Brianna's+Letter

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

Dear Mr. Wesley Smith,

Life is fragile and temporary. We all die at some point or another, whether or not we choose to believe it. I’ve known people that appear to have it all, but inside are wretched souls. On the other hand, there are people in what might seem to be extremely unfortunate situations and they have some of the most positive outlooks on life. Life is not a determined fact; it’s an interpretation by an individual and they make of it what they will, individually. It doesn’t matter how happy a person “should be” about something because if they aren’t, that is what matters. It doesn’t matter what someone else thinks because they are not living it and cannot see into the thoughts and feelings of the individual who does have to deal with whatever it may be. Perception of life is about as individualistic as it gets and I do not think anyone else should be able to tell someone that their life is or isn’t worth living. If someone’s unhappiness outweighs their happiness, and they believe their life is no longer worth living, they should be able to be euthanized. Even our constitution gives us the right to life, liberty, and happiness. Taking away the option of euthanasia would be a serious violation of all three of those rights.

The Catholics are the easiest place to begin. The Catholic glorification of suffering and opposition to altering God’s plan seems rather like a cult of sadists. Suppose that God is real, and he created humans to live a full life on Earth; does he want us to be alive if our lives are meaningless to us and fulfill none of his “glory”? According to the Bible, God gave up his only son to die on a cross so that we would be forgiven and not have to suffer. Either God is a sadist who really enjoys watching the suffering of others or he doesn’t care enough about those who suffer to give them a little slack in the suicide department. The Catholic Church says it clearly, “For it 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.” It is interesting that they consider euthanasia an offence against dignity because I do not see much dignity in living a listless, painful, debilitating, miserable, or pathetic life. Lying unable to move, speak, or even breathe independently in a hospital bed is not dignified; lying in bed at home or in a wheelchair, unable to control any muscles, hating the restrictiveness, and waiting for the opportune moment to die is not dignified; drowning in a constant misery and lacking the will to carry on a pathetic, despondent existence any longer is most certainly not dignified. The Catholic church lost credibility points when they mentioned dignity because there is nothing dignified about being forced to survive; only the selfish desires of others is apparent. As far as screwing with God’s plan, how does any human know God’s plan? Who’s to say God’s plan wasn’t for someone to commit suicide? Who’s to say God’s plan wasn’t for someone to die years before in a car crash, but due to the work of medical professionals was saved? The hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is that they always adamantly portray the idea that no one knows how God works, yet they present “His” ideas about any situation they disapprove of. If God’s plan is so mysterious, how can anyone pretend to know that God wants someone in a Persistent Vegetative State to survive on machines or starve to death? If euthanasia is a mutation of God’s plan, then so is every life saving measure the Catholic Church condones; vaccinations, surgeries, doctors, and hospitals are all amendments to a natural plan without interference from man. If God’s plan was to make someone really sick with small pox, but they were vaccinated, his plan was ruined; if the person still got small pox, but was saved by physicians who prescribed antibiotics, God’s plan was tinkered with. The Catholics seem to pride themselves on consistency, but it would appear to be lacking in this situation.

There are those who make blanket judgments whether or not they have experienced the subject of their judgment, and there are those who form judgments after having had the experience. There is a man named Chris Hill who falls into the second category. Chris Hill was an active young hang glider for whom being paralyzed was unbearable. In a suicide note that he wrote, he claimed, “My life was just a miserable existence, an awful parody of normalcy.” He, as do so many others, believed that “It’s quality of life, not quantity, that’s important.” It’s not up to anyone else to tell him his quality of life because quality is in the eye of the beholder. Chris Hill did not see much quality in his life after an accident in which he lost control of everything from the chest down. To someone that has stood in the shoes of suicide, the Catholic point of view might seem a bit arrogant. Chris Hill was angry that anyone would assume he wanted his life to be saved and adamant that anyone who tried to prevent his death was doing him a disservice and committing a crime. His feelings and opinions are as valid as anyone’s, and seeing as how it’s his body, he should be able to do what he wants with it. On the other hand, Alison Davis, another fellow handicap, believes that allowing euthanasia will result in a dismissal of the lives of the handicapped who wish to live. She argues, “Who could say I have ‘no worthwhile quality of life’?” She is absolutely correct; no one can tell her what her quality of life is, just like she can’t impose her view of life quality on anyone else. If she has a life that she loves and enjoys, more power to her, and she should most definitely be provided whatever means necessary to carry on her life as she wishes. However, not everyone has the same opinions as her; some handicapped people abhor their lifestyle and want it to end. She believes the quality of life for someone who is handicapped is no less than anyone else, and she is right in some cases, but not everyone believes the same. When someone wishes to end their life because they cannot stand the burden of handicap, their wishes should be respected. It’s not that they are being treated with any less respect than any other person, but rather that their wishes are as important as anyone else’s and should be carried out if it’s what is best for them. The selfishness of loved ones can often deter euthanasia, but as in the case of Dan James, the family needs to push past their own desires and do what is best for the person they love. Dan James wanted to die with dignity after his rugby accident in which he became a quadriplegic. He should be allowed that right and was assisted by his parents to the Dignitas hospital in Switzerland. As much courage as it took for his parents to help their son commit suicide, it shows their intense love and desire to do what was best for him. The various angles surrounding the topic of euthanasia just go to show how individualistic and situational everything is in life.

For example, a doctor from the Netherlands fully believes in the autonomy of his patients. He works at a clinic that assists those with terminal illnesses and chronic disabilities to die. In his words for defending his actions he said, “I practice it unashamedly because I regard it as sometimes morally right, as not only compatible with the properly understood duties and responsibilities of a doctor, but as an act sometimes required by them.” He thinks refusing to enact voluntary euthanasia can be the equivalent of failing a patient. Knowing the repercussions of passive euthanasia and the slow, painful death of a patient draws him to conclude that “passive euthanasia is morally worse than active euthanasia.” He perfectly understands how individual perception is and takes the words right out of my mouth when he says it is “quite improper for doctors or other health professionals to impose their values and their understanding of pain or suffering on the patient.” Anyone that makes the assumption that they know how someone else feels is ignorant. The doctors that are courageous enough to help people who are truly in need far outweigh the doctors too intimidated to fully carry out the job they were trained to do: follow the wishes of their patients an ensure their well being. Assuming that anyone and everyone can make something “beautiful and inspirational” of their life after it is virtually destroyed is unreasonable and complete poppycock. When a person knows what it’s like to run and dance and move, you can’t expect them to be content with sitting in a wheelchair for the rest of their life. If they find a way to happiness, good for them, but don’t attempt to shove happiness down their throat like some people force rape onto their victims. I doubt you or anyone else for that matter, would like to be stripped of your liberties and raped of your right to die when you want. You may find it distasteful that not everyone agrees with you, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles and you can’t control what anyone else does anyways. The same way that you want to have your liberties, you must respect that everyone else has their individual choices too. Best wishes.

Brianna Motley