Aron's+Letter

media type="file" key="Aron Egelko Euthanasia Letter.wma" width="171" height="88"

Dear Mr. Smith,

Before I begin I’d like to take the time to thank you for taking the time out of your presumably busy schedule to correspond with a group of high school students, none of whom have any really academic authority on bioethical issues, euthanasia included. At the ripe age of 16 I understand that I’m probably wrong in all of my assumptions, ethical and otherwise, however, while I understand, and in some ways even admire the position you and many others have on the subject of euthanasia, I have to disagree with your blanket view that euthanasia is in all cases bad and that “assisting in suicide is abandonment”. There may certainly be cases in which a person was euthanized prematurely and who, given enough time and intensive therapy, could have become perfectly happy. However to outlaw euthanasia, an action that in the end only affects the individual in question, is a much greater affront to personal liberty and autonomy than euthanasia is to the sanctity of life.

For all that could be said about the Catholic Church, they are anything but inconsistent. They rarely change their stance on issues, and when changes do occur they are often the result of long periods of buildup. While there are exceptions, such as the sudden abolition of limbo and the new stance on condom usage, for the most part Catholics have clear cut views on issues which can then be reinterpreted depending on the specific context. This is evident with their view on the sanctity of life. They use this belief to condemn abortion, for it is taking another individuals life (or what they define as a life, though that is a whole different issue). Suicide is equally immoral for it is taking one’s life, and a cavalier disregard for God’s greatest gift is always wrong. It is in the hands of God, they believe to decide when life ends.

With euthanasia being a relatively recent issue, the church had to rely on older precedent, however fortunately for them it was relatively easy to cross apply their stance on suicide. Nonetheless it was deemed necessary for the official position to be clarified, which resulted in the “Declaration on Euthanasia” from the Sacred Congregation of the Faith. They explain that “believers see in life something greater, namely a gift of God’s love, which they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful.” Due to this belief, they subsequently believe that euthanasia is “a question of the violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.”

However a few paragraphs later the position becomes increasingly nuanced by the church essentially stating that passive euthanasia is acceptable. To refuse life-saving treatment is “not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary it should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition.” This nuance is furthered by the previous statement that the sacrifice of one’s life is not at all in the same category.

These artificial distinctions may make it easier for the church to justify its complicated and seemingly contradictory view on the issue; however they hold little merit from a practical stand point. Passively choosing to withhold a respirator has the exact same end result as facilitating death via a syringe full or morphine, the only functional difference the amount of suffering the former has compared to the latter. I acknowledge that there is also a stark legal difference; however history is replete with examples of legality and morality not being in agreement. In my religious naivety I assume the component of active euthanasia that Catholics take issue to, in comparison to passive euthanasia, is the fact that whomever performs the euthanization is “playing god.” However this is another instant in which a bizarre double standard is imposed. If the church were actually opposed to medical professionals going against god’s will, they’d be against any sort of medical treatment. If god’s will is for one to have cancer, who is the oncologist to against god’s will by prescribing chemotherapy? In addition if life should always be preserved, why is self-sacrifice and martyrdom praised? The Catholics seem to not have any actual problem with the loss of life, only with the process and as Helga Kuhse puts it “Is letting die morally better than helping to die or active euthanasia? I think not. Very often it is much worse.”

The other key component of the Christian argument I take issue with is the glorification of suffering. Suicide is unacceptable because it is cowardly to escape life’s suffering, which God has given as (presumably as a challenge or a test of faith).Though as a Buddhist I believe that existence is replete with suffering, I also believe that the point of being is to escape suffering (and I don’t mean hedonism) and as such that there is no inherent value in suffering. The idea that an all-loving god would want us to suffer to prove our faith seems sadistic, not benevolent. Did God not put Adam to sleep before removing his rib? God wouldn’t want us to suffer any more than our parents would.

A different, and personally more convincing take on the topic, is presented by Allison Davis in her article “Right to Life of Handicapped”. Davis who was born with myelomeningocele spina bifida is only alive today because her parents refused to listen to the medical experts who recommended that she be abandoned due to her condition. Now at 28 she is living a fulfilling life, complete with marriage and extensive travel. Her story of persistence and optimism is inspiring and one that should be told more often. However she continues her article by expressing her anger at “the constant undermining of the rights of handicapped people at progressively later stages in their lives.” She fears that legalization of the euthanization of handicapped individuals “could well lead to the //de facto// decriminalization of the killing of a handicapped person, just as it did in Hitler’s Germany”

It’s here that I must object. Euthanasia is in no way comparable to Nazi Germany, and to say such is not only indicates of a lack of complete analysis but is offensive. Euthanasia is an act of mercy requested by a suffering individual, while genocide is the imposition of evil and sadistic values on a minority in a way that results in their suffering and death. So long as consent exists there will never be even a shadow of a link between the two. To backpedal a little though, it is my love of consent that makes me agree with Davis’ basic premise, which is objecting to a new law allowing doctors to withhold medical treatment from newborn handicapped babies. I’m fine with euthanasia because it allows for individual autonomy; however a 28 day old disabled baby is unable to voice their thoughts on the matter of their life, making it wrong to take their life. The economic infeasibility of caring for a disabled child is a reason to reform our healthcare system, not end their life.

Returning to the topic at hand, euthanasia of disabled individuals in no way implies that their life has less value. In fact by making euthanasia illegal we do just that by taking away their ability to determine their own fate. Euthanasia indicates that we are respecting their individual liberty and not making them second class citizens who lose the right to control their own destinies.

Chris Hill’s chilling letter “The Note” reflects this belief. Hill, who led an extremely fulfilling life (complete with family, friends, travel, adventure and orgies) prior to a debilitating hang-gliding accident, chose to end his own life in a grotesque fashion due to the fact that he was unable to do it legally and humanely. He believed that, “it’s quality of life, not quantity, that’s important.” He brought up the important point that people, driven by compassion, euthanize animals when they are experiencing far less pain than he was and his frustration is epitomized with his feelings that “the legislature’s and the medical profession’s attitude of life at any cost was an inhumane presumption that amounted to arrogance.” For doctors or anyone else for that matter, to tell someone that their life is worth living, is extremely pretentious.

The importance of humanity and dignity is exemplified by Pieter Admiraal in his article “Listening and Helping the Dutch Way” Dr. Admiraal believes that “to fail to practice voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient” Imposing undue suffering because of one’s moral qualms on the subject violates to whole idea of “First do no harm.” In addition he brings up two extremely relevant facts, the first of which is that in 5% of cases “pain cannot be controlled even with the most advanced techniques.” However this doesn’t invalidate euthanasia in the 95% of cases since the second fact he brings up is that “in only 5% of all cases was pain the sole reason for the request.” People chose euthanasia because of “loss of strength and fatigue, loss of human dignity and complete dependence.”

You as well in your blog post bring up some interesting points, key among them is the fact that 5 years post-accident those who are disabled have the same depression rate as the general population. Because of this I believe that both the case of Dan James and the fictional case of Maggie Fitzgerald were wrong because of how quickly they happened. They should have at least been given the chance to adjust to their new circumstances. However it is a sad reality that not everyone will be able to move on from their tragedy. Ramón Sampedro wasn’t obtaining moral enlightenment through his suffering and 29 years after his accident, when it was quite clear that love and compassion were never going to cure his depression, to force him to continue enduring was cruel, not kind

In the end it comes down to individual vs collective autonomy. The people who are so aggressively against Euthanasia in cases such as this are against it because it goes against their beliefs in terms of how the world works. However my response to these people is the same as my response to people who are against gay marriage: If you are so against it then don’t get one. People who believe that euthanasia is the epitome of cowardice and evil can simply not get euthanized and then stop trying to impose their moral judgments on everyone else. I think that a lot of the things that organized religions do are morally wrong, but I’m not trying to legislate against it so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. Euthanasia is a personal choice which affects the individual in question, and that is it, making it absurd that other people can decide whether or not they can take the action. (As an interesting editorial aside, I find it to be a bizarre irony that so many of the people in favor of anti-euthanasia legislation are the same people who are against the expansion of government and the loss of liberty)

Euthanasia, like abortion, isn’t something that people strongly advocate for. No one would tell a happy quadriplegic that they should kill themselves. In addition euthanasia isn’t something one should be able to obtain shortly after getting injured/sick. However, we can neither know the future nor know what others feel, and as such to limit other people’s actions, when they affect no one but themselves, in the name of our own beliefs, borders on totalitarianism far more than euthanasia ever will. There are certainly those that will emotionally recover and lead fulfilling and inspirational lives, however as the Catholic Church says “it would be imprudent to impose a heroic way of acting as a general rule.” Artificial and illogical distinctions as well as hyperbolic slippery slopes may make it easy to justify opposing active euthanasia. However if we actually wanted to uphold humanity, liberty and dignity, it is imperative that it be allowed.

Sincerely, <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13pt;">Aron Egelko