Taylor's+Letter

media type="file" key="taylork-wesleysmith-euthanasia.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Wesley J. Smith,

I would like to say thank you for taking time out of what I’m sure is a very busy schedule of yours to discuss and read our letters to you. That being said, I would like to disclose to you my pure, unadulterated opinion on the topic of euthanasia, and I stress that I am not in any way trying to offend you, I am merely being honest in my beliefs.

In my personal opinion, euthanasia, both active and passive, should be legalized because I firmly believe that the right to life belongs to the individual and that no other outside forces, either human or governmental should influence one’s right to their own body. Though I am confident that I’m not alone in taking this stance, I am aware that there are those, like yourself, that believe euthanasia to be murder.

One of the biggest opponents of active euthanasia is obviously the stalwart Catholic church. According to their declaration on euthanasia issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, written by Cardinal Franjo Seper, the official Catholic position is that of complete opposition to active euthanasia in any and all cases, while supporting passive euthanasia only in extreme cases in which the patient is terminal. Within the article, Franjo articulates the offences that active euthanasia presents to the value of human life under the Catholic faith, and by extension their Christian God. The three main reasons that he gives for the Catholic opposition of active euthanasia are that the taking of an innocent life by anyone other than God is an act of blasphemy and is therefore “committing a crime of the utmost gravity”, that every human has a duty to live life according to God’s plan and so should die on His terms, not our own, and that taking one’s own life is as disrespectful as murder in the eyes of God, for he is the only just reaper of souls. Franjo asserts that suffering is the will of God if He should burden you with it, and that enduring anguish “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,” and is not an excuse for taking one’s own life, or asking others to do it for you.

Though I have respect for the Catholic opinion, allowing any type of religion to influence a government’s decision on policy is not only impractical, but unethical. Denying an atheist like me, or even someone of another religious background, their right to their own body under penalty of the law is oppressive, whereas legalizing euthanasia would deny no one anything, but rather acknowledge that a person reserves the right to live their life as they wish, and end it as they so choose. The stance of the Catholic church on this subject is of course as valid as any opinion is, but religious dogma should not be instituted into the United States government under any circumstances.

On a more personal note, Alison Davis, a woman that has been handicapped since birth, objects to the idea that active euthanasia, suicide, or assisted suicide should be in any way legal or considered to be ‘okay’. Davis was born with a severe physical handicap that has caused her to experience intense chronic pain and undergo more than twenty surgeries during her twenty eight years of life. She writes that when she was born, the doctors declared that her parents should euthanize her because even if she survived infancy, she would have “no worthwhile quality of life”. Davis is adamant that though she believe the doctors “were acting in good faith”, their advice was incorrect and that they have no idea how to determine what an individual would consider a life of measurable quality. In this sense I believe that she is absolutely right. One person cannot decide what life is worth living and which isn’t, only the individual can decide upon their happiness. However, her assertion that handicapped or terminally ill people only choose to end their lives because of depression contradicts her belief that only the person in question can determine their own quality of life. Though I’m sure she means well, she is arguing in circles and is acting exactly like the doctors who said that she couldn’t possibly be happy if she survived. In a way, she is belittling the feelings and beliefs that a person who wishes to end their life is experiencing by simply denying that their desire to die is anything more than ‘temporary’ and that they can’t really mean the words that come out of their mouths. She then claims that legalization of euthanasia could lead to the practice of killing all handicapped people by sanction of the government as was the case in Hitler’s Germany, which is a cynical, egregious, and completely incomparable claim. Hitler’s Third Reich was a representation of the ‘far right’ approach to euthanasia where it was mandated, not an option. This assertion that the legalization of euthanasia could lead to the government forcibly euthanizing an individual, would be like saying that if the government legalized marijuana, citizens would be required to smoke an ounce of the substance per day. If other countries that have made euthanasia and assisted suicide legal can still be functioning efficiently today without having launched a nationwide genocide, I believe that the United States could be the same.

In direct refutation of Davis’ claim, is the example of the legalization of euthanasia in the Netherlands. Dr. Pieter Admiraal documents his experiences as a doctor that “openly and unashamedly” practices active euthanasia in his essay “Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way”. He recounts his days working with two of his most memorable patients, Carla and Esther, whom he actively euthanized at their request. He tells of the complex and thorough process that the Dutch go through in order to be eligible for euthanasia, including a meeting with a religious figure or humanist advisor, two doctor’s opinions on the matter of the patient’s physical and mental state, and a psychiatrist/psychologist who will determine the psychological capacity to make such a serious decision. He believes that it is his duty to help his patients, and that euthanasia is something “not only compatible with the properly understood duties of a doctor, but an act that is sometimes required of them” in order to best respect the patient’s personal autonomy. Admiraal even goes so far as to say that passive euthanasia, which is usually considered to be more culturally, religiously, and socially acceptable, is morally wrong because “the patient may die slowly and painfully, and in what she regards as an undignified manner”.

Personal autonomy is the ultimate factor in a person’s life, especially so when they are approaching death. I completely agree with Admiraal’s statement that by denying a consenting person active euthanasia, “in short, we fail to respect the person as a self-determining person”. Again, as I said before, I believe that Davis’ statements were “in good faith”, but her assertions were extremely hypocritical and demeaning to handicapped and ill persons by announcing them to be unable to formulate their own ideas without them being planted in their minds like weeds by society and that they are not in a state to make their own decisions. The doctor’s purpose is to better the life of a person, but also to respect the autonomy of their patient. Insinuating that the handicapped must have decisions made for them by their own advocates or peers is to treat them like children and to create a double standard in which they aren’t supposed to be patronized for their disability, but when it comes to making end-of-life decisions, they are to be treated as ward under the care of those that are that are sufficiently happy with their lives or are likened to the mentally unstable. Perhaps the most powerful argument that I’ve heard though, was that of Chris Hill, a man who had been made a quadriplegic after an unfortunate sports-related accident. In his suicide note, he disclosed that years afterwards, “four attempts taught me that it takes an enormous amount of courage to commit suicide.” Hill no longer felt that his life was worth living because he had lost his ability to enjoy it. Hill had had multiple ineffective surgeries that attempted to allow him more mobility, he had used a wheel chair and he had even been in a relationship, but because fate had robbed him of his ability to control his body, something that he considered to be his main method of experiencing the world, he decided that the he had lived a good life and said that by continuing to live he felt as if “all of my pleasures had been stripped from me and replaced with a hellish nightmare”. Hill also held those who opposed euthanasia to be crueler to fellow human beings that are in extreme states of suffering, than to an animal in pain which people often quickly put out of their misery.

Hill is an individual that chose suicide, and was compelled by the governmet to commit suicide himself rather than ending his life in a safe and painless way by the hand of a licensed physician. Because the United States does not approve of active euthanasia, and Hill’s ‘case’ wasn’t ‘severe enough’ to qualify for passive euthanasia he was not allowed the dignity of a gentler and quicker death. It is a shame that someone who so clearly wanted to end his life on his own terms was denied even this basic right when he determined his purpose in life to be complete. Each person has the right to control their own suffering with medication prescribed by a doctor, and yet some are not able to consent to ending their chronic suffering in the way that they please, but are sedated for fear that they might take their life into their own hands, rather than allow the government continue to condescend on them.

Your reaction to “Million Dollar Baby”, put in the nicest way I could possibly phrase it, is just another example of paternal condescension aimed at the disabled no matter how kindly your intention in championing the rights of the handicapped. The first thing that I disagreed with that you argued, was that the movie promoted euthanasia. This is incorrect because there were several differing and equally influential view points on the matter, such as that of the Catholic priest, and the characters of Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and Hilary Swank, and so it was rather difficult to tell what exactly the movie’s stance was on the situation. Both Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman knew that Hilary was content with what she had accomplished in the years before her accident; that those years were the pinnacle of her lifetime. However, Clint’s character was wholly ambivalent about what he should do, acknowledging that she had personal autonomy and that ending her life was what she wanted, but he also believed that she had potential to live life beyond her disability. In the end Clint Eastwood indulges Hilary and gives her a lethal injection of potassium chloride and disappears from his old life, leaving everything behind as a lost man. There was no clear message in the movie about whether what he did was right or wrong. The only thing that the movie showed in a positive light was Swank’s reaction to the relief of her suffering and her reaction of happiness, as anyone would be when a weight is lifted. In this case it was the agony of living a life that she did not want to live, and knowing that she would have to do so for years and years to come. The second assertion you made is that the movie sent the message that “death is better than disabled”. No, what the movie did was bring to light the story of someone who is not unlike many quadriplegics in America. It showed the conflict in a disabled person over whether or not to continue with their life, or whether to end it. It did not say one was better than the other, but rather told the story of an individual’s choice. It did not say that a disabled person is better off dead.

The third thing that I disagreed with as a principle is that you insinuated that you know better than a disabled person what would make them happier. There is no difference between a doctor saying that a handicapped baby will be happier dead, than you saying that a disabled person is happier alive. Yes, “Million Dollar Baby” could have ended with Hilary’s character painting with a toothbrush in her mouth like Joni Erickson Tada, but the reality is that painting, or becoming a motivational speaker, or anything else that could be thought of, doesn’t necessarily bring more joy to a person than them knowing that tomorrow their suffering will end if they can only find a doctor that will prescribe them massive doses of morphine or will even do the injection for them.

I have made it perfectly clear to my parents that if something should ever happen to me where I fall into a coma and become unresponsive to stimuli, with little chance that I would ever regain consciousness, that I would want them to ‘pull the plug’. The only thing that holds me back that fraction of second, is the fact that if they are to end my suffering in a vegetative state, that it must be by passive euthanasia. My parents, who have raised me and loved me throughout my entire life, will have to ask my doctor to starve me for days on end until I finally die, forced to watch me waste away so that my wishes may be honored. They, along with myself, will not get relief until my body slowly cannibalizes itself, rather than my body having been put to rest with an extra dose of morphine or some other painless lethal cocktail and passing in minutes.

And so I suppose my biggest reason for wanting to legalize euthanasia is selfish. I don’t want myself, my friends, or my family to have to suffer in their last moments of life, their cancer having bubbled up all over their innards, their pneumonia to drown them in their own lungs, or a quadriplegic spouse being drug to life coaching seminars, or being forced to learn to paint with their teeth. I want to die, and hopefully live, too, in an America where children do not have to watch one of their parents shrivel, chemo after chemo, until they don’t look like the mom who read them bedtime stories anymore.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 17px;">In a misguided attempt to ‘save’ those who are intent on self-euthanasia is to drag out the lives that they wish to end peacefully, rather than by the violent hand of disease or by the following incapacitation. Euthanasia is a choice, and to imply that that choice can’t be made by someone who is disabled is to discredit their intelligence and ability to function as a competent adult. Personal autonomy above all, is the unquestionable authority in euthanasia. As the quadriplegic euthanasia advocate Ramon San Pedro said "Life is a privilege, not an obligation," and each person deserves the right to void their lease on life.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 17px;">Again, no matter how differing our views might be on the subject, I would like to thank you for the time that you’ve dedicated to helping us to further our education. I wish you well in all aspects of your life.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 17px;">Sincerely, <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 17px;">Taylor Kennepohl