Evan's+Letter

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

Dear Mr. Wesley J. Smith,

 I would first like to thank you for taking the time to respond to our class. I have read your point of view on the subject of euthanasia and I respect your deep religious influences. However, I must disagree with your claims that consented, active euthanasia is wrong. While I do agree that life is ultimately precious, I must believe in autonomy above all else. I would like to call upon the articles and cases of Alison Davis, the official Catholic position on euthanasia, Pieter Admiraal, and Chris Hill to articulate my position of a patient’s right to choose their time and method of death.

 Alison Davis has espoused in her essay, “Right to Life of Handicapped,” printed in the Journal of Medical Ethics Vol. 9, that making it acceptable for the handicapped to end their life is unequivocally wrong. Davis was born with myelomeningocele spina bifida and has undergone over twenty operations in her lifetime. Even at her birth the doctor advised her parents to, “leave [her] in the hospital and ‘go home and have another.’” Despite her disability, Davis attended a university, gained an honors degree in sociology, and has gotten married to an “able-bodied” man. Davis believes her life has great value and that the medical profession could be doing a lot more to combat the undermining of handicapped people. If we were to allow the handicapped to end their life or to end the life of a baby who is going to be disabled, it would deny handicapped people to be recognized as equal human beings in society. Essentially it would be propagating the message that euthanasia is not only okay, but would be suggested and encouraged by the medical field. Davis even stated that allowing this would be similar to Hitler’s Germany. I cannot accept Davis’ assertion that allowing euthanasia to be performed legally on the disabled would undermine all handicapped people and put a target on their heads. The legalization of euthanasia would not take away the value of life from disabled people nor would it take away from the fact that all normal people and handicapped are equal. I admire Davis highly for her courage and strength to want to live, but I cannot agree with her desire to keep euthanasia illegal. Davis has done well in her life, but just because she had a strong will to live and the power to carry on doesn’t mean the next person wants to or will. It is not fair for her to say that because she wants to live, all other disabled people must want to as well. Euthanasia will not force anyone to end their lives. Instead, it will give an option to those who cannot handle the stress that comes along with being handicapped. It will give them the option of peace and relief. Davis’ assertion that active euthanasia is like Hitler’s Germany is completely ignorant and borders on the offensive. Active euthanasia is a choice and I think we can all agree no one chose or agreed to be a part of the Holocaust. No one would desire that someone choose to end their life, but when the strain is too great for someone shouldn’t there be a humane option for their desires? I ultimately believe in autonomy and the right to one’s body because I don’t think it is my place to decide for others what their life is worth or how they would like to live it or end it. Euthanasia does not serve to undermine the lives of the handicapped; it simply serves to bring relief to those seeking it.

 In 1980, the Vatican released the Catholic position on euthanasia entitled, “Declaration on Euthanasia,” which stated that human beings have a right to life, a gift from God, and that life must be protected at all cost. “Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God’s plan,” and so life is entrusted to each individual to protect. The Catholic position states that to ask for death for oneself or another or to consent to the act 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.” According to the position, suffering, especially during the last moments of life, is prized by God as it shares in the suffering and sacrifice experienced by Christ. The Catholic position, however, does approve of the use of painkillers to alleviate suffering and pain even if the painkillers cause partial lucidity or aid in speeding up the process of the person’s death. It also approves of the act of passive euthanasia. According to the position, when death is imminent in spite of all other medical options, it is permitted for the patient to decide to, “refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life.” While I do believe in the right to life and generally agree with their position on painkillers, I must refuse their belief that only passive euthanasia is acceptable. I coincide with the Catholic ideal that life is precious and that it is a gift from God, but with my belief in God I must also take into consideration the right of free will. This world is greatly varied in religions and I do not find it in my place to decide who is wrong and who is right and so cannot deny others something I would not do myself. I am not ignorant enough to think that because I believe or a good number of people believe life should be kept at all costs that everyone must accept this as well. There are great deals of people who see no problem with euthanasia and I must acknowledge that it is more important for their right to autonomy to be kept than for the feelings of others to be held. Because others believe differently or do not believe in God, laws may not be made in accordance to religious ideals that deny the rights of others and alter something that does no harm. I also must point out a problem within the Catholic position regarding passive euthanasia. According to the position, passive euthanasia—removing a feeding tube, removing an oxygen mask, denying further treatment, etc.—is acceptable as long as adequate care is provided to the sick person, but isn’t this essentially just prolonged euthanasia? In either case, passive or active, the doctor is killing their patient whether they intended to or not. How is removing a feeding tube and letting them starve any more humane or acceptable over inducing sleep and stopping their heart peacefully? Set aside the closure that can finally come to the family, the patient will pass on with dignity with having their desires fulfilled. The acceptance of active euthanasia will not bring a culture of death to our society more than constant news coverage of war, violence, murders, and pedophiles already have. What it will do, however, is bring a peace of mind to many families and individuals.

 To find an example of working active euthanasia we can look to Pieter Admiraal, Senior Anesthetist at the Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, a hospital in the Dutch city of Delft, who is a Terminal Care Team member and author of the essay, “Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way.” In his essay, Admiraal proclaims that, “To fail to practice voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient.” Admiraal practices active euthanasia openly and unashamedly, claiming that sometimes euthanasia is the morally right thing to do. Admiraal explains in his essay of the case of one woman named Carla and the process it took before going through with the act of euthanasia. Carla had suffered through chemotherapy for many years before arriving at the clinic wishing to die. By law, Carla had to have a terminal disease and the approval of a team consisting of two doctors, a nurse, and one of the hospital’s spiritual caregivers. All four—even the Roman Catholic chaplain—agreed that Carla was in sound mind to give consent for euthanasia and the day came when Admiraal gave her the lethal injection. He noted that she “fell asleep with a smile on her face.” Admiraal believed it was morally proper to help Carla end her life how she wanted, without suffering. He stated in his essay that doctors have two primary duties, “to ensure the well-being of our patients and to respect their autonomy.” Nobody but the patient is in a position to decide when enough is enough and how to handle their bodies. Admiraal goes on to say that many patients will not even ultimately ask for active euthanasia and in fact the sole knowledge that someone is there to listen to their requests for help in death will alleviate much of their fear and anxiety about their illness. I whole heartedly agree with all of Admiraal’s claims in the preservation of autonomy. I believe that for a doctor to refuse to speak with their patient about euthanasia, the doctor is completely failing the patient. A doctor is there to help alleviate the illness from the patient and, if they cannot, they must help to alleviate the pain or suffering felt by the patient. Euthanasia is not a question of moral right versus wrong for either answer carries obvious reasons, it a question of your right to your own body and your own life. When life becomes too unbearable and you are staring down death’s door, why is suffering the only answer? I agree with Admiraal’s assertion that, “passive euthanasia is morally worse than active euthanasia.” Rather than giving them relief and allowing them to pass on, the patient must suffer. It is morally unacceptable that the patient must die in a way he or she does not want and finds undignified. By denying their wishes to die we undermine them saying that we know what they want and need better than they do. In the end, a person’s autonomy may never be something that is ambiguous under the law.

 Finally I would like to call on the example of Chris Hill, author of, “The Note,” in support of legal active euthanasia. Hill wrote, “The Note,” as his last chance to explain why he wanted to die and why his life had become unbearable to him. Hill, born into the “proverbial happy childhood,” traveled the world from the Coloradan glades to the Himalayas, stood on the lip of a volcano, rode a motorcycle on a Japanese racetrack, earned two degrees and learned another language, and danced with his love on a tropical beach. All of this came to an end, however, when Hill was in a hang-gliding accident which left him paralyzed from the chest down. Ripped from his life, Hill lost his dignity, his pride, and his self-respect. In his own words he was no more than, “A talking head mounted on a bloody wheelchair.” Hill quickly began to fall apart, crying every morning when he saw himself in the mirror. A once proud and athletic man was now reduced to a hunchback with withered legs in a chair forced to ask everyone to do things for him. The process was humiliating and brought Hill to tears. Hill later tried to return to work, to a job that could keep his mind off of his disabilities, but to him it was, “just a job.” It brought him no happiness and no relief. According to Hill, “[He had] a full, rewarding and successful life by any measure,” and death was not something he feared. In fact, Hill embraced the idea of death as a means of release and of celebration. I find this story to be heartbreaking that not only this man became a paraplegic, but that to attain his final wishes he had to do so secretly and behind the backs of everyone he loved and who loved him. How is it fair that Hill was forced to suffer for the remainder of his life when all he wanted was a little mercy? Is it so much more humane to those opposed to active euthanasia for someone to have to suffer for years on end? Clearly Hill was not happy and was sprawling into major depression which nothing but his desired death would relieve. We can come up with thousands of “what if?s” all day, but that isn’t going to change anything on the matter. All Hill wanted left from his life was death and we cannot deny him this wish because it is not our life and not our place to do so. There are obviously many people who have become disabled or were born disabled such as Alison Davis who have accepted their handicap and have moved on to be happy with their life and I believe we all wish that would happen to those people, but sometimes that doesn’t happen. Sometimes those people feel like Chris Hill and await the day death takes them. No one is right or wrong in these situations; it is just a matter of will power in a sense. Active euthanasia does not prompt all handicapped people to end their lives it merely provides an option for those like Chris Hill who cannot or do not want to bear the limitations of their body any longer.

Mr. Geib has asked us many times in class whether or not we would have the strength to “push the button” either for ourselves or for another person and as I first pondered it I was rather ambiguous in my answer. For myself, I answered no because of my own personal beliefs and will to live. If I became a paraplegic or quadriplegic I, of course, would be very depressed and miss my old life, but I don’t believe that would be enough for me to end my life. But when asked if I would push the button for another person I switched from yes to no constantly. I could never imagine ending the life of some stranger, but I wouldn’t want to watch them suffer either. Ultimately my answer came when I thought of a loved one in the bed pleading for me to end their life. I found that because I loved them it would feel easier to help them end their life. It would be selfish of me to not just because I don’t want them to die yet or I am too afraid to push the button. It would be the most difficult thing in the world, but I would be glad that they are happy. So, I finally decided that yes if I had to, I would push the button even for a stranger.

I believe, ultimately, that the argument against active euthanasia stops at a patient’s autonomy. No one has the moral authority to deny others their natural right to their bodies. Allowing active euthanasia will not promote the act across the nation, nor will people offer it as a first solution. Instead of wasting our energy on stopping active euthanasia we should embrace it and be thankful that those who are in such suffering and pain will now have the comfort in knowing that there is an option of release.

Respectfully, Evan Skora