Matt's+Letter

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

Dear Mr. Wesley Smith,

For starters, I thank you, Mr. Wesley Smith for giving our class the opportunity to agree, disagree, and respond to your opinion concerning euthanasia. It is an honor to have a professional such as you read our essays. With that said, I would like to apologize.

I am sorry Sir, but I respectively disagree about the morally of euthanasia. By the end of this unit I concluded that euthanasia is not morally wrong, sinful, or cowardly, but a question of personal autonomy. It is a tragic but necessary response when the pain of life becomes too much to bear. I believe most importantly, that option is vital to ensure that dignity and humanity are respected to very end. I do not believe in a Judo-Christian God that glorifies suffering and forces humanity to endure before a presumed ultimate reward. Thus, I do not see the point in enduring pointless pain for “God’s” will.

But Life is “a gift of God’s love, which [man is] called upon to preserve and make fruitful” in the opinion of the Catholic Church. In Cardinal Franjo Seper’s “Declaration on Euthanasia” he fully explains the Catholic position on topics from euthanasia to pain killers. Cardinal Speper asserts that to end life, one is ending God’s plan, violating His will and committing a “crime of the upmost gravity. It seems pretty clear when euthanasia is looked upon in a religious context. The Bible says all life must be protected, so it protected across the board. The preciousness of life is observed from the conception to death and nothing shall interrupt that. In the eyes of the Catholics euthanasia is creating a culture of death that ignores the crime of taking a persons life for any reason—with consent or not. This violates divine law and is “an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attach on humanity.”

But I cannot understand why this God, or any god has a say in the matter of my decisions. I respect your religious decisions and your faith but I cannot apply it to my morals. I am not a Catholic so it is difficult for me to understand why your opinion takes president above mine. Nor does it apply to easily to everyone else’s morals. It is simple to be content with living a life of incredible pain or depression or disability—the catalyst of many euthanasia cases—and never once want to take your own life. But to then forbid, and force someone else in a similar situation to suffer under the conditions that you could perhaps deal with seems incredibly immoral. How is mercifully ending suffering an attack on humanity? It would seem to me that putting a stop to useless suffering is at the very nature of humanity. I can see why the Catholics position works for Catholics, but beyond that humanity has a right to make that choice on their own terms. It is morally wrong to force one’s opinion onto others, regardless of the topic. An individual, unable to cope with a serious terminal illness or debilitating handicap, who hoping for a dignified, pain free death should not be compared another person who was able to endure similar circumstances. Nor should a moral code they may not agree with be subjugated upon them. Why the Catholic Church is so reluctant about a culture of death but more willing to glorify suffering in the face of God and deem a dignified peaceful death immoral is beyond me. It is not about God’s plan but our plan, and euthanasia respects that autonomy.

For example, Chris Hill’s famous suicide note details a fruitful, rewarding active life shattered by a hang gliding accident that left him paralyzed from the chest down. In comparison to his joyous life before his accident—traveling the world, enjoying extreme sports and a generous love life—he now lives a life where “tomorrows were nothing but grey void of bleak despair.” Hill’s once active life was soon filled with frequent trips to the hospital for bed ulcers, urinary tract infections and hemorrhoids. A man of complete independence, Hill lost his autonomy in everything including relieving his bladder and bowels. By insuring life at any cost Hill was forced to suffer one of little meaning, which brought little happiness, and became a “hellish living nightmare”. Chris Hill would never recover, he would never replace the joy he found in life before his accident and in Hill’s case, life at any cost, proved to be most inhumane. Had Chris Hill the option of a dignified death he would have taken it. How is mercifully lifting the enormous burdened of day-to-day life—the depressing, painful, onerous struggle Hill deals with—anything but morally righteous? When life becomes unlivable why must the ones who suffer fight and struggle their way out when the healthy sit by to judge? That is immoral, wrong, and cruel to expect a person to see the value in life when we have no clue the inner and outer turmoil they deal with. In Hill’s words, “the legislatures the medical profession’s attitude of life at any cost was an inhuman presumption that amounted to arrogance.” Condemning euthanasia, and keeping it out of reach because of society’s unwillingness to be associated with death furthers the suffering of countless people and strips them of their personal autonomy.

In a general hospital in Delft of The Netherlands, Doctor Pieter Admiraal is a member of a team who practices active voluntary euthanasia openly and unashamedly. It is the belief of the hospital and The Netherlands that euthanasia is not an immoral attack on humanity but morally right. Dr. Admiraal the Senior Anesthetist at Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis feels it is his duty as a doctor to ensure that all measures be offered to a terminal or disabled person if their wish is to end their life. In Admiraal’s eyes failing to perform “voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient. Having voluntary euthanasia is not an easy process however at Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis. It is a serious matter and serious precautions, guidelines, and checkpoints must be met before the Dr. Admiraal can proceed. The patient does not only make the decision, two doctors, a nurse, and one of the hospital’s spiritual caregivers before must review it first. And this is ideal, because is much better and safer to offer resources for voluntary euthanasia—as they do in The Netherlands—than denying a person this autonomy. By providing active euthanasia, Dr. Admiraa is providing “but one more way of delivering human medical care.” Is it not better to give this vital service than to refuse to help person attempt suicide—leading them to try on their own, which often leads to a botched or painful outcome? Since The Netherlands have legalized euthanasia they have not created a culture of death, they have simply ensured a dignified choice for their citizens if the circumstances ever come to that. There are no outer societal ramifications, no slipper slope that euthanasia is the first step of because “a clear moral and legal boundary can be drown around the notion of consent”. Voluntary euthanasia only affects the people who are asking for it. It is selfish to strip the rights away of an already vulnerable population because we have our own opinions about dying and think they must endure suffering to the very end. If you do not agree with euthanasia and think it is morally wrong, then do not choose that option. But refusing that option to everyone else is a tragic infringement of rights. Some people do not have the faith or the will to endure such unfortunate lifestyles. There is a time when it is necessary for the state to respect a personals autonomy when they say “enough is enough, I want to die with my dignity intact. Please help me.” The Netherlands has done the right thing legalizing euthanasia. Creating a system of guidelines to ensure it is done in a way that respects the patient as well and keep the gravity of the matter at the heart of the issue.

However Alison Davis would disagree with Dr. Admiraal’s efforts in providing voluntary euthanasia for the citizens who desire it. Alison Davis, author of article “The Right to Life of Handicapped” was born with myelomeningocele spinal bifida. Not expected to survive infancy, the doctors told her parents to “go home and try for another”. But Davis is now 28 and leads a meaningful life despite her disability, she is married, has a sociology degree and works full time advocating rights for handicapped people. Davis is a strong opponent of euthanasia and believes voluntary active euthanasia violates and devalues the rights of handicapped people. For Davis euthanasia creates a notion of “non-personhood” and “paints a target on handicapped people everywhere.” Davis argued that legislation for euthanasia would lead to a //de facto// discrimination of handicapped people on the same level of Hitler’s Germany. Although I applaud Davis for her courageous life and powerful spirit I think the leaps and bounds made in her article are far-fetched if not impossible. Euthanasia does not discriminate handicapped people. I think euthanasia is an important human right because it gives people the choice to end the long term suffering they maybe experiencing. It does not in anyway shape or form put a target on certain peoples heads. I am saddened that Davis or anyone would believe there could be a connection between peacefully ending someone’s suffering and the Holocaust. It is a blatant disrespect of factual information and an awful attempt to twist euthanasia into something horrifically worse. Alison Davis fails to see what euthanasia really means and how it could benefit people. The fact of the matter remains that people want euthanasia and Davis is ignoring that. Euthanasia only affects the individual. There are a multitude of people who are suffering in pain and desire the right to die with dignity. Whether or not you believe in the morality of euthanasia you cannot deny other people that right because of your reservations. We live in a plural society and one opinion should not limit the other.

Personally, I would not ask for euthanasia. I feel my life is too precious and I have too strong of a will to live. But, I cannot speak for everyone, I am an individual and do not have the authority to hold my choice against someone else’s. Euthanasia is about personal autonomy and despite my opinions about death I still respect others’ choices. It would be wrong of me to deny peoples rights because I do not share their values. It is our duty as fellow human beings to respect a persons choice to end their life. If we are speaking about morality I do believe this autonomy is more important.

Respectfully, Matt Zinik