Saydie's+Letter

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

Dear Mr. Smith,

I would first like to thank you for taking the time to work with us all, and will attempt to communicate my opinions as respectfully as possible. With that said, I feel that your opinion on euthanasia is both dogmatic and naïve. Your blog response to "Million Dollar Baby" affirms that you take the stance that the ending of a life is murder and it is unacceptable for people to choose their own fate. You try to rationalize that everyone gets over depression due to disability after awhile, and prefer to hold onto the success stories rather than accept the reality that not everyone has the same yellow brick road. Perhaps in a society such as communist Russia, it’s fine for everyone to be dictated the same destiny, forced to share the belief that life is to be endured to the last labored breath. And maybe during the Spanish Inquisition you could burn people at the stake for failing to share your opinion. However, as free individuals with free will, we should have the right to determine our own ends. If you think life should be cherished and lived long past its biographical end, go right ahead and do so with your own, have a field day! But because not everyone shares that burning fervor, there should not be strict legal limitations against euthanasia of terminally ill or chronically ill.

While many believe that the legalization of active euthanasia is inherently wrong under any circumstances, there is ample room for compromise in lawmaking. The Roman Catholics hold the preservation of life at any cost as the ultimate priority, which makes sense and is a basic instinct. As the Sacred Declaration on Euthanasia states, taking an innocent life is universally wrong and never justified. Such a claim is easy to make broadly, but loses its credibility in specific scenarios. There is no such thing as a simple case involving euthanasia. What about patients in a permanent vegetative state? What about someone in late stage cancer, in unbearable pain? The doctrine allows for passive euthanasia when all hope is lost, meaning the removal of a ventilator or feeding tube. Even painkillers are frowned upon, unless in debilitating pain when death is imminent. The Catholic Church’s declaration romanticizes suffering (talk about a morbid culture of death),referring to it as “sharing in Christ’s passion.” First of all, isn’t that what communion as for? If I feel like making a symbolic gesture of being close to Jesus, I’d prefer a cracker and some wine over bone cancer minus the morphine. Furthermore, the Bible makes it fairly clear that Jesus suffered so that we don’t have to. So at this point, it seems as though the Catholics are just running out of good reasons to encourage suffering and think it would make a good impression to throw the Savior into the mix. Ironically, the proclamation that embraces pain and suffering cannot fathom the acceptance of death. It states that a prolonged illness can cause “psychological conditions that facilitate the acceptance of death.” Basically, they would rather throw the fact under the rug and choose to ignore that it is happening in order to hold onto hope. It is callow to avoid addressing such a topic out of fear that society will accept it. We are all mortal. When someone is nearing death, they should have the right to choose whether to believe suffering is noble or just unnecessary. And they should definitely be informed of the realities of their situation, not deceived to keep them from coming to terms with dying.

However, the issue grows more complex regarding the disabled. After a tragic accident causing paraplegia or quadriplegia, many people are bound to experience hopelessness and loss of the will to live. Even though it has been scientifically proven that most depression levels are no different than the general public after five years, that is not always the case. Ramon San Pedro became a quadriplegic after an accident, and spent the rest of his life crusading for legalization of euthanasia solely so he could die. This may not be the case of the average disabled person, but it happens, and needs to be addressed however rare it may be. But of course this terrifies and offends many disabled people who feel that a law allowing them to be killed insinuates that their lives are worth less, even comparing it to Nazi Germany. I don’t really think you can make those comparisons lightly. And although it is inspiring and great to hear the stories of disabled people like Allison Davis, who manage to make lemonade out of lemons and find success, that is not everyone’s destiny. I think these people are a bit oversensitive and take the possibility of someone not enjoying a disabled lifestyle as a personal vendetta against them. Legalizing euthanasia for the disabled would not necessarily encourage the disabled to die, but recognize that it may be the best option for someone personally. The point is to open options, rather than force anyone to live unhappily.

In Chris Hill’s suicide note, he illustrates the realities of everyday paraplegia in great detail, from loss of control of bodily functions to ulcers from being sedentary in a bed or chair. These are not pleasant experiences. After spending his life traveling the world, being a daredevil athlete and living life on the edge, it was impossible for him to adjust to such a mundane and painful lifestyle. He raises the point that people love their animals enough to end their suffering, so why is it so unacceptable for humans to act with that same kind of compassion? Many argue that people are worth more, but I do not believe that people who truly love their pets euthanize them because they take their lives lightly. At least I hold my dogs as members of my family, and if they were suffering I would end it out of love, the same way I hope someone would do for me if I were dying and miserable. But the medical profession has remained detached, firmly stating that euthanasia is murder so as not to damage their image of preservers of life. As Hill puts it, their “attitude of life at any cost is an inhumane presumption that amounts to arrogance.” Although it is important for doctors to have a high regard for life in their career, it is also vital that they respect the patient’s autonomy, because there are cases in which it does more harm to keep someone alive than to respect their wishes and end their life. Many accuse doctors of playing God by ending a life, but as Kevorkian blatantly pointed out, doctors are always playing God. By saving a life, they are still controlling it. I think it is even less playing God on the part of the doctor for pulling the plug or injecting the drug than it is by refraining from doing so. Because if a doctor refuses a treatment, even euthanasia, they are the one making the life and death decision. The patient should be in charge, and if all falls within the law, the doctor will not be held culpable for the patient’s decision.

In the Netherlands, controversial as it may be, active euthanasia is legal. However, they have a strictly organized system to determine whether the option is right for a patient. It is only available to the terminally ill, if they wish to end their suffering instead of dying in pain. Dr. Pieter Admiraal mentions that many times it is enough just to have the option and many patients never need to use it. In the case that they do request to be euthanized, a team of two doctors, a nurse and a spiritual caregiver must come to a consensus of whether it is the best choice. He recounts the story of a terminal cancer patient who chose to have her life ended rather than spend her final days suffering in the throes of her illness. She was a devoted Catholic too, but was certain that God would not want her to suffer in such a way. Admiraal states that the patient is most qualified to make decisions regarding their own life and death, and “nobody but the patient is in a position to decide when enough is enough.” So doctors may refuse to offer it, and people may preach of immorality, but ultimately it comes down to their selfish fear of having the blood on their own hands. By taking the Hippocratic Oath, doctors make a commitment to pursuing the well-being of patients, even if that sometimes means eliminating the life along with the suffering. I feel that if someone is not comfortable with occasionally having to respect the patient’s autonomy over their own personal beliefs, they should not have become a doctor to begin with. It is not a selfish profession. The primary fear people seem to have with legalizing euthanasia is that it will become casual to end a life with little thought. The whole practice was given a bad name by Jack Kevorkian, who, in radical attempts to change legislation, went on killing sprees of the disabled, terminally ill, and even just suicidal. He created a “thanatron” to kill people and took it to hospital rooms asking patients if they wished to die. This is disturbing because he was all too eager to kill. While I believe euthanasia should be an option in hopeless cases as a last resort out of compassion, it should be strictly ensured that no one may ever coerce a patient into dying. I think the main reason that euthanasia is different from murder is that it is done out of compassion, love and respect. The person who ends the life is not doing it for personal gain, but selflessly, putting the individual’s autonomy above their own feelings. The slope may be slippery, but we are already on it and should proceed with some kind of moral compass rather than pretend that the issue doesn’t exist.

Active Euthanasia should be legalized for the sake of the rare cases when a person will die in immense pain anyway, and for people in a permanent vegetative state. It is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath to ignore the patient’s autonomy and force them to endure extreme suffering for the same end result of death. And in the case of PVS patients, removing extraordinary measures is the same thing as ending the life, it just meanings tiptoeing around the legal tape. A year ago, my great grandma was in a coma after suffering a stroke, and was diagnosed having no brain activity. Her wishes were to die if in that state. However, it is illegal to quickly and painlessly end it by injecting some extra morphine. Instead, the doctors removed her feeding tube while my family was forced to wait for her to slowly starve to death. It took nine days. Is that really the more humane way for a life to end? I feel that people are so afraid of a culture of death that it becomes a taboo subject. People believe that death is the worst thing that can happen and consequently are driven to avoid it at all costs. It is a natural reaction. But I do not believe that it is the worst case scenario. The idea of prolonged suffering and utter powerlessness to end it because of laws that supposedly protect us scares me much more than the prospect of dying of an illness.

So would it ever be commonplace to have a suicide clinic such as Dignitas somewhere right on Main Street? I think as a society, we are far from accepting that, which is fine with me. Suicide clinics are a bit extreme. It sounds like a morbid idea, for people to go into a clinic alive and come out in a body bag. Dignitas is strict, organized and seems to do a good job of monitoring patients and making sure the death is not a mistake, but if these clinics because more mainstream, it is likely that they would get sloppier and harder to keep track of. Maybe it is fitting that it’s only one place far away that offers the service so people have to be pretty certain of their choice to go all the way over and do the deed. Another problem is that people who would not otherwise die, such as those with depression, would see it as a quick solution to what could be a temporary problem.

It is important that people continue to acknowledge the gravity and repercussions of ending their own life, or the life of another person. I still believe that in certain cases it is the best option, and only if it is the person’s wish, but death cannot be taken lightly. This unit deals with the “right to die,” and that is just what it is. As free individuals, we should have the right to die if we so choose. It is tragic at worst and bittersweet at best. However, if someone has lost the will to live due to illness, disability or sadness, it is not always possible to change their mind. Some consider suicide to be selfish because it has such an effect on the loved ones of the victim, but isn’t it just as selfish to force someone to continue a miserable existence because you can’t bear to lose them? Ultimately, I feel that the autonomy of the individual is the most important factor in life and death decisions. Death should never really be smiled upon, but on rare occasions it can be seen as a necessary evil. The loss of a life is just that, a loss, but ideally that outcome is better than being stranded in an unhappy life. Allowing others to have command of their own lives is not pro-death, but rather pro-choice, as it should be.

Sincerely, Saydie Grewe