do greater things? Quadriplegic Ramon San Pedro spent 29 years waiting around for the what-if’s. Were we just supposed to force him to live, hoping that maybe year 30 will be the year he breaks out and shines? Thinking like that is too idealistic and disrespects a person’s autonomic wishes. I’m not suggesting that we grant the ill person their wish to be euthanized immediately after suggesting it, as Frankie did , but to take into account that the person might not just be depressed , and medication can’t always fix the issue.

In an article from the point of view of a Dutch doctor who participates in the practice of euthanasia //Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way// by Pieter Admiraal looks at a close up aspect of the process of euthanasia. He states that “to fail to practice voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient”. Under the Hippocratic Oath doctors are required to do no harm to the patient. While this may seem like it clears up the debate over whether or not we should legalize euthanasia, I believe that allowing a patient to suffer in the last stages of a terminal illness is doing far more harm than allowing them to opt out of that prolonged suffering , if the result will be the same. In order to perform voluntary euthanasia it must be agreed on by “a team consisting of two doctors, a nurse , and one of the hospital’s spiritual caregivers” in Holland. I find it odd that it requires a religious figures approval if the patient themselves do not have religious beliefs. At least for the case of terminal patients, I believe euthanasia should be an option. It’s the most humane way to end a human’s life and respect their wishes, as opposed to taking out their feeding tube and letting them starve to death.

There is no right answer to this question. Regardless of whether or not you think assisted suicide, active , or passive euthanasia is wrong I think we can all agree that this situation is tragic. However, under the law we have the right to our own body. On that argument alone I believe euthanasia should be legalized if for no one else but the terminally ill or handicapped, simply out of respect to a person’s wishes. I believe that we need to be more compassionate and understanding as human beings. I believe that Maggie had already done incredible things with her life. I believe that it was her right to decide whether or not she wanted to be in the world. And while I understand and respect your point Mr. Smith, I think it’s a conservative , selfish cop out.

Sincerely , Lauren S.