Emily's+Letter

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

Mr. Wesley J. Smith,

First and foremost let me tell you about myself. My name is Emily Rath, and I am a senior at FoothillTechnologyHigh School. I am part of a special Bio Science Academy at my school, which is designed for those interested in Science and possibly pursuing a career in medicine. This Bioethics class, which I am writing you from, is part of the Academy curriculum. When I grow up, I plan on becoming a doctor of Psychology, and further follow my fascination with the human mind and behavior (including complicated decision making). I do not follow a religion, because I believe in science, and what is concrete in this world. I believe that the world’s phenomenon’s which cannot be explained, can be explained by the randomness of the universe, not a man in the sky. Given these factors you can probably imagine where my stance on Euthanasia is.

I believe that it should be available as a choice.

This subject is very tricky for me, as it probably is with most people because death is the trickiest subject to date. This trickiness is because of death’s level of permanence, and because no one knows what happens after life ends. Humans, by nature, fear what we can not explain.

That being said, I believe that Euthanasia is one of the greatest examples of human independence. Choosing to die by your own accord rather than having the most important thing any human being has, his or her own life, stolen from them or compromised is in fact a death with dignity. I lean towards the belief that in “Million Dollar Baby” Clint Eastwood’s character performed an act of mercy, and allowed Maggie to die with the dignity she had left, and allowed her to keep her most recent, glorious memories in her heart.

We read a similar story to Maggie’s in a letter written by a man named Chris Hill called “The Note”. Chris was a man who when completely healthy, lived life to the fullest by participating in extreme activities (cliff diving, sky diving etc.), and reached euphoria through an active lifestyle, much like Maggie did in her boxing career. Unfortunately, Chris was in a freak-accident ironically doing one of the activities he loved, hang gliding (much like Maggie who was injured during a boxing match). Chris Hill left a letter for his family, explaining his reasons for ending his own suffering. “Tomorrows were nothing but a grey void of bleak despair. I was paralyzed from the chest down, more than three-quarters dead”. Chris Hill chose to kill himself rather than endure his pitiful, shameful half-life as a quadriplegic. Mr. Hill spoke on his own behalf stating that we need to respect his decision and others who make a similar choice as him. People like Maggie. He stated that he does not condemn those who choose to live rather than die like him, and that the lifestyle was too miserable to endure, even though he tried to initially. The lifestyle that he was used to was one of being active everyday, and a life where he was unable to do that was not worth living. There is nothing wrong with that decision because it is completely understandable, and society should respect that option. Chris Hill left this world with one final request, “I wish you could see death as I did, as a release, something to celebrate, and be happy for me”. Why is it so hard to do that Mr. Smith?

I (and Mr. Hill for that matter) am not saying that those who would chose to live under these conditions are any less than those considered medically “normal”. This point is brought up in the article “Right to Life of a Handicap” by Alison Davis who was born suffering from severe Spina Bifida, and whose parents had the option of ending her life with the knowledge that her birth would lead to her future condition. They chose to keep her alive, despite the knowledge of how challenging her life would be, and she as a well-off adult states, “Who could say I have ‘no worthwhile quality of life’”. But just because someone chooses to end their life in a similar situation does not give hers any less value. I honestly can not comprehend that argument at all. No one is encouraging ANYONE to die; no one is saying the handicap people are not a type of life worth saving or that they are “useless”. Every life has value, even those who chose to end it because they feel it has no value. I believe that those who use the argument that Euthanasia is undermining handicap people are seriously searching for any possible argument against Euthanasia just for the sake of arguing against it. In the movie, Maggie chooses to die rather than live paralyzed, and I believe that she could not handle that type of lifestyle given her situation, and herself as a person. But who’s to say that if the tables were turned and she was just an ordinary waitress, or her family life was solid that she wouldn’t want to die in her health condition anyways? There is that possibility, so it is petty to say that Maggie just chose this because her family abandoned her, or because she was a famous boxer or because being paralyzed had no value. However, some would want to fight on if they were in Maggie’s position, but it was just not ideal for her given multiple factors. Each to their own.

It is easy to say that Maggie (or Mr. Hill) could have become a painter or a motivational speaker and created a new life for herself, but that was not what she wanted. It was not probable for her. And furthermore, since when does becoming paralyzed automatically require you to be a martyr for the cause? Not everyone is cut-out for the limited options one has in that position. Why should we make it mandatory for everyone to endure this lifestyle when some may just be plain unable to? To take away that choice is devaluing the inalienable right that each human being has to decide their fate, and I believe it is more of an abandonment to make someone do so than be supportive of their personal decisions. We read an article in our class called “Listening and helping to die: the Dutch way” which perfectly describes how I stand. “I take it that doctors should; on the one hand, seek to maximize the patient’s welfare, but they should on the other respect the patient’s autonomy”. Also, if we are going to get technical with where the doctor’s responsibility is in this whole Euthanasia mess, we must note that the Hippocratic Oath states that doctors must do no further harm to patients. It seems that keeping one alive despite tremendous amounts of suffering is defying the Hippocratic Oath, which is vital in a doctor’s career in regards to their responsibilities to the patients.

That being said, I am torn about how I feel about Clint Eastwood’s character in the movie, and how he was the one to assist Maggie in her suicide. I stated earlier that I am leaning towards it being an act of mercy, because I believe that allowing her to die was merciful. However I do not know if I agree that he should have been the one to actually kill her, because a decision like that should be discussed and counseled for at least a small period of time before being performed by a medical professional. But it was not a form of abandonment as you believe when you state that “Even though it may not be intended, assisting in suicide is abandonment.” Have you seen the documentary ‘How to Die inOregon’ Mr. Smith? Watch it and you may reconsider your statement. The families who supported the chronically ill who chose the option of dieing were NOT abandoning them. These families admitted more love, and caring at a time when it was needed the most, more than any situation I have ever seen or comprehend. Though I would never root for death, the tactics shown in this documentary for assisted suicide are humane and most ideal for allowing people in these situations to choose to end their suffering. It simply makes sense. I can not fathom why anyone would want to prohibit those who want this for themselves just because a different few don’t.

This is what angered me the most when we read the //Catholic Declaration on Euthanasia// in class. Here it states that no one has the right to take away another’s right to life because life is a gift from God, and that suicide is murder because it disrupts this plan. Not everyone believes in God first of all, and not all who believe in God is Catholic. If one is Catholic (or this can go for anyone for that matter) and they believe that “If it is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being…” than those people should not kill themselves if they are placed in a similar situation as Maggie. It is that simple. But to prevent it for all or to look down on the act, or the people who support it in any shape or form is not fair in any shape or form. Non-religious people do not urge the act of Euthanasia on people who don’t believe in it. So, in turn, religious people should not urge their beliefs on people who don’t follow their religion, or see eye-to-eye with their point of view. It is not the government’s job to protect people’s right under religious people’s beliefs. Also, suffering is another point which is brought up multiple times in the //Declaration//. Catholics, for some incomprehensible reason, love when people suffer because “suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God’s saving plan”. Why at all should suffering be considered courageous or admired? Why would anyone ever encourage someone to suffer? We don’t let dogs suffer, why should we let humans? Doesn’t that seem very backward? It is.

I will wrap up my letter with stating that I clearly disagree with you Mr. Smith, and I do believe that you read way farther into this movie, and have created a controversy that was never in it’s original intentions. But, despite our differences, I hope my seventeen year old point of view has provoked some ideas which you may have not considered. Thank you so much for your time and participation on this subject with our classroom. It is a tremendous honor.

Sincerely, Emily Rath