home

= NOT DEAD YET? =

== Bioethic students write to disability activists [|Stephen Drake]and [|Diane Coleman] on the topic of euthanasia. ==



media type="file" key="million-dollar-baby.flv" width="720" height="480" align="center"

Mat To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman:
media type="file" key="matta-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman,

Before I begin my rather lengthy and opinionated essay, I would like to first thank you for providing me, and the entire Bioethics cohort, the opportunity to share our opinions to you. With that said, let me commence:

Euthanasia, or easy/good death in Latin, is a medical term/action in which a doctor's action terchanate an individual's life through passive or active means. Passive euthanasia, while not universally accepted, is a legal course action (in most countries) which allows a doctor to remove or decease extreme and necessary means of prolonging of life. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, has been a hotly contested matter legal only in the state's of Washington, Oregon and the country of Sweden. The question - as currently debated - is whether or not active euthanasia a right reserved to patients and what are it's moral repercussions.

The Catholic Church, one of the main opponents of euthanasia, stand firm in their belief of protecting life in all stages. As stated in the "Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith," the Catholic's Church official stance, life, is an individual's duty to carry on, from birth to death, in accordance to God's "plan." Murder and suicide, as defined in the Catholic faith, is a sin of "utmost gravity" which obstructs God's love for an individual or, in the case of suicide, "refusal of love for self and flight from the duties of justice and charity owed to one's neighbors." The act of injecting chemicals within a patient is not a "natural death," equating it to murder, while the defined consent of an individual, although made in understandable circumstances of suffering, constitutes it as suicide. Therefore, the Catholic faith affirms, active euthanasia in it's entirety is a sin. A patient in grave suffering asking for death, the doctrine states, should not be understood as implying a true desire for active euthanasia, but is in fact a cry of help and love and should be remedied through palliative care. Furthermore, an individual's suffering is nothing more than another "cross" to bear, which, according to the doctrine, has a "special place in God's saving plan; a sharing in Christ's Passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which he offered in obedience to the Father's will." Other opponents, such as Alison Davis, an activist towards the rights of the handicapped, state that the acceptance of active euthanasia will lead to a slippery slope and eventually, a situation similar to Nazi Germany, in which handicapped people are regarded not as human beings, but as burdens to be disposed of. Davis, who is handicapped herself, affirms that if practices such as abortion and active euthanasia is allowed, then handicapped people like her might not have a chance a "full and happy life."

On the other side of the spectrum, people like Doctor Kevorkian, Pieter Admiiral, Chris Hill and Ramon Sampedro advocate active euthanasia. Doctor Kevorkian actively supports euthanasia to the point where, some might say, he martyred himself for the cause. Doctors are cowards, Kevorkian states, in the assertion that secretly, half of the doctor's in America support him, and hypocritically support active euthanasia in the cover of the night while hiding in the light of day. Pieter Admiiral, a Dutch proponent for active euthanasia recounts his experiences as a practitioner of active euthanasia. He affirms that to deny a patient his/her right to active euthanasia is under some circumstances to fail the patient. He further justifies the practice of active euthanasia by denouncing the notion of the "slippery slope," saying that the boundaries between accepted medical services and Neo-nazi euthanasia is clearly defined by patient consent. Furthermore, Admiiral says, active euthanasia is practiced is a last resort action - an action painstakingly deliberated through the consent of the patient, the doctors, the psychiatric evaluators and even, surprisingly, their catholic chaplain. This banner of self determination is also carried not only by the doctors but patients/people in suffering themselves. Chris Hill, who once was a lively journalist, was paralyzed from the waste down. Although he tried moving on from the accident, the lost of his mobility and freedom had led him to believe that his current way of living was nothing compared to his previous lifestyle. Bereft from his joys, he committed suicide, leaving a note behind stating his intents and purposes, as well as his state of mind, saying that he acted under his own powers and under his own logic in rational state of mind, that he reserved a civil right to commit suicide. Similarly, Ramon Sampedro, who was also paralyzed but from the neck down, fought a 30 year battle with the Spanish government to commit suicide, citing the same reasons and using the same logic as Chris Hill, however, with an even more amount of time for contemplation.

While I disagree with Kevorkian's approach (and his countenance - there's a clear aura of manic obsession about his person and his eagerness in bringing about patient death completely unsettles me)towards legalizing active euthanasia, I, like Kevorkian and other proponents of active euthanasia, believe that active euthanasia is a right reserved to terminally ill and severely debilitated patients. Of course, I also believe strict regulations should be practiced.

It is shallow for doctors to deny patient rights all because of self image. As a doctor, you are indoctrinated and bound by the Hippocratic Oath to provide any means of care to your patient as consented by the patient. In fact, by rejecting the right of a patient to decide for his health and livelihood, we fail to respect the patient as a self-determining person.

The Catholic Church, though I agree with their moral values, should have no place in the process of law and determination of the legality of active euthanasia. The system of the separation of church and state was put in place for a reason, and to abdicate the authority of logic to the powers of faith and religion within the process of government/legislation, is to undo one of the backbone's of American government. Furthermore, the Catholic justification of euthanasia, as my colleague, Brent and I discussed, holds one serious and large flaw: the medical field in all of its entirety. The Doctrine of Faith states, in support of passive euthanasia, the discontinuing of "unnecessary and extreme means of prolonging life." If taken in perspective, the practice of medicine is in fact a practice in "unnecessary and extreme means of prolonging life," as evident in our drastically increased life spans.

Of course, all of this falls within patient consent. It is in my belief that the "slippery of slope" to a Neo-nazi situation, or devaluing the value of life through the legalization of active euthanasia does not exist No, it doesn't work that way. Active euthanasia cannot be practiced without patient consent, a clear defining line from standard medical practice and neo-nazi killings. Furthermore, having the option of active euthanasia does not subliminally "suggest" that a handicapped individual's value of life is lower than everyone else's. That option is merely there for the INDIVIDUAL to decide when HE/SHE believes the HIS/HER standards of living, not mine, not the doctors, but the individual's own belief on whether or not life is too painful or too burdensome to continue.

Active euthanasia is a practice in logic and respect - respect for an individual's wishes and respect to life. Is it really more humane, more moral to watch another human being suffer and beg for death against his own consent than letting him die peacefully through his own volition? Of course not. Hopefully, when I am a doctor, I can help patients the way they want and when I, myself, am bedridden, dying, and in horrible pain, I hope I can take a toast (cocktail pun) to the wonderful things I have (hopefully) done in my life, and easily sleep into the night.

Once again, thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Mathew Aguilar

Kate To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman:
Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,

My name is Katelyn Bailey, and like my other classmates, I am thankful that you are dedicating your time to reading our opinions on such a controversial topic as euthanasia. I also think you are setting a wonderful example by speaking up for what you believe in, however, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on euthanasia.

Informed consent is what separates a critical healthcare service from a potentially malicious murder attempt. As human beings, we have an inalienable right to choose our path in life, so why does it not coincide with the right to die? I believe the United States should follow the bold examples of Oregon and Washington and their right to die acts, because once any individual is in the utmost of agony and honestly cannot see any other option than suicide, they should be allowed--or rather assisted by a healthcare professional--to die with dignity. This choice is the patient’s alone, and cannot be dictated by any other force: not government, not religion, not activists, not family, not friends--no one but themselves. The right to die should be chosen solely by the individual.

I understand how you may feel about euthanasia, some persuasive comments have been made by scholarly individuals as well as some who even suffered with disabilities and disease that defend your opinion. The official Catholic stance on voluntary euthanasia states, “No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person.” Also, “…nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying,” because it is a crime against life and an attack on humanity. With this logic, one could presume that the Catholic faith is strictly opposed to anything that interferes with God’s plan. Then, wouldn’t it also follow that medically prolonging a life can also be considered an interference? Even an attack on humanity? No, the Catholic Church accepts medical efforts. They believe only in a right to life, not death.

Alison Davis, was born with the spinal bifida and has learned to cope. Now 28 years old, she has attended ordinary school and university, gotten married, traveled the world, and is a full time activist for the defense of the right to life for handicapped people. She questions, “Who could say that I have no quality of life?” which she believes is the stance of those who agree with physician assisted suicide. By no means, does Davis, or you (Ms. Coleman and Mr. Drake) have any reason to want to end her life, and she is a true role model for the handicapped portion of society. However, I don’t think she is an accurate representation of every handicapped individual. Being born with a disability and acquiring one later in life are two entirely different situations. The first person doesn’t know any different in life, whereas the latter has seen life at its fullest potential, and suddenly their world is completely taken out from under them.

Other people in similar situations as Davis, sometimes believe that the efforts of Doctors like Kevorkian who advocate in favor of active voluntary euthanasia are also taking part in some sort of vendetta against the handicapped, and want to “eliminate them from society,” which I believe is far from the truth.

A man named Chris Hill is also handicapped, and believes physician assisted suicide as an act of mercy. Unlike Davis, he wasn’t born with a disability, and had seen a great life (by his own standards) previous to his disability. He states, “After my hang-gliding accident - how ironic that something I loved so much would destroy me so cruelly - tomorrows were nothing but a grey void of bleak despair.” Chris Hill had lived his life to the fullest, and after his accident, was paralyzed from the chest down. He claims that he has no regrets and only wants to die in peace after trying undeniably hard to construct a new life for himself. But, that wasn’t enough, and he chose to end his life. Hill was clearly of sound mind and had thought long and hard about his decision. It was his choice, and he should be supported by doctors across America. The fact is that it is not about undermining handicapped at all, its about choice and informed consent. The terminally ill and the depressed handicap should not have this right taken away. Their autonomy is sacred.

Peter Admiraal, a Dutch doctor, tells of his experiences in a place where active voluntary euthanasia is legal and accepted. In his article, “Listening and Helping to Die: the Dutch Way” asserts an incredibly valid point that asserts his opinion, “To carry out euthanasia is an emotional and difficult decision. I have seen my patients as friends, and every time I was sad and satisfied after euthanasia: sad to lose a friend and satisfied that I could end the suffering of that friend." Dying in such a manner is a way to end suffering, not an act of malice.

Opponents of physician assisted suicide who would argue that there is a “slippery slope,” and often believe that its legalization would ultimately send society into some terrible catastrophe in which patients to be killed against their will. But like Admiraal I refuse to accept that. A clear moral boundary can be defined at consent, “based on respect for the patient’s autonomy,” which is the foundation of the legal framework that allows voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, and it has proved to do well. No patient has thus far, and probably never will, have their life cut short without an explicit request. Active voluntary euthanasia is simply an extension of a valuable health care service.

Again, I’d like to reiterate my thanks for this opportunity, and despite my disagreement with your opposition to active voluntary euthanasia, I admire your dedication to your cause.

Sincerely, Katelyn B.

Kaval To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="kaval-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman,

Before furthering onto my opinions and beliefs, I want to thank you for willingly opening up to the public about your opinions and listening to everyone else’s.

Euthanasia is a very sensitive subject that is and will always be debated upon in society. The idea of an “easy death” may be absurd to people who value life at any stage, which I completely understand. I value life, the idea of death completely scares me and knowing the fact that it can happen anytime makes me live life to the fullest every day. But if I was in a position where I did not value my life anymore, then its my complete right to choose whether I can continue on with it or not. Everyone is equal in my eyes and I am not discriminating against any group of people or devaluating anyone’s life. My mere goal is that anyone has the right to do what they want to themselves.

Though I thankfully have not lived a life of suffering, I have seen lives of people around the world- from the richest to the poorest, the ill to the healthy. Through my experiences, I have learnt that everyone goes through different events in their lives that form their own philosophies and beliefs. As individuals it is their right to die.

According to the 1st amendment, it is permitted that any persons in the United States of America may practice any religion they choose to. While doing so, it is unconstitutional that extreme religious beliefs, such to that of the Catholics, must be forced upon others in the country. In many monotheistic religions, it is a sin to take one’s own life or that of another. This is a reason why though the country does not have an official religion, the philosophies of religions are present in the frame of the government. Publicly against euthanasia in any form, the Catholic Church states that, “Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God's plan”. They are essentially saying that it is the will of God when a person shall face death and when it has been decided, everyone must live accordingly to so. The irony of religious claims that euthanasia is against God’s will can easily go both ways. Doctors administering vaccines, medication and cures is against the will of God because if someone is sick, it is not the human right to interfere with what God’s will has in store for the individual. Every act that a doctor does is against God’s will. Regardless of God’s will, it is an individual’s Constitutional right to believe in this God or not, and it is their Constitutional right to believe in these certain religious beliefs.

Society has presented death, whether for mercy or not, to be an event that should be avoided at almost any cost. Society also has presented that the only way that a person may be permitted to die is through passive euthanasia. Though it does create an option out for only the terminally ill, it is only giving them the right to choose the better of two terrible situations. Whether a person rather die from a terminal disease or starve an/or suffocate to death, it is up to them- but they should at least be offered the right to die peacefully. Sadly since the American society does not celebrate death and rather celebrate life, the chance that the basic right to die peacefully will ever happen nationally is slim.

As if euthanasia is not a controversial topic already, the movie Million Dollar Baby blew the issue even bigger. I completely understand why many say that movie is portraying the wrong message about the value of life but people do not realize that the main character, Maggie, lost everything she lived for in her accident. She came from a dysfunctional home with nothing and made her dreams come true through the one thing that kept her going, fighting. When her fighting was gone, she was back to having no life like she had before. It was heartbreaking to see such gifted woman want to take her life, but forcing her to live a life that she no longer wanted is very selfish. She like all people in the world, have the right to do what they like with themselves. Though there were many brilliant things that she could have done in her new life, it just did not suit her. When life handed her a lime instead of a lemon, she decided she didn’t want either. Why make lemonade or limeade when you don’t like either?

No person has the right to chose how another should live. This is why though we all have our own views; we should let the individuals choose for themselves. On that note, I would like to say that I respect your opinions very much Mr. Drank and Ms. Coleman, and I am thankful that there are people in the world who still devote their hearts to what they believe in. Thank you.

Jongin To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="jongin-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to share my perspective on euthanasia with you. My name is Jongin, and I will study hard to become a doctor for next 10 years. I respect your views on the topic, as I’m sure you will do the same.

Life is precious and irreplaceable. However, as much as life is cherished, I believe that one’s individuality over his or her body must be sacred. The word “euthanasia,” translated as “easy death,” should not be looked down as a violation of “fundamental rights” or as a “slippery slope”, but rather it must be interpreted as a merciful end to unimaginable sufferings. In the end, it is each individual’s life on the table, not anyone else’s. I believe that the ultimate decision between dignified death and painful life should left to the individuals.

The case of Daniel James, who chose to end his life at age of 23, has brought the complicated issue of euthanasia to the forefront. Paralyzed by a rugby injury, James sought the assisted suicide from the Dignitas, in order to relieve himself from “the ‘prison’ he felt his body had become” (Foggo). While some believe that James’s death through euthanasia was rather a “welcome relief” from his pain, opponents of the physician assisted suicide argue that precious life should not be taken away under any circumstances. The Catholic Church, on the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, firmly asserts that “nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying… for it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity”. According to the Catholic Church, it is one’s duty to endure the pain or “bear the cross.”

Allison Davis, another activist on behalf of the handicapped, argues that the rights of the disabled should not be infringed due to their supposedly “no worthwhile quality of life.” On the Right to life of Handicapped, she shares her fear that the doctors’ notion of “’non-personhood’ for babies with congenital defects…could well also lead to the //de facto// decriminalization of the act of killing a handicapped person of any age, just as it did in Hitler’s Germany.” On the other hand, the proponents of the “mercy killing” claim that it is their inalienable right to choose how to die. Chris Hill, on his suicide note, advocates that the euthanasia should be offered as an option to patients. Due to his hang-gliding accident, he was paralyzed from the chest down, and found his life unbearable to live. He remarks, “Unbearable abominations that made me feel less than human. For me, it was no way to live…People kill animals to put them out of their misery if they’re suffering even a tiny part of what I had to put up with, but I was never given the choice of a dignified death and I was very bitter about that.”

Hill isn’t alone in his view on the euthanasia. Pieter Admiraal claims, in Listening and Helping to Die, that “active voluntary euthanasia is but one more way of delivering humane medical care.” As euthanasia is offered as a viable option to patients, they can no longer be patronized by doctors, but self-determine what to do with their own body. Admiraal further describes that “there is after all these years no evidence of a slippery slope, or of a disturbed relationship between doctors and patients.”

I believe that as free human beings, people must have the autonomy to decide or control their own body. Why can’t people have the full right over their body, if everyone has only one chance to live their life? Why should they be forced to live with unspeakable pain? Why does any human being have to live such a life, filled with pain, discomfort, indignity, misery, and fear? No one should be deprived of their just right to decide what to do with their body.

Doctor Kevorkian is not a Neo-Nazi. He wasn’t mindlessly murdering patients, but helping to end the suffering of patients. His patients accepted an offer of physician assisted suicide, and he merely carried out what he promised: an easy death.

As Hill, Admiraal, and Dr. Kevorkian have proposed, I believe that everyone, as free human beings, should have the full right to choose how to both live their life and put an end to it.

Thank you again for your time. With utmost respect, Jongin

Sukhpreet To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="sukhpreet-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Hello my name is Sukhpreet and I am a current senior at Foothill Technology H.S. Furthermost, I’d like to thank you for taking out time to hear the views of young students on the controversial issue of euthanasia. I find myself very fortunate to be living an active, healthy life and respect your views on the topic at hand, as I’m sure you will also. Euthanasia, an “easy death,” isn’t as simple as the word suggests. For years, the Catholic Church, activists, and anti-activists have battled to show that they are correct on whether euthanasia should be legal or not. The act of killing or letting individuals die due to terminal illness has created chaos in and outside of the medical field worldwide. Disabled Rights Activists believe that allowing euthanasia to be legal will hurt disabled people worldwide, by informing them that their life has less value than an active human being. Additionally, the Catholic Church is strongly opposed to euthanasia, believing that humans should not play the role of God. While, on the opposite side are doctors such as Dr.Kevorkian, who believes the medical field should be obligated to help the patients who do not wish to suffer any longer and Dr. Admiral, a Dutch Doctor who actively participates in active euthanasia as it is legal in his city of Deft. Disabled Rights activists are very adamant on not allowing euthanasia to be legalized or accepted in the society. They believe that allowing euthanasia to be accepted will devalue the lives of disabled individuals, making it more acceptable to not want to live. Disabled individuals have a right to live; they have the same amount of freedom as any other individual. However, limited to their activity, many lose hope in their lives. In the article, “Why Disability Rights Movements Do Not Support Euthanasia,” by Canadian doctor, Dr.Wolbring, he quotes the Disability Rights Movement’s beliefs, “We believe that the legalization of euthanasia will force people to be euthanized in a misbegotten effort to do the right thing: save their loved ones from financial ruin, remove family members from the care taker role, cease to be a burden on the state.” Disabled Rights activists strongly believe that euthanasia is not about mercy killing or seizing physical pain, it’s truly about fear, prejudice and the “negative perception of a characteristic.” In the Catholic Church’s “Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” it is clearly stated that, “Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God’s plan.” Their belief that God has given every individual the right to live, is shown through their strong conviction that the ending of life, whether through suicide or euthanasia is a “rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan.” The Catholic Church says that those who ask for euthanasia are misunderstood. It is not the desire of death that they want; “it is a case of an anguished plea for help and love.” The church’s continued belief that technology is threatening their Christian way of living is displayed throughout the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Today it is very important to protect, at the moment of death, both the dignity of the human person and the Christian concept of life, against a technological attitude that threatens to become an abuse.” The Catholic views on euthanasia are strong and contribute to the battle to legalize euthanasia very heavily. In “Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way,” Dr.Admiraal, a Dutch doctor practices active euthanasia “openly and unashamedly,” in his city of Delft, where euthanasia stands legal. Dr.Admiraal with his team of qualified doctors, nurse, and one of the hospital’s spiritual caregivers decides which patient is qualified for euthanasia. His main argument is that euthanasia is “to fail the practice of voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to the fail the patient.” However, Dr.Admiraal does clarify that his team and him always hesitate because a patient’s request for the easy death may actually by a cry for help. Specialized in palliative care, he assures people that patients do not have any shortcomings in his hospital. Dr.Admiraal was convicted of actively assisting a patient, who suffered from ovarian cancer, in euthanasia. Dr.Admiraal says that, “as doctors we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients, and to respect their autonomy. The first duty entails that we should seek to restore patients to health and, if we can’t, that we should try to reduce their suffering. The second duty entails that we listen closely to, and respect, the wishes of our patients.” He clarifies that he was correct in allowing his patient to die, as she was suffocated by her inability to do what she wanted to do. She didn’t want to be kept alive by machines and suffer everyday and her plea was to end her life, because anything doctors did was going to be futile. Another such doctor is Dr.Kevorkian. Passionate about his beliefs and adamant enough to go to jail for them, he has actively participated in helping patients to die: 130 of them. Also known as Dr.Death, his strong beliefs that patients should have the final say in their life and death, he is a proponent of euthanasia and does not regret anything that he has done. Using lethal injections, he killed more than a hundred people and isn’t ashamed in doing so. Someone who is willing to unashamedly show to the world that helping patients die is correct must have solid beliefs to support him. In an interview with Sanjay Gupta M.D. Dr.Kevorkian said, “I have no regrets.” He believes that people have a say in their death just as they do in their life. For him, active euthanasia is a right and should not be infringed on. All life is precious: every fetus, child, teenager, adult, or elder. At the beginning of the discussion of euthanasia, the idea itself disgusted me. I was appalled at how people could think it could be justified. However, as we looked into the views on both sides and read further into it, and I saw the reason WHY people were choosing to end their lives, my views changed. I’m a proponent of human rights and believe euthanasia is a right. We should have the option of choosing whether or not we can bear a pain, suffer any longer, or tolerate the injustice that’s been bestowed on us. I do believe euthanasia is morally wrong-but the reason for each individual who chooses this option is more significant than anything else. Ending someone’s life isn’t simple, but the reason needs to be justified. If an individual is asking for death, due to emotional imbalance, due to failure throughout his life, that’s not a patient. That’s a coward. Reading Kevorkian’s interview with Sanjay Gupta M.D., I realized how passionate the old man is about his views, how he doesn’t regret anything that he’s done. And I see the reason why. In his eyes, he was right. A man who is justified doesn’t fear, so why should he fear? I agree that euthanasia is morally wrong. How could we as humans kill other humans? But above that, I believe that every human has his own rights to choose what they believe is correct for them. Human rights are something we’ve been fighting for years, and now we are fighting for euthanasia, the end of all human rights. Paradox? Yes. The Disabled Rights Activists and the Catholic Church stand strong on their beliefs that euthanasia should be prohibited and eliminated from the medical field. While, doctors such as Dr.Admiraal and Dr.Kevorkian view their work as noble. Both sides have evidence to support their views and believe they are correct in the standpoint. However, in the end, it is in the individual who should have the right to choose whether living or dying is the option they want to choose. Euthanasia should be an option and individuals should have the privilege and right to choose that form of dying. I thank you again for reading our views on euthanasia and I admire your dedication for standing up to your cause. Your commitment is inspiring and I wish more people in the world stood up to what they believed in. Thank you so much!

Catee To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
Dear Mr. Drake and Ms Coleman,

Thank you so much for taking the time to read my essay. I am a senior at Foothill Technology high school and topics like physician-assisted suicide really fascinate me as I hope to become a doctor one day. I understand that it is extremely important to see both sides of an argument and although our opinions may differ, I very much respect and appreciate your point of view.

“Death is not the greatest of ills: worse is to want to die and not be able to.” As Timothy Lace explains, euthanasia is best described as an act of mercy rather than murder. While the counter argument for euthanasia is to honor the preciousness of life, the argument for it seems much more valid: Every individual has a personal right to death. Those who strongly disagree with physician-assisted suicide have the option to not partake in it, while those who wish to end their suffering in a humane manner are trapped by both their illness and their inability to escape from it. Why should doctors, lawmakers, or anyone other than the individual have a say in his or her own death? Why should the pain and suffering of an individual be prolonged when their is an alternative? Why should we as human beings allow our rights to be infringed upon, especially when it comes to a decision as personal as death? The right to die, like the right to life, should be an unalienable right, one that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing it.

Proponents of euthanasia argue that each individual possesses one body, has a personal opinion on death, and therefore should choose when it is their time to surrender their body to the inevitable. Legality aside, when a person’s quality of life is compromised, the option to end life should be viewed as an “act of love.” When a person is no longer themselves and cannot act on their own behalf due to a terminal illness, physician-assisted suicide can be considered an act of mercy. Euthanasia advocates maintain the stance that active voluntary euthanasia shows compassion towards the terminally ill, rather than inhumanely keep them alive to preserve life at all costs. Chris Hill’s suicide letter is an incredibly powerful example of personal choice when it comes to the right to live or die. After a hang-gliding accident, Hill was paralyzed from the chest down, “more than three-quarters dead,” as he describes. “The Note,” his suicide letter, describes in detail his loss of dignity and self-respect and why he came to the decision to end his life. He writes in his letter that, “People kill animals to put them out of their misery if they’re suffering even a tiny part of what I had to put up with, but I was never given the choice of a dignified death.” One would argue that it is completely inhumane to give an animal a more dignified death than a human being who wishes nothing more than to be put out of their misery. As heartbreaking as his story is, the pain Hill suffered on a daily basis could only have been measured by him and ultimately it was his right to choose how to deal with it. As Chris Hill explains at the end of his letter, “Suicide is not a crime and I have the right not to be handled or treated against my will.”

On the contrary, opponents for euthanasia, including disability rights advocates, fear that physician-assisted suicide may lead to a slippery slope where the rights of the disabled are not held in high esteem or are even disregarded. Disability advocates will argue that in making euthanasia legal, it will eventually become non-voluntary. DREDF, a disability rights organization, makes clear the dangers in legalizing euthanasia. They explain that upon closer inspection, there are many reasons why the legalization of assisted suicide is a serious mistake. Supporters focus on superficial issues of choice and self-determination, but DREDF argues that it is crucial to look deeper. Legalizing assisted suicide would not increase choice and self-determination, they say, despite the assertions of its proponents. It would actually put forward real dangers that undermine genuine choice and control.

Both sides being taken into consideration, I believe that one’s personal right to die is as important as one’s right to live. Why should the government or religious affiliates control someone's life to the extent of saying when they can or cannot end it. Personally, if I was suffering from a terminal, deteriorating illness, I would want to escape from it. I would want to die with dignity, and I would fight for my right to do so. When the simple act of breathing in and out becomes too much to bear, why should a person be forced to suffer through life, even in its simplest form. A person should be respected if he or she desires to end their life before it is "their time," not judged by those who believe only god can decide when their time is. Individuals who believe that suffering will being them closer to god have a right to suffer, shouldn't those who want mercy be given a right to mercy? I believe it is inhumane to let a person die a slow and extremely painful death when there is another alternative. I think Dr. Kevorkian is one hundred percent justified in his actions and did nothing out of malice, but out of respect from one human to another. To say that Dr. Kevorkian is leading us towards a slippery slope of what could become a neo-nazi ideology is completely absurd. People ask: Where do you draw the line? But as far as I can see no one is being killed against their will, I do not feel like we are not a society where the weak are tossed aside and their wishes are disregarded. Like Pieter Admiraal points out, “A clear moral and legal boundary can be drawn around the notion of consent. This notion of consent [is] based on the respect for the patient’s autonomy.” Physician assisted suicide is based completely around the wishes and consent of the terminally ill patient, not a maniacal doctor who want to kill just for the sake of killing. I firmly agree with Dr. Kevorkian in his pursuits to make active euthanasia legal in the United States. As Admiraal puts is, and I’m sure Dr. Kevorkian would agree, “Active voluntary euthanasia is but one more way of delivering humane medical care.”

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The right to die is as personal as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We, as human beings, should decide our own fate. We should have the freedom to escape from a life that we don’t desire to live. We should be respected when we say “Enough is enough.” Each individual should be given the authority to choose for themselves where they want to draw the line and be honored in their decision. Ultimately, I feel that no one should have power over the life and death of an individual other than he or she whose life, liberty and happiness aside, is at stake.

Thank you again so much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Catee Bartell

Madeline To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="madeline-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. S tephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman,

I want to thank you for taking the time to take part in this important, often difficult conversation. Though I don’t suffer from anything that could be considered a “handicap”, I do have an incurable illness that needs to be monitored 24/7. Having type 1 diabetes since 3rd grade has definitely limited aspects of my life (for instance, I wasn’t able to eat Thanksgiving dinner with my family this year due to relentless high blood sugar and I have a tube secured under my skin at all times that must be changed every three days). So while I know that I am in nowhere near the same position as the physically or mentally handicapped, I do have an idea of the difficulties of living with a disability and the concerns that come along with the idea of physician-assisted suicide.

As the law stands now, people like me are the ones that have easier access to it. One day, my condition might very well become “terminal” and I would be able to seek an “easy death” though the help of a doctor. The idea of a “slippery slope” scenario coming to fruition as a result of legalizing euthanasia is frightening since I would likely be included in the targeted group of people. But although I firmly support the idea of respecting the rights of the handicapped, elderly, and ill, I also believe that the ultimate decision of a person’s “quality of life” should be determined by the individual; and with this autonomy comes the right to choose how to end one’s own life.

As a student who is strongly interested in entering the medical field, the topic of assisted suicide is something that cannot be ignored. It is becoming a much more prominent subject in the minds of many people as it is slowly being legalized throughout the country and abroad. Is it truly what is best for patients? Is it morally acceptable? I’m really not sure. The only thing that I am sure of is my belief in each person’s right to choose. No person- not me, not you, not anyone else- should have the right to tell a person what is best for them. This principle applies to both sides of the argument: pro-euthanasia activists should not be able to tell a disabled person that their life is not worth living just as anti-euthanasia activists should not be able to force a person to continue living a life that they deem unworthy through their own conscious judgment. Who are we- human beings who can only experience their world through our own subjective perspectives- to tell others what they should do with their lives? One person’s choice to end their life prematurely does not mean that every handicapped, ill, or otherwise incapacitated person should do the same. Just as they had a choice in ending their life, each person should have a choice to preserve their life.

One of the major arguments in opposition to physician-assisted suicide is the fact that its acceptance by society at large may lead to its glorification. Even if one agrees that each person should have a choice in how to end their suffering, the repercussions of this choice cannot be denied. It could give the wrong message to other people who are in the same situation or may lead able-bodied people to view the disabled as less-than-worthy of a full and happy life. This is one of the reasons that Clint Eastwood’s Film “Million Dollar Baby” became so controversial. But while it can be taken as a claim that to die is better than to live with a disability, again, it becomes an issue of individual freedom. Should the filmmaker’s freedom to portray events in a story be censored because they are offensive? While Maggie’s story is heartbreaking, the film does not portray Eastwood’s character is a malicious man who agrees with Maggie’s choice to end her life. He is hesitant and even flat-out denies her request. He only succumbs to her wishes because he loves her and respects her wishes, rather than forcing her to endure an existence that she finds miserable. To me, the film seems to be more focused on showing Eastwood’s development as a character than trying to impart a message about the value of disabled people’s lives. But even so, I can see why this movie could be seen as offensive to many people.

Another opposing argument to physician-assisted suicide is the religious opinion that every person has a fundamental right to life (and that this right does not extend into the realm of choosing when to end one’s life). The official Catholic doctrine on euthanasia reads, “It is necessary to state firmly… that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying… 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.” As a Catholic, I do have the belief that life should be valued. But I also share the belief that the wishes of suffering patients should not be ignored. If physician assisted suicide did become legal, it would have to be very specific about who would be eligible to receive it. It should also be discouraged, whenever possible, by the medical community. People seeking euthanasia should have a waiting period and counseling before they are approved, and doctors should not present it as a preferable option to treatment or palliative care. Life should always be preserved until the individual is able to make a completely informed choice (for example, an infant born with a defect should not be euthanized without having been given a chance to evaluate their own quality of life. They should be given any treatment necessary until they reach an age where they can fully understand the complexities of their situation, which can vary depending on the disease or deformity). But even though euthanasia should be avoided if possible, it should at least be acknowledged and offered as an option in the most extreme of cases.

I know that my opinion may not be congruous with your own, but I deeply respect your efforts to promote the well-being of the disabled. I admire the important work that you are doing for our society- without people such as yourselves, the idea of euthanasia may very well go down that slippery slope to anarchy and contempt for the lives of the handicapped. Thank you so much for taking the time to read the viewpoints of myself and my classmates, and I hope that you will be able to respect our varying opinions as I respect yours.

Best regards, Madeline B.

Brittany To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
Dear Mrs. Coleman and Mr. Drake, I would, of course, like to start with a statement of my admiration. Your lives, as ones where the choice was made to adapt and continue on with bravery, deserve respect and acknowledgement. I hope that should I ever find myself in a similar situation, I’ll follow the same course. Despite that, I’m not so sure I’d be able to. You exhibit amazing amounts of strength, however the ability to be resilient is a psychological trait that not everyone has. I for one am particularly prone towards hopelessness, leading me to understand the decision that people make to end their lives when faced with a disability or a terminal illness. In a perfect world, we’d all be able to face adversity with a brave face, but many people can’t. Many of those people are living lives that they despise, suffering immensely, and are waiting to die. This isn’t a judgment on their life’s worth that others are projecting on to them; this is their own internal pain. When a person makes the unfathomably difficult decision that their life is not worth living, it is simply cruel to make them endure further. Ramon Sampedro had to fight for thirty years in order to stop living a life he did not want to live. He spent more than half of his life asking for death, I cannot see any form of compassion, humanity, or respect in allowing this to happen. If I could be blunt for a second, it’s in a way very selfish to deny not only Sampedro, but also anybody who is in a similar situation, their wishes, and impose ones own beliefs onto society as a whole, without acknowledging the lives that are being damaged. I say this with a twinge of regret, knowing that it can be misinterpreted as me disrespecting the work that you’re doing with the best interest of people at heart. However, I cannot bring myself to change my stance, a person should not force others to suffer, simply because it goes against their own moral code. The solution we need is in the education and understanding of the problem as a whole. Before considering the proponents arguments, I thought euthanasia to be a hypocrisy that could not be tolerated. However, I now know that too many people are left to die in horrendously painful ways because of people with opinions similar to the one I held. I have learned that my personal beliefs, should not mandate what is best for people I don’t even know. The only way we can reach the level where euthanasia can be utilized to help the medical community, is by making it less of a taboo subject. The only way this can happen is through conversations, education, and media. It is for this reason that I completely support //Million Dollar Baby//. It presented the issue in a way that brought it into the public view, even more so due to the awards it received. While my largest problem with protesting the movie stems from an opposition to censorship, the more important issue is that it stifles the affect that the movie could have. By having open communication on the issue, we can reach conclusions that help the people who need it while protecting them from the “slippery slope”. By trying to hide messages, like the one in //Million Dollar Baby,// we’re protecting a status quo that consistently does not offer the compassion or respect that people deserve. I hope that as people with such strong opinions, you’re understanding of people who’s ideas differ from yours. The current state of the medical community is leaving people alone in their suffering, and there is most definitely work to be done. While it is clear that our solutions in this issue are far from one another’s, I hope our middle ground will be a common belief that people deserve respect (meaning people with disabilities, people who ask for euthanasia, and even Clint Eastwood). Thank you for accepting our class’s opinions, I understand that the topic is controversial but I truly believe that activities like this will be what leads to a solution that’s going to benefit everyone.

With great respect, Brittany B.

Orrany To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="orrany-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,

I feel that I am in no position to discuss with you about what I believe in this polemical issue. I have no idea of what kind of emotions and experiences you’ve had from your conditions. I admire your opinion, but my stance is quite different. Just please read of what I have to say.

Contrary to its literal translation, euthanasia is no easy matter. The complex confliction, centered on morality and practicality, between the church, patient and doctor gives way to the floundering at the issue of assisted patient suicide. The key disagreements, in regards to various religious backgrounds and moral standards all loop around with no definite concrete answer to the grey issue. I have some thoughts about the controversial topic, but then again, I’m a 17 year old girl. I feel really confused about the matter and am not sure where I stand concretely.

Generally, those in opposition to active euthanasia would ultimately be the Catholic Church and the handicapped. According to an official declaration from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Franjo Seper asserted that “it is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying” for it is “the violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.” The Catholic Church is very clear on the stance of pro life. They claim that assisted suicide is a violation of God’s will; doctors who actively “kill” their patients are playing god. But in retrospect, wouldn’t that same thought also be applied to the fact that doctors are artificially prolonging lives beyond normal human capacity. The new innovation of technology in the medical world has ironically brought along more suffering. Many patients are left to barely cling on that thread of life dependant with the support of breathing tubes and painkillers. Some patients seek to die before that zombie-like state of living; they would rather die with dignity. Humans are like time bombs. It is only a matter of time before they go off. Why prolong a life that’ll soon die?

But then, there is the issue of the handicapped. Alison Davis, who was born with myelomeningocele spina bifida, is a disabled person in opposition to the whole notion of euthanasia. She feels that although handicapped, she has had a normal life and in no way was it “no worthwhile quality of life.” It seems that when handicapped people undergo the needle, they think that their quality of life is not at worthwhile to a normal person’s. This kind of thinking will spread to more disabled people; they will then want to end their lives. The major argument to Davis is that she never knew what it felt to have something snatched away from you; a complete life change. Some people just can’t bear that sudden change in life. Take Daniel James for example. After a rugby injury, Daniel James was left quadriplegic; he literally was a head in a bed. Unable to adjust to a new life of not being able to move his body, be sought for help via assisted suicide.

This then leads to those in favor of euthanasia. Pieter Admiraal, a doctor in the Netherlands, interestingly stated that in a sense, “we are all terminally ill.” People are going to die anyways so we should “respect the patient’s autonomy” because there is a “clear moral and legal boundary [that] can be drawn around the notion of consent.” Patients just want to die a death before they get to the point of complete dependency. At this point, they’ve lost their pride in that sense of “living.” They are the ones who chose to die and that we should respect with their decision.

I know that I sound very biased towards the pro choice side, but I do understand the other stance. Human life is amazing; life is pretty awesome. Sure, I’m not a religious person at all, but I was raised in a Buddhist household, although I would at most consider myself agnostic. My morals are a bit unorthodox, and I have a realist approach to the matter. I know that losing a loved one is hard to overcome, but sometimes it’s just time to move on. People will die and I think that we should respect a dying person’s last wish. A doctor’s job is to treat the suffering of a patient. They should be able to actively lead a person to the next world for it is a medical practice. I believe that doctor assisted suicide should be legal. It seems very wrong for doctors to do this in the dark; they should come out. It is a person’s right to ask for a medical assisted suicide. If a person disagrees with this practice, they can just not allow it to happen to themselves. I believe that a person’s belief should not hinder everybody else and that this practice should no longer be in the dark; different strokes for different folks.

Sincerely, Allany

Colin To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,

Before I begin, I would like to thank you for taking the time to listen my beliefs, along with those of the rest of my Bioethics class, especially since many of our opinions are in direct opposition of yours. My name is Colin Crilly, and my current goal in life is to become a scientific researcher.

Assisted suicide is a complicated subject, with many shades of gray that one must look at before forming a concrete opinion. Despite the past few weeks of reading about both sides of this issue, including your own, it would take many more for me to see every shade in this elaborate spectrum. But for now, this is what I believe:

I agree that it’s wrong for doctors to secretly euthanize patients, but it wouldn’t anger me as much if they were at the same time advocating the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide. The fact that they’re mercy-killing patients while at the same time publicly advocating against it quite frankly disgusts me. If you’re performing euthanasia anyway, then why not advocate its legalization? Because you don’t want that to be an official part of your job description? Even if one considers Dutch Dr. Pieter Admiraal, who legally practices euthanasia in the Netherlands, a murderer, at least he preaches what he practices. Hypocrisy is never endearing to me, and American doctors who practice euthanasia while publicly standing in the firmest opposition of it are cowards in my opinion.

I believe that doctor-assisted suicide should be legalized in cases of terminal illnesses and permanently severe physical disabilities. However, such suicides need to be carefully considered first, with tests to make sure that such patients are mentally healthy, sure of their decision, and not influenced by outside sources such as family members and even doctors themselves. I believe in the idea of dying with dignity, because after hearing of cases of people degenerating into skeletons wracked with pain or unable to remain mentally competent or even conscious, I know that I would rather die smiling without my family having to suffer through seeing me in that state.

Because both of you primarily focus on the rights of the disabled, I will now state my own opinion on the issue. I believe that disabled persons should have the right to kill themselves if they believe that their quality of life isn’t good enough to warrant remaining alive. Though the choice of ending one’s life should be considered and reconsidered for a long period of time before such a drastic and permanent action, it should, in the end, be the right of the one who has to live in such a condition. I understand that you two consider life worth living no matter what disability you have. But the fact is that different people have different opinions on the value of life, and I don’t think that people should be able to prevent others from following their own personal beliefs. While you may find life in a wheelchair worth having, people like Daniel James personally didn’t want to live that way, and I think that his decision should be respected, because, even if I think he should have waited another year to decide, he did talk to people in his condition and he did try to live happily with Quadriplegia.

Also, I disagree with the idea that the legalization of assisted suicide would lead to a “slippery slope” that would eventually result in the nation becoming Hitler-esque in terms of how disabled and terminally ill patients are treated. This is easily avoidable through the legalization of assisted suicide, but not euthanasia, and there is a difference. With assisted suicide, the doctor may provide the patient with the fatal drugs, but unlike euthanasia, the doctor cannot administer the drugs, the patient has to take them. If they’re quadriplegic, then they can drink a drug cocktail. If they can’t swallow, they can push the button that gives them the fatal injection, whether it’s with their hand or their head or even biting down on it with their teeth; however the task is accomplished, as long as the patient has the final word on whether or not he/she lives or dies, there will never be a situation in which doctors are killing handicapped patients against their will.

I understand that you may consider my opinions despicable, and you may think that I’m prejudiced against the handicap, but this isn’t true at all. I’ve met those with disabilities that have lived wonderful lives, and I’m in absolute awe of people like Stephen Hawking who are still able to do amazing things even though they are confined to a wheelchair. Whether or not the severely handicapped are given the right to die, the vast majority of people will continue to deeply admire those that can live happily despite being confined to a wheelchair. I consider the disabled some of the strongest people in the world, because being disabled is a struggle, and the perseverance that these people must go through is absolutely inspiring. But then I imagine myself as a Quadriplegic, and I honestly don’t know if I would consider that kind of life worth living, because unless I end up being in that physical state, I will never know if I could continue to live happily. I really hope that I’d have the strength to, but I honestly can’t tell. But what I do know is that I want to have that choice between life and death, and I want everyone to have that overall choice, because it should be their right has human beings.

Jonathan To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="jonathan-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,

My name is Jonathan Davis and I am a 17 year old senior at Foothill Technology High School. I would like to thank you for taking time to read about my opinion on euthanasia even if it may differ from your own. So here it is:

After seeing both sides of the subject I believe that a person is in control of their own body (for the most part) and therefore is in control of their life and death. There are some factors of the human body that a person can not control such as their own hormones and when they go off, but a person can choose when they want to die and they should have a right to that choice.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian is a strong advocate in the field of promoting active euthanasia. I think that doctors should be allowed to inject patients with euthanasia if the patient is clinically sane, has been given ample time to think of his/her choice after telling the doctor about it, and legal documentation has been signed by the patient that gives the doctor immunity from being put on trial. Doctors who perform active euthanasia “under the radar” and then “on the radar” say that active euthanasia is wrong are facing hard decisions that are made on a case by case basis. They do not stand up for what is right because they do not want to lose their medical license and, in turn, their career. This is understandable that they want to keep their jobs individually, but if they stood up collectively then they would have a greater chance of not losing their licenses. It is sad that, because of religous beliefs, people are suffering to the bitter end of their lives and can not have the choice to die peacefully and dignified by active euthanasia.

Dr. Kevorkian is not a “Neo-Nazi” as he is portrayed as because he does not want to kill off other people to make a master race. The Nazi’s put innocent people in camps, experimented on them, tortured them, and killed them. Dr. Kevorkian is ending the suffering of a human being that does not want to suffer anymore and he does it in a dignified manner.

Overall, even though there are people that oppose the idea of active euthanasia, I think it should be legalized nationally in America for the rights of doctors and patients. "Active euthanasia is but one more way of delivering humane medical care." -Pieter Admiraal.

Emily To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="emily-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,

My name is Emily Dixon and I am a senior at Foothill Technology High School. I would first like to thank you for your willingness to weigh in on our class debate. It has certainly been interesting for my Bioethics class, many of us prospective entrants into the medical field, to hear your opinion. I can only hope that my expression of my beliefs might influence you to consider euthanasia as the last step of humanized healthcare from birth to death.

My opinion on this matter is short, a bit on the existentialist side, and firm: If someone wants to die and is of sound mind, they should be able to.

Though I do not accuse you of it, it would be unwise for a disabled advocate to presuppose that they know the pain of every terminally ill patient, every wheelchair-bound man or woman, and everyone who has ever experienced a debilitating disease. Each individual scenario is different, whether in terms of the severity of a disease, the patient’s pain threshold, or the like. Take, for example, Alison Davis. Born with myelomeningocele spina bifida, Davis has been confined to a wheelchair for the entirety of her life and has continually undergone major operations for as long as she can remember. However, despite her plight, she has found purpose for herself and is living happily today—a wife, a traveler, and a voice for those with disabilities. While I fully support her crusade to attain better treatment for handicapped persons everywhere, I disagree with her close-minded idea that since she has lived such a fabulous life (by her standards, anyway), everyone else should be mandated to find purpose and inner peace with their maladies as well. Some cannot. Chris Hill was a man who spent his youth traveling the globe, enjoying copious amounts of sexual activity, riding motorcycles, and actively pursuing a career in journalism. When he became paralyzed from the chest down in a hang-gliding accident, he lost the ability to do many of the things he once loved, and life became unbearable. Resolute in his will to die, he ended up committing suicide on his own. Had he had access to euthanasia, he could have died in a dignified manner in a hospital, surrounded by friends and family—not in secret, alone, scared, and unsure if his attempt would even be successful. While not everyone in Hill’s situation would find it as unbearable as he did, what right does any person have to tell any other that they have to live such a life of physical and emotional pain?

Perhaps most vehemently in opposition to euthanasia is the Catholic Church. Leaders of the church have placed a monumental value on life that they argue applies to everyone, regardless of individual circumstances or personal feeling on the matter. In its Declaration on Euthanasia, the church’s reasoning for opposing legalized euthanasia is that it is a “violation of divine law” and that it is “important to protect… the Christian concept of life against a technological attitude that threatens to become an abuse.” For a devout Catholic, these personal beliefs are more than acceptable, but for a nation who continues to boast the practice of “separation of church and state,” they are disconcerting. It is my opinion that the stanch beliefs of the Catholics in this nation should be disregarded in the establishment of a federal euthanasia policy, because if they were taken into account, the ability of the individual to follow their own moral compass would be severely limited.

Surprisingly enough, I have learned that the American Medical Association is also against active euthanasia. Their stated reasoning is that it is never a doctor’s job to “kill” a patient, and when you read between the lines, it is apparent that the AMA does not want the common people to associate medical professionals with death. However, it is a disservice to the patient where medical professionals prolong suffering of any kind. If the foremost rule of the Hippocratic Oath is “First, do no harm,” doctors everywhere are violating it by denying the right to an escape from pain. Therefore, I can say with conviction that when euthanasia is in the best interests of a patient, doctors are morally obligated to respect their autonomy and help them ‘til the bitter end.

Mr. Drake, I have perused your blog, “Not Dead Yet,” to a measurable extent. In my reading, I came across an article from late September titled **“** [|Washington State: Grieving Relative Compares Legally Scheduled Suicide to Execution] .” I respect your ability to put your feelings out in the public eye, but I was flabbergasted at your attempt to vilify everyone who wished to let a 94-year-old man finally pass away in peace. Lethal infirmity or no, as Doctor Pieter Admiraal expressed, “In one sense of ‘terminal illness,’ we are all terminally ill, since we are all mortal.” By informed consent, this patient made the decision for himself that his time on Earth was not worth living out to the fullest extent—not a choice that his relatives should have been able to override, as his melodramatic niece believes. (If others should have a definitive say in the matter, then by the same thinking, relatives should be able to override a patient’s decision to live as well, no?)

Ms. Coleman, I must first say that I am impressed with your courage and conviction in overcoming the obstacle that is your physical disability. However, I must also say that the film “Million Dollar Baby” was never supposed to convey the message that life is not living if you have a disability. (I would actually argue that Maggie’s paralysis was only a means for the storytellers to cut boxing out of her life altogether, and that the intended message of the film was that the absence of boxing—NOT the presence of the disability itself—was what made her life unbearable. But I digress.) I feel that any public outcry against the movie has simply been reactionary. Even if the purpose of “Million Dollar Baby” was to stand up for euthanasia, not all who are in favor of it hold the belief that the disabled are “better off dead.” In fact, many of us believe that in many cases, it is not in the best interests of the patient in question. As an aside, if you do not feel as though you are “living a fate worse than death,” continuing your “happy and meaningful” life might be paramount to trying to convince the rest of the world that you are right.

I dearly hope that I have not offended either of you, as I am appreciative of the opportunity I have had to exchange viewpoints with the both of you. I hope my letter finds you and your families in good health and good spirits.

Thank you for your time.

Very truly yours, Emily Dixon

Michael F To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="michaelf-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman

Before I delve into my specific opinion on euthanasia, I want to let you know that I respect your cause and by no means to I want to sound as if my opinion is superior. I have, as you might guess, far less experience with disabilities than you do. However, even random data can be significant, so my opinion must be shared.

In general, I oppose the use of euthanasia. I feel that options for happiness are always available, and suicide deprives people of the opportunity to search for that option. I recently observed Gary Kostiuk, a man diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, particiapteing in the World Series of Poker Main Event. If he needed a sign for optimism, it came when he finished in 85th place out of over 7000 entrants. Many disabled or terminally ill people may simply need a hobby, like poker for Kostiuk, to sustain them until illness takes its course. One source for that hobby could be giving inspiration to others. At the 2009 ELCA National Youth Gathering, one of the guest speakers was afflicted with a certain disease that required the amputation of his legs. He told the story of his life in a wheelchair and the challenges it presented him. All of that was motivational, but what really impressed me was the moment when he got out of his chair and began walking on his hands. Actions like that provide the strongest motivation, and while I do not suggest telling all disabled people to cut off their legs (unless they are paralyzed from the waist down, more to come on that later) they can easily find some way to become the best motivational speaker most people will see in their lives.

Despite my opposition to suicide, the realist in me knows that I cannot prevent it from occurring. Some people just find no joy in anything after affliction strikes, and their outlook is so bleak that no amount of persuasion will convince them. In cases like these, of terminal illness or complete paralysis, either euthanasia must be allowed, or the patient will find some other way of killing himself or herself. Therefore, I feel that euthanasia should be an open option, but not publicly advertised. In-N-Out has an option for some menu items called “Animal Style”, it does not list this option anywhere on the menu itself, yet some people like their food prepared with this option implemented. I think euthanasia should be like a less appetizing “Animal Style” option. While I dislike the option, I ultimately have little control over others opinions and cannot infringe upon them.

Thank you for taking the time to read these comments.

Sincerely Michael Fickenscher

Caroline To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="caroline-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Colman,

I would first like to thank you both for the opportunity to express my views on this topic, I hope this letter finds you in good health, and I hope that my words can influence you to think about euthanasia from my point of view. My name is Caroline Frambach, I am a senior at Foothill Technology High School, and I will likely be entering the field of medicine in the next eight years.

John Locke referred to it as a “natural right”, the Declaration of Independences calls it the “pursuit of happiness”, and in the medical field it is called patient autonomy. Advancing medical technologies has made possible the maintaining of life that has never existed in the past: patients are placed on ventilators, given feeding tubes, and medicated with the most advanced drugs of our time. These advancements have prolonged life to unnatural lengths and created the infinite shades of gray seen in the euthanasia debate. The questions regarding human euthanasia are “is it moral?” and “where do you draw the line?” These questions cannot be answered in a single sentence and the oversimplification of the issue does the immense conflict injustice. But I find that if a patient has decided that their own life is not worth living, and their circumstances meet the requirements, then they should be given the opportunity to explore their options. I strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be made a legal option for those with terminal illnesses and severe physical disabilities out of respect for patient autonomy. I acknowledge that many people against physician assisted suicide hold either religious views that prevent them from accepting the idea or maintain fears about the continuing prosperity of their own lives. The point that I would like to make today is that I believe that it should be made an option for those who want it, and for those who do not believe in this kind of suicide will simply not choose this option.

A woman who fights wholeheartedly against this “right to die” movement is Alison Davis, a 28 year old woman with myelomeningocele spina bifida. She works full-time defending the rights of handicapped people. She is frightened by those allying with physician assisted suicide because she feels that if it were in effect when she was born, she would have been terminated as an infant. She states, “Who could say that I have no worthwhile quality of life?” defending that her life has been fulfilling and prosperous. What Davis neglects to recognize is that patient consent is the only manner in which physician assisted suicide would be performed. By allowing those with severe physical disabilities an escape from a potentially life wrenching occurrence, does not suggest that the quality of life of those with disabilities is necessarily impaired. Many people immediately learn to thrive in their circumstances and have wonderful and fulfilling lives—just look at Stephen Hawking ! Patient informed consent is a critical element of physician assisted suicide and the termination of anyone against their will is a misguided judicial prediction.

A man by the name of Chris Hill understood that assisted suicide should be a viable option for releasing oneself from the shackles of one’s own body. Hill was paralyzed from the chest down and bitterly remarked in his suicide note, “I was never given the choice of a dignified death.” After living with his condition for some time, he found that his life was “a miserable existence, an awful parody of normalcy.” He believed that someone in his position should be given the option of taking away their own life because he suffered from extensive loss of quality of life as a paraplegic. He found his life unbearable and decided that quality of life meant more to him than quantity of life. It is his body, and ultimately his decision. I cannot emphasize enough that I do not believe that Chris Hill’s life was less valuable than the life of an able-bodied person; I just feel that he should have been given the option of taking his own life legally and peacefully with family and friends. It is likely that he died a brutal, panicked death by throwing himself down a long flight of stairs and this is a fate that I wouldn’t wish upon my enemies.

I support active euthanasia for those with terminal illnesses and less than a year to live, patients with severe physical disabilities, and anyone who can make a reasonable claim to impaired quality of life. There should be a waiting period for those considering ending their own lives, likely a few weeks or days for the terminally ill and a few months to a few years for the physically impaired. Legalizing suicide for these individuals does not suggest that they have a lower standard of living, and hence, possess less valuable lives. All that the legalization suggests is that living such a life is more painful or arduous and by no means degrades the meaning of life for those who find happiness in their disabilities or choose to live their lives to the end. Allowing the option of an out for those in severe pain, patients who want to end their lives in a “dignified” manner, and for those with lifestyle changing disabilities simply respects the will of the patient and their own autonomy. Euthanasia is not a preferred method of treating illness, nor is it a preferred method for anything. I see euthanasia as a last ditch effort to give the patient peace. After time has passed, counseling has failed, pain medications have been deemed ineffective, then and only then should euthanasia be considered an option. When all is said and done, and the patient still desires an escape from their suffering, the will of the patient should triumph above all else.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Caroline Frambach

Bryan F To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,

<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">I want to thank you for your time in reading my point of view. As someone who is not disabled, I cannot understand the experiences, both positive and negative, due to such circumstances. I would like for you to understand that I respect your views. I am here to present my point of view, and although you may not agree, I hope that you may respect my view as well.

<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">As I sat down to write this, I received a call from my dad. He has been spending a lot of time with my grandfather in the hospital, who broke his hip a few months ago. He is doing well, but his movement has been limited. He is having difficulty adjusting, and my dad was sad to see how much of a burden it was for my grandfather to just go to the bathroom. He told me that my grandpa was better off than most of the elderly in the hospital who had practically been abandoned or, as he described it, were just waiting to die. In some eerie sense of fate, he began to say how he felt that if that ever happened to him, he would want to die. He went on to describe to me how my grandmother seemed worried that something would happen to her. She did not want to undergo a long-term stay at the hospital. She knew that she would be treated well, but was afraid of not being able to die peacefully in her own home.

<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">This was shocking to me. My grandmother and my dad are firmly Catholic. I didn’t imagine this sort of response from them. I felt uneasy and silent; thinking about whether or not I could respect their decisions to die in those circumstances. If my dad became terminally ill, could I bring myself to allow him to die? If I were a doctor, could I kill my own father? No, I couldn’t. I couldn’t bring myself to do it. I don’t think I could allow for anyone else to do it either. But in the case of my grandmother, I think our family would let her die at home rather than prolonging her life temporarily in a hospital bed. I don’t fully understand why I would let one die and not the other, but I know I would painfully respect their decision.

<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">It’s unnatural to seek death. It seemingly goes against all principles of life, survival, and reason. I’m not sure whether it is worse to provide an “easy death”, or to let someone suffer. When it comes to assisted suicide as a medical practice, it all becomes less clear. While euthanasia by definition means an easy death, I don’t believe the decision making process should be simple. The main concern is that this may be a rash decision made under improper influence. Everyone involved should be willing to be held accountable for the death of person. When the illness is terminal, their choice should be respected. When it comes to a sudden handicap, there should be ample time for adjustment into a radically new lifestyle. A patient should be allowed to discuss it with a doctor. It should not be handled quickly, as once life is taken it cannot be returned.

<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">The main opponent to the end of any life is the Catholic Church. The general belief is that, as life is a gift from God, the taking of that life is a grave sin. The official statement on euthanasia defines any taking of life as wrong and immoral and without exception. It must be understood that a fundamental Christian must act like Christ. Jesus was meant to die to save his people, and he died in a horrible way. Death, and the process in which Christians believe God chose for them to die, is a step in following the life of Jesus. The pain of death is meant to bring one closer to God and to prepare an individual for joining God in Heaven. Under this belief, suicide or euthanasia cannot be an option. For this reason, the Catholic Church can never support euthanasia. The church does allow “passive euthanasia”, where a patient is taken off of all life support and allowed to die what is considered a natural death, but this is as far as they can go while following in accordance with God’s plan.

<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">The other concern with euthanasia is that it places less value on certain individuals. There is a fear that the acceptance of euthanasia will lead to a decision towards ending the lives or certain groups of people. This slippery slope idea is one that states current euthanasia propositions could lead us to such Nazi policies as the mandatory killings of the handicapped. Those who hold this fear rightfully do not want a handicapped individual to be seen as having a smaller value of life due to their disability. I do not believe that the handicapped should be killed. I don’t see euthanasia as an attempt to have one group decide to ease what they believe is suffering in another group.

<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">Some individuals can never reach such a level of peace and acceptance with a handicap. In these extreme cases, time does little to change their personal suffering. There is no cure for that type of mental suffering. It is important to make the distinction that not every handicapped individual wants to, or even should, end their life. It should be acknowledged that many have lived with a handicapped and, more importantly, have lived happily. At the same time, those few who seek death as a release should not be ignored.

<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">Pieter Admiraal looks at the issue very seriously. When a patient comes to him with the prospect of euthanasia, he listens. He works with a team who hesitate at these requests and consult the patient. He doesn’t seek to simply end the patient’s life with a quick decision. He understands that a patient’s request for euthanasia may, after all, be a cry for help. This is how he believes the medical community should approach the issue. He doesn’t want doctors to ignore the pleas of patients, even if that may be regarding their death. In his opinion, medical professionals should respect a patient’s decision. They should listen to their request for euthanasia and act accordingly with consideration and emotional and spiritual guidance. Should everyone be in agreement, the patient will be allowed to die. This, he believes, is the humane method for dealing with euthanasia.

<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">I agree with Pieter Admiraal’s approach. The patient is not encouraged to die, it merely remains an option. My opinion is that those who truly seek an easy death make such a decision based on their own suffering, experience, and moral values. Those who do not make that decision should in no way be required to. It is the responsibility of the doctor and hospital to take proper care with a patient’s request, but it is ultimately an individual’s decision, and if that individual does not respect another’s decision to die, then they will not make it themselves.

I hope you understand that I do not believe everyone should make the decision to be euthanized. I simply believe it should be an option for those who consent to it. I thank you again for your time in reading my opinion.

Sincerely,

Bryan Fregoso

Kirsten To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="kirsten-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Steven Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman,

I would first like to thank you for being willing to engage in this discussion with us. It is nice to be able to have discussions like this with a person outside of our class.

I’d like to share a story. I think it is what shapes my view on this topic.

My grandfather has neuropathy. Over my lifetime I have watched him disintegrate from the strong, athletic grandpa of my youth to the man who needs help with almost everything. You would think that this would be devastating, the worst thing that could happen to a man who valued his fitness. Surprisingly, my grandfather is one of the happiest people I know. When I see him, he needs help getting up, he is starting to lose control over his hands and he gets pneumonia a couple times a year. He has in a sense lost his dignity. Yet, he is so positive and continues to find value in the little things he can do. It amazes me the love of life he has.

I always wondered if he was upset with the way life had turned out. He says he doesn’t regret the fact that his employment as a dentist caused his disease (he worked with chemicals that have now been linked to neuropathy). Every move he makes is visibly painful. Every couple of minutes he gets a shooting pain somewhere in his body, and yet, he goes on smiling. I admire his courage and his strength so much. I don’t know if I would be able to live the way he does every day. A part of me believes that his suffering is unfair, but being the devout Christian he is, he sees it as his burden to carry. And while my heart breaks watching him struggle, I am incredibly grateful he chooses to continue to live. I know that if he made the decision to end his life, I would learn to accept it. It would be hard but I would understand. I can’t imagine how difficult his daily life is. I can’t imagine watching myself change from a healthy body to one of skin and bones, but then again I am not my grandfather.

I don’t enjoy the idea of people being able to legally kill themselves. Personally, I am not sure I would be able to give up on life after the news of a terminal illness, or in the case of a horrific accident. I do not doubt that learning to live with a disability is a huge challenge, but it is not by any means unattainable. I do believe a person has a right to their own body. If they choose to end their life, it is not my position to prevent them from making their own decisions. However, I believe in the cases of those who have been recently disabled, there should be a period of time before they can choose to end their life. In that time period they should receive counseling and encouragement to learn how to cope with their new lifestyle.

I do realize that there are some people who will continue with their want to end their life. In cases like Ramon San Pedro, who throughout the twenty plus years of his disability, continually wanted to end his life, there should be the capability for him to choose to end it. For cases like Dan James, I don’t believe he gave himself enough time to learn to cope with his disability. He gave up hope too quickly, and he made up his mind to end his life before he truly learned to value the things he still had left.

There are a numerous amount of factors to be considered for whether or not people should be able to take their own life. It is a difficult topic to come to a conclusion on. However, considering all we have discussed in our BioEthics class, I believe in a person’s right to their body. Although, I do not fond of people deciding to end their lives, I believe in the case they are terminally ill or find a serious disability to be unbearable, it should ultimately be their choice. Thank you again for your time and willingness to participate! It is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Kirsten Garbe

Rachael To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="rachael-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman,

I would first like to thank you both for taking the time to listen to our carefully discussed and thought out ideas. I in no way believe that euthanasia is a process that should simply be an option and a right to those that have thoroughly thought it out for themselves.

Euthanasia in today's society, is portrayed as an easy way out for those less than able-bodied. Literally, euthanasia means "easy death," even though it is anything but. Euthanasia is one of the biggest controversies of the decade. With assisted suicide only legal in two states and a few European countries many doctors and disabled rights activists strongly oppose the idea of it ever being administered. Not only do doctors, along with the Catholic Church, feel that assisted suicide to terminally ill patients and the handicapped is a felony and a sin but it disregards and shuns the right and beauty to life. If euthanasia is legalized, they feel this slippery slope of killing will take away the preciousness that life has to offer each individual. Although having a dim hope in favor of assisted death becoming legal, I believe that this is a choice to be decided by the benefactor and no one else. Euthanasia does not suppress the handicapped, it simply gives another option when the weight of the world becomes too uncontrollable.

By code of the Catholic Church: suicide is a sin. It is taken that human life is a right that needs to be protected by all means necessary. By taking one's own life, or having a doctor take their patient's life, they are "opposing God's love for that person...and therefore committing a crime of the utmost gravity." Life is not only precious, but everything in God's plan is special for each person, even if he chooses to take them early. The Church believes, that just as Jesus Christ carried the burden of the world's sin, "everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God's plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must bear fruit already here on earth, but that finds its full perfection only in eternal life." However, if a patient finds themselves terminally sick, they may no longer request extra care, such as feeding tubes or air machines, to prolong the inevitable death. No matter what age- young, old, sick, healthy, or handicapped, life is a right that no one will take away.

Disabled Rights Activists also believe that by allowing assisted suicide, the mass would seem to believe that handicapped people have a less valuable existence. Alison Davis, a patient born with severe spina bifida, explains that by legalizing euthanasia to handicapped babies, she would not have been alive. Every day she pushes through considerable pain, has undergone 20 operations, and is constantly being pushed in a wheelchair; but Davis feels her quality of life is no less than ordinary. She went to school, graduated from college with an honors degree in sociology, and has been happily married for over eight years. By her birth-doctor telling her parents to "go home and have another," Davis feels that the entire nation thinks down upon the handicapped, by giving babies with congenital defects the 28 day period title of 'non-person hood.'

To those that wish to live, fully capable as a handicapped person, this sounds like the only viable option. However, to those that experienced a tragedy after a full life, being handicapped and paraplegic is the worst possible outcome they could have imagined. In "The Note,"quadriplegic Chris Hill writes his last letter to family and friends, detailing why he decided to take his own life, even after five attempts with no success. Hill explains that after traveling his entire life, sitting in a bed for the remainder was no way to continue on. He had swam with dolphins in the Bahamas, rode through the sands of Egypt, attained two university degrees, ridden a motorcycle at over 265 km/h in Japan-- he had done more things than some experience in their lifetimes. So by being trapped within a body that was "three-quarters dead," Hill knew his life was no longer one he wanted to lead. Every day he was humiliated, tortured in agony, and could no longer do anything he had once taken for granted. At one point in his note, he explains how "every time [he] had to ask someone to do something for [himself], every time [he] was dragged up a damn step, [it] was like thrusting a hot blade into the place where [his] pride used to be." Even after he discussed his options with happily living quadriplegics, he realized that they were capable, but not one of them were inspiring. Hill felt the only option left was to take his own life, because active assisted suicide is not legal in Australia.

Hill, as well as many others who took their own lives or attempted to do so, were no longer able to see the glory and grace existence had once offered them. Although Hill was in favor of euthanasia, he had no intention of pushing his beliefs on another individual. That is what should be done for all terminal or handicapped patients. The hardest decision of one's life does not deserve to be made by someone else, because they aren't going through what the patient is. Luckily, there are those (although rough around the edges), like Dr. Kevorkian who see the power that doctors hold in the matter. Dr. K. was an activist in favor of assisted suicide who believed that doctors need to be there at all times for their patients, even when helping them end their pain. In the end, doctors are there to help suffering and pain, so why would they be against something that evidently helps? Dr. Death (as he was known) didn't believe in taking lives, he believed in the right to an honorable death, but only when his patients came to him asking for it. Not once did he go out looking for terminal patients, not any of the 130 that he helped to die. Even after the patients found him, Dr. Kevorkian would ask them to wait and think about the choice they were about to make, to sign multiple papers allowing his assistance, and to have absolute trust that what he was doing was helping those into an "easy death."

When discussing the matter of Euthanasia, I believe the decision should be solely left to the patient. Why should a doctor be able to keep someone alive, when they are unwavering in their choice to die? Why should a religious figure be able to tell a terminally ill patient that they are a sin against God if the struggle of life is too much anymore? While there is no stopping families and members of the community from voicing their opinions, I feel that this hard choice is too much for one deciding factor as a Doctor's Code or a religious stance. If the patient is religious, they can make their own peace with whichever lord they seek, but by telling someone they are a sinner headed for Hell if they wish to die? This is forcing someone to stay alive, eventually leaving them in their own personal Hell. If I had a life-damaging tragedy, I would not want to continue a life of constant torture. However, I would also be too afraid to take my life on my own.

The right to die should be given in all states to terminally ill patients, as well as those with crippling conditions such as quadriplegia or stage four cancer. This needs to be a right that doctors should uphold, as they are not only here to keep their patients healthy, but maintain their dignity. However, this hope is not ideal, forcing the courageous professionals to hide under the radar by “accidentally” giving too much morphine while everyone is out of the room. If we keep this act up, doctors can do so much better for their trusting patients. However, if we keep having loud-mouths like Doctor Kevorkian who broadcast live deaths in the chance that people will be understanding, then more and more doctors will shy away from helping those in need. If we keep the process of Euthanasia simple and down the middle of the road, then so many more patients will have the help they deserve. By keeping this rigorous decision to the patient alone, dignity may be restored and the depression rates among the ill and handicapped would possibly lessen.

Thank you again for listening to us. It will really help us all see through other eyes on such a difficult topic.

Sincerely, Rachael G.

Cassandra To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="cassandra-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman,

My name is Cassandra and I am a senior at Foothill Technology High School, hoping to pursue a career in the health field in the near future. I would like to thank you for being a part of this discussion with my class on euthanasia. Bioethics has been quite an interesting class, and I hope that you can see my perspective on the controversial topic of euthanasia.

My opinion is quite simple – if someone wants to die and they are of sound mind when they make this decision, then we should let them.

I am not degrading people’s lives whatsoever. I find it very noble that you persevere through life despite your disability. Each individual has different experiences in life, and if an individual becomes terminally ill or becomes disabled – each person will handle it differently. If I were to become disabled or suffer from a terminal illness, I would want to die. It is not that I don’t care about my life – it is that I wouldn’t want to live a life of being handicapped or terminally ill. My passion and life is riding horses and has been since the time I was four years old. If I wasn’t able to ride horses ever again, it would simply break my heart. I also love to travel – and simply living as a “head in a bed” would not be a just life for me. However, people who have lived with disabilities their whole life such as Allison Davis – who is still able to persevere and have a successful life. However, I have to point out that she has always been disabled – so she has never experienced a life without her disability. I have experienced a life of being healthy – and becoming disabled would change me life forever.

The organization that seems to be most against euthanasia is the Catholic Church. In the “Declaration on Euthanasia” by Cardinal Franjo Seper, he states that “it is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying….no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly….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”. The Catholic Church believes that euthanasia is a crime against life. However, what ever happened to separation of church and state? In a country where church and state are “supposedly” separated, it is hard for me to understand why we cannot have euthanasia legalized throughout the country.

We read an article about Chris Hill – an Australian journalist and “outdoors lover” who became paralyzed from the chest down after a hang-gliding accident. He wanted to commit suicide after being disabled for years, where he felt he lost his dignity and what he loved the most- being outdoors. He said in his suicide note entitled “The Note” that “I accepted death – embraced it eagerly, in fact, after so many months of the nightmare – without fear or regret. I had a full, rewarding and successful life by any measure, and in my last weeks I couldn’t think of a single thing I’d always wanted to do but hadn’t yet done”. If he felt he lived a successful and fulfilling life, then why do people condemn euthanasia? Don’t people have the right to their own body?

I respect both of you for what you have done – you obviously work hard to grant the right of the disabled to have successful and joyful lives, as any other person deserves to have. Ms. Coleman, I read your article “Seeing //Million Dollar Baby// From My Wheelchair” and respect your opinions on the movie and can understand your perspective. However, isn’t this just a movie? It seems a bit reactionary to think that this movie is centered aroubd the issue of euthanasia. The focus of the story was about Maggie’s boxing career, and you can tell once she becomes paralyzed she cannot do what she loves – which is boxing. She is devastated to be forever disabled, and I believe Frankie did a great act when he gave Maggie what she wanted – to die. She was of sound mind when making this decision. This movie shouldn’t be condemned just because the issue of euthanasia arises in it, since I believe that a movie should bring up a point or issue in society. This movie certainly does, and I thought it was wonderfully made and showed the audience to not condemn the life of a disabled person whatsoever but to cherish and pursue your passions – which was boxing for Maggie. Mr. Drake, I believe what you are doing is wonderful – that you are advocating for the right of the disabled. However, I believe it is the individual’s choice for his or her decision to die, and that everyone has a “right to die”. I want to be able to choose my fate – if I develop a terminal illness or become disabled.

I hope I have not offended you in any way, but I am simply stating my opinion and views on the controversial topic of euthanasia. I hope that you two continue to thrive and pursue your passions as you wish.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Cassandra

Loren To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="loren-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,
====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Thank you for allowing me to discuss my point of view regarding this very controversial topic. I do not know the pain and suffering that wither of you have one through, and will not pretend that I do. That being said, I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion ==== ====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">As much as I would like to moderate myself for the audience that I am speaking to involving the issue of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia in general, I cannot truly do that without betraying what my clear opinion on the manner is. I believe that forces such as disability advocate groups and the Catholic Church, though I can see that they both have relevant arguments involving euthanasia, are wrong to oppose it. I find myself siding with Dr. Kevorkian and the several terminally ill patients who have embraced and been part of the recent euthanasia rights movement. First of all, before I address both sides of the argument that exist in this realm, I would like to dispel the general "allowing euthanasia will inevitably lead to Neo Nazism and encouraged/forced euthanasia of certain individuals" argument that exists within most of the groups opposed to physician assisted suicide. This argument, also known as slippery slope, seems to make it so that anything can lead to an aspect of the Nazi regime being imposed on modern America. An example of this misguided and intellectually dishonest way of thinking is this: during the Third Reich, many of the Nazis including Adolf Hitler himself supported a vigorous and strong anti tobacco campaign, largely spurred by the fact that German doctors were the first doctors to discover a link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer. Let us then say a modern politician, such as John Boehner or George W. Bush, decides to support an anti tobacco campaign in the 21st century, and their opponents accuse them of being "Nazis" and using "Gestapo esque tactics" in order to keep individuals from smoking. Is comparing an anti smoking and anti tobacco campaign from the Third Reich to one of a few Republican holier-than-thou politicians a clear an accurate comparison? This is obviously not a fair comparison. ==== ====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Speaking of holier-than-thou individuals, let us examine the "official," Catholic position on this issue. Though I am not religious, I understand the weight that this declaration has on many people. According to the papal bull that was declared by Fanjo Seper, also known as the Declaration On Euthanasia, "no one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God's love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity." This already rules out both the acts of murder and euthanasia, but has a very clear loophole within it. What if the innocent person is bed ridden, and begs for a form of active euthanasia that will ultimately end his or her life? The Catholic Church, in response to this question, posits that the suffering is not exactly a plea for euthanasia, but "in fact it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love." So, Catholics generally believe that cries for the ending of one's life and euthanasia are in fact misguided attempts at expressing a want of love. ==== ====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Along with the Catholic's, disabled rights groups such as the American Association of People with Disabilities and Disabled In Action have been at the forefront of opposition to the act of euthanasia. Individuals involved in these groups or that share opinions with these groups, such as Alison Davis, believe in the idea of the "right to life," believing that "The notion of 'non personhood' denies the right of handicapped people to be recognized as equal human beings in a caring society, and it makes a mockery of the goodwill which seemingly abounded in the International Year of Disabled People," when discussing legislation allowing doctors to withhold treatment from newborn handicapped babies. Basically, those involved in Disability right movements ultimately believe that the sort of legislation that is being passed today may lead inevitably to them being considered second class citizens, and ultimately extermination. ==== ====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">On the other side of the argument lies Doctor Kevorkian and patients that have both been fighting for their right for euthanasia and those that have already participated in it. Kevorkian believes in the idea of the right to die as a fundamental right of human beings, postulating that he isn’t ending the life of the individual and more that he is ending the suffering. Along with arguing that, by the time that he has reached his patient they already have lost their life to suffering, Kevorkian further believes that every patient that he kills should undergo a strict emotional and psychological evaluation before they can participate in such a deadly procedure, and that "doctors are cowards" because they do not admit to their support of such a controversial method of ending someone's life. Along with Kevorkian, patients who are part of physician assisted suicide are large supporters of it. Take Dan James, a former British rugby player who became paralysed during a game and decided to end his life through the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. Dan's parents, commenting in the London Telegraph, said "our son could not have been more loved and had he felt he could live is life this way he would have been loved just the same, but this was his right as a human being." Basically, like Kevorkian, Dan's parents believe that the right to die is a right that cannot be taken away by others, and is something that is to each his own as the old idiom goes. ==== ====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">My opinion on this matter is that the right to die is a fundamental right that every human should have. I believe that what Clint Eastwood's character did in the 2004 film Million Dollar Baby to Hilary Swank was the right action to take. Swank's character, whose entire life was based around boxing, had been completely ended by a fateful punch and a stumble onto the ground that had caused her to suffer severe spinal cord injuries and end up lying in a hospital bed for the rest of her life. It seems unfair that a human being has to wait and suffer through the rest of their lives when they are past their glory days, counting down the minutes and living in anguish and horror, sometimes completely unable to recover from near fatal injuries. ==== ====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Though I do agree with Dr. Kevorkian and the many patients that have chosen the route of physician assisted suicide, I also believe that a complete and comprehensive psychological and emotional evaluation of the individual should be taken before the person is allowed to commit the act that they are about to commit. I know many individuals who, if physician assisted suicide were legal, would jump on the horse of death and ride it towards the horizon of hereafter based on short term depression. If cases like these were commonplace when it comes to physician assisted suicide, and the psychological evaluations are lax and sometimes even nonexistent, I would rather have euthanasia be illegal than to see people who are choosing to commit suicide on a whim do it every day. ==== ====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I realize that the Catholics do believe that killing another human being is against God's plan, but isn't any interference with human beings medically against God's plan? And what about the secular nature that this country was founded on. Why is it that God should take front seat to a rational euthanasia policy, let alone be allowed in the car? ==== ====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Disabled rights groups, in their argument, essentially use the slippery slope argument that I have refuted above, and ultimately are wrong in the respect that countries including Switzerland and The Netherlands have not embraced further more malicious policies regarding euthanasia, though I can see why some may believe this may come into fruition. ==== ====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Ultimately, I believe the right to die is an inalienable right. However, I realize we have the opportunity to agree to disagree, and humbly and hopefully await your response to this. ====

Nick To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="nick-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Colman,

Let me just say that I have the utmost respect for your opinions on this incredibly touchy issue and I have even more respect for you both as human beings and the arduous, yet courageous lives you live. However, I must say that we have completely contrasting views on the matter of physician assisted suicide. In general, I find that humanity, on the individual level, should be given complete autonomy over the self. By this, I mean that a person should be able to rationalize decisions and act freely based on the anticipated outcome. This notion of complete personal liberty goes as far as to justify the often frowned upon act of suicide.

Now, let me pause a minute here. You will see that my peers, writing on the same subject, use external anecdotes and personal views. My perception really does not require any outside information to explain, as I root my personal beliefs in logic. You see, I find that our scopes on the issue at hand are different. While you focus on physician assisted suicide and its eligibility for the handicapped and ill, I believe that is but one small piece of a larger matter in question: suicide as a whole. But is suicide ever tolerable?

The act of suicide is a result of the buildup of anguish, be it mental or physical. People end their lives to escape pain. So, by refusing the option of suicide to an individual, you are refusing them relief from burden. Perhaps this is a huge stretch for some, but I see no difference in malevolence between prolonging life against one's own will and ending life against one's own will. Denying a cancer patient's request to get just a wee bit more morphine to just end it all brings just as much suffering and pain as a student gunned down in a school shooting. Life and death are just states of existence; not allowing someone to die is just as morally detestable as forcing someone to die. In my eyes, both are forms of violence, both bring pain against one's own will, both are wrong.

Therefore, I reiterate the cornerstone of my belief system: autonomy. One of your main arguments is that simply having the option to physician assisted suicide will begin a slippery slope that will devalue the lives of the handicapped. In upholding the platform of choice, a slippery slope cannot form, as suicide is a right to all human beings, not solely the handicapped. We are mankind. We are the most powerful beings in the land. We have the ability to reason. We have the cranial development to make rational and intelligent choices based on fact and knowledge. Therefore, if a person should make the rational choice, after weighing the consequences, of taking their own life, that decision should be respected, be the person in the utmost of health or the darkest of ills.

Honestly, I find this issue to be easy to solve theoretically: don't like physician assisted suicide? Don't do it. Done. Let choice reign supreme. Although, I know there are complicating factors, primarily mass media swaying views, potentially glorifying suicide, a major example is seen in Clint Eastwood's “Million Dollar Baby”. On the one hand, I agree with the criticism, I find that on the most basic perspective, the film can be seen to promote a “death before handicap” message. On the other hand, I think the context of the movie uses the whole idea not to send any sort of point at all, rather to use an incredibly heart felt and dramatic scenario to show the development of Eastwood's character from a cold old man to a sincere and compassionate one. Overall, I think opponents of the movie should identify the situation as purely dramatized and situational: it should not be such a flabbergasting idea that a woman whose only love is boxing should want to take her own life when she is rendered immobile. Imagine I protested Romeo and Juliet because I find that the play sends a “death before broken heart” message! The base argument is the exact same as that against “Million Dollar Baby” but I would be blasted as crazy for opposing such a touching love story for such a kooky reason. Is Eastwood's movie really all that different?

Let people choose. The right to an informed decision, be it about something as menial as what to eat for breakfast or with as much gravity as whether or not to end one's own life, is in my opinion the most distinct and important characteristic that we as humans have the privilege to exercise. The matter of physician assisted suicide is not some yes or no answer, deeply rooted in emotion and religious doctrine. Rather, the overall perception of right or wrong varies at the personal level, and a logical approach to the issue points to only one conclusion: autonomy.

Sincerely, Nicholas Herson

Bryan H To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="bryanh-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman, If you are reading this that means that I am going to die someday. Granted, the two things aren't necessarily connected, but nonetheless the statement still holds true. Mortality is not something that I can control, the act of breathing is necessary to keep me alive but at the same time it gradually scars the lungs due to the constant influx of air. The only point that really matters to me is choice. In a way, everything is already pre-determined for me, because there is nothing I can do to change the fact that I am going to die. What does matter to me is that I should have the ability to choose the manner in which I am going to die, because that is really all that I have. I believe that there are a select few inalienable rights, and the right to decide the manner in which you die should be one of them, regardless of your physical condition.

I am in no way advocating that everyone who is handicapped or suffering from a terminal illness should be forced into accepting lethal doses of drugs. I understand why handicapped people, like Allison Davis, would be worried about this. A lot has been said about how allowing assisted suicide is a slippery slope to mandating suicide, and how that argument is a slippery slope fallacy. All I am trying to do is say why my feet are on relatively stable ground: individuals should have the right to commit suicide regardless of their condition. I believe that the handicapped should be able to have access to assisted suicide from a doctor. I also believe that a physically fit person should have the same ability. What it all comes down to is choice. As Dr. Pieter Admiraal stated, it is about protecting the patient's autonomy. Davis is absolutely correct when she says that doctors should not have the right to decide for anyone whether or not they are fit to live. It is the choice of the patient. I think that everyone can agree that there are individuals who genuinely want to die, and are of sound mind, and should have the authority to make decisions in regards to their life. Ramon Sampedro deserved the ability to make his own decision about whether to live or die. Denying individuals control over their own body is, in my opinion, more morally questionable than helping them die.

I don't believe that Clint Eastwood was trying to make a larger point with his film "Million Dollar Baby." It was a story, a critique on boxing culture perhaps and a critique on the medical treatment system, but nonetheless not an advocation for suicide. I am sorry that it made you uncomfortable Ms. Coleman, and I am sorry that society does indeed have a bias against the handicapped. It is unquestionably true that there is a particular form of bigotry towards people who are handicapped, one that as a white male I am probably not capable of truly understanding. But as a form of expression, film has to continue to be something that "pushes the buttons" so to speak.

I do not mean to offend you in any way shape or form, but as your writing so clearly condemns the viewpoint of people who oppose your thinking, I will attempt to defend them. Daniel James' family thought that they were doing what was best for their son. Ramon Sampedro thought that he was doing what was best for him. If you think that you know better than these individuals, that is your prerogative. It is also theirs.

I don't believe that there is no form of moral objectivism. Buying a house while people are starving is morally objective, disagreeing with abortion and supporting the war in Afghanistan is moral objectivism, and stating that the government has the duty to protect life and then refusing to allow patients to live the way they choose to is morally objective. We cannot have rules that do not allow people to make the choices they wish to make in regards to their own life. I disagree with people who say that the government has a duty to protect life. The government has a duty to protect the value of life and individual choice. If someone truly wants to commit suicide, in any physical condition, the government nor any other body or group should not try to prolong the suffering and neither should doctors.

Thank you so much for your time. I hope that we can all get along.

With gratitude, Bryan H.

Michael H To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
Dear Mr. Drake and Mrs. Coleman,

Thanks for the time to read the arguments of a class of high school seniors. I am Michael Huang, a student at Foothill, and although we both have an interest in the medical field, we have different views on euthanasia.

I do not know you both well, and can not judge on how religious you are in your respective religions, but the Catholic Church is hypocritical and generalizes far too often. The Catholic Church’s argument against this topic usually consists of three words – God, natural, and Bible. In the “Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, the Church mentions that medicine has the capacity to prolong life, which leads to moral problems. They did not mention what moral problems there are to prolonging life, and nowhere in their declaration did they directly object to prolonging life; rather, they have issues with ending life. The Catholic Church is so confident in its power to change societal ethics that they generalize. Everyone should life, regardless of how much pain or medicine it takes to keep them medically alive. Even the atheist, who in his whole life has avoided contact with religion, finds that his way out of suffering is barred by the very same organization he so denied the right to enter his life. They have stepped too far. We are all individual people with individual thoughts and wishes. People regularly complain that the government has interfered with their life too much. The Catholic Church should not be exempt from this complaint.

While you, Mrs. Coleman, may find life as a blessing, others may not. Chris Hill tried and failed to have a normal life. Every day, he had to have someone shower and dress him. To him, life became demoralizing. He wrote a suicide note, which we wrote in class, and I empathize with him. I know how it feels to be extremely active, and to have everything taken away so suddenly by injuries. Compared to his permanent paralyzing injury, mine was much milder. To live like that for my entire life would be torture for me. I would not stand for the Catholic Church’s ban on euthanasia and I would follow whatever action it took to free me from my trapped body.

And that is the problem. Jimmy Wheeler’s wife had Alzheimer’s and tried to kill her because it hurt him to see her in this state. After over sixty years of marriage, she no longer recognized him. He attempted numerous times to kill himself and his wife. The legalization of euthanasia would eliminate all the ineffective and brutal ways that he tried. It would have been a greater relief for him and society if his wife was allowed to die by euthanasia.

Doctors have for centuries agreed to euthanasia. It may not be obvious, but one of the clauses of the Hippocratic Oaths is the phrase, “It may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.” There is the key word “may”, but doctors must be prepared to take a life if necessary. It should be a vital part of the job, and not shunned. The Netherlands have had euthanasia for more than two decades. Doctor Pieter Admiraal, a Dutch doctor, has seen no evidence of a push to kill all disabled or incompetent people.

Euthanasia should be one of many choices that a patient should consider. Euthanasia should be one of the many options that doctors put on the table. People have freedom of choice in religion. There is no reason that euthanasia should not be the same.

Sincerely, Michael Huang

Ariana To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="ariana-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,

Thank you so much for the allowing my class the opportunity to widen our horizons and gain knowledge and perspective from your participation with my class. As a handicapped student, a participant in the Bioethics course, and a individual with dreams of becoming a doctor, I found particular interest in the opinions of others on physician assisted suicide. When it comes to being handicapped, I experience pain everyday, deal with limited mobility, and the misunderstanding of others (granted my handicap is not severe in comparison). However, I believe that in order to ever even consider wanting to end one’s own life, the pain and suffering must be exponentially more. My disability for example has never forced me to consider wanting to end my own life, and I find difficulty with the argument stating that it will make the disabled feel more insecure is incredibly wrong. It is not neo-Nazi like, because it is no way is telling people who are disabled that they are less of a person. Having a disability is suffering, but it is the type of suffering that makes you stronger, that hurts but is forgettable, because you are able to live on and get through it still functioning in someway. Yeah, it is true that options in life may be limited, but not ALL options are ever limited for those. However, when you get to the point where life with the terminal illness is so unbearable and that this new pain is so terrible that thinking isn’t even an option, I believe there needs to be a way to help. Some find the will to power through and do as best they can but for those who can’t live on in their condition they should be able to die without having to suffer through all that a terminal disease entails. They should have the ability to truly control their lives, up until their death.

Pieter Admiraal said, “ as doctors we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients, and to respect their autonomy.” I tend to agree, We pride ourselves on putting patients first, but that is in no way seen for the patients, when patient autonomy is completely disregarded the well-being of the patient is forfeited, their needs to be a way in which the patient can have the final decision, and their voice ultimately heard. It seems as if doctors are purely extending the life of the patient, causing them more excruciating pain and an unnatural and unwanted extended life. Would you want to live to see your body completely deteriorate, with one organ shutting down after the other? I know I wouldn’t!

I find it incredibly interesting that most people who have seen a friend or family member go through an excruciatingly painful terminal disease, fully support Kevorkian and the idea of physician assisted suicide. No one wants to see people suffer, and I believe that physician assisted suicide would end that. I unlike Kevorkian, however, believe that direct injections to the patient are not the way physician assisted suicide should be done, except for in extremely rare cases. I believe the devices and pill methods used previously are the right way to go. They allow for the patient to make the final decision, having the ability to back out at anytime. I acknowledge the fact that sometime there will be patients who do not have the ability to help themselves to die, and I think that the direct involvement of a doctor, then, and then only should be taken into consideration. When an individual makes the decision, after being diagnosed with a terminal disease, and having thoroughly thought through the choice, I believe that it truly should be their choice, and therefore doctor involvement would take some of the choice away, allowing for people to argue that doctors and pushing for the deaths of their patients.

In a quote in response to an article on Kevorkian an individual proposed the thought provoking argument that, “death with dignity and ending a life is "playing God" but extending a life through intubation/medications/GI infusions isn't? When you decide to administer that first dose of Lasix to a patient with CHF you are effectively "playing God" (if you believe these fanatics logic and the when it's your time to go fallacy...) Bottom line...if we didn't intervene it would be their time to go...they're lungs would fill with fluid and they would die. Everyone should have the right to decide when they have had enough intervention.” I for one believe this is true, it is not fair to continue to shove tubes down ones throat, and mess with their bodies, to the point where they can’t even move, when this was never wanted. I by no means am trying to belittle the value of human life, however, the value needs to be measured by the individual, not others, and therefore I believe that it is the individuals choice to decide whether or not their life should be continued. No one else can feel what the patient is feeling and I think people need to realize that and respect others opinions. Thank you so much for your time.

Sincerely,

Ariana Johnson

Noelie To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="noelie-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

I would like to start off by thanking you for generously volunteering your time to me and my peers in Bioethics. Most of us are intending to go into an occupation that involves health sciences and will undoubtedly be faced with issues of scruples sometime in our career. I believe that along with the knowledge of science and modern medicine that we, as students looking to pursue a medical occupation, must consider the perhaps more complex issue of what is moral versus what is immoral. I appreciate you allowing us the opportunity to address such issues.

Upon first consideration it is a sickening thought for me, physician assisted suicide that is. Although I feel uncomfortable even considering it, I believe it is important for people to critically think about the issue, and I appreciate that we have had the opportunity to do so. After watching the movie “Million Dollar Baby” the issue of physician-assisted suicide for the disabled was brought closer to home, so to speak. [If you haven’t seen the movie read no further] As I watched Clint Eastwood, who played Hilary Swank’s boxing trainer, inject a lethal dosage of adrenaline into “his darling, his blood” I could not stop myself from experiencing a surge of emotion. I was touched by the concept of someone whose love runs so deeply, that everyday it is expressed regardless of the circumstances, having to perform active euthanasia because no one else will do so such as medical professionals.

I am having particular difficulty deciding upon where my views lie on this subject matter, however I do not believe that this is necessarily a negative dilemma to be experiencing. This is a topic of great weight that should be considered accordingly before any decisions are made about its legalization. I think the reason it is so difficult for me to take stance on physician assisted suicide is because I am not quite sure with whether I should listen more closely to the logical argument or the emotions and gut feelings I experience when contemplating the issue. While the logical argument appeals to me, let me explain why I feel so deeply divided in regards to this issue. My grandma suffered a severe stroke close to thirteen years ago. As a result, she was left unable to speak, walk, eat, or move at all for that matter. When I look back a pictures of her a few months following her stroke I noticed that she smiled and that her eyes looked straight into the camera, but when I see her now I do not notice the same cognizance. My grandpa explained to me that her doctors believe she has suffered many more strokes following the initial one, which has only contributed to the severity of her state. My grandfather refuses to place her in an assisted living home, and instead has taken care of her everyday of his life since the day she first suffered her stroke. He is lucky to get out twice a week for a few hours to go grocery shopping or possibly fishing. He lives in a silent world with his wife, his only companion being his small Siamese cat, Rocky. Although my grandpa suffers along with my grandma of her disability, I do not believe, that if given the opportunity he could decide to let her go. When I consider my grandparents’ situation I ask myself, why should they be faced with such a decision? A valid point is made is the Catholic Declaration of Euthanasia that states that the “technological attitude [of this time period] threatens to become an abuse.” Why are we even considering the possibility of killing someone even if the action would be done in order to end this person’s suffering? Does William Toffler, an executive director oh Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, make valid point when he states that, “the solution to suffering never is to eliminate the sufferer?” Could we possibly be becoming too haughty, considering ourselves to be powerful enough to perform actions that deliberately end someone’s life? Would we be crossing the lines humanity has established? Quite possibly…

However, I realize that it is time for me to stop dancing around the issue and come to a conclusion of what I truly believe.

After great consideration, I believe I have come to a conclusion in my belief. Although, I am not sure I could personally go through with the decision, nor do I believe it is right, I believe that no one but the individual who wishes to die should have a say in what that patient’s future holds. Pieter Admiraal explained it simply when he stated that “It would be improper for doctors or other health care professionals [the state or any organization for that matter] to impose their values and their understanding of pain or suffering on the patient.” Those who wish to die should have the option of doing so. Who are you, we, and me to say that it is unlawful and immoral and pose our own beliefs upon everyone else? Simply because I feel life is precious and that everyday should be enjoyed, me with my ability to walk, talk, and eat, does not mean that my own opinion should be forced upon anyone else. If an individual expresses to their family that, in their state, they wish to appeal for physician-assisted suicide then it should be up to the family members of this individual to take a stand, and if they strongly oppose the decision, to express their concern with their loved one. The family’s opinion is the only one that should be taken into account when making such a monumental decision. This matter is extremely personal, and should therefore be left to the individual it will be effecting most.

A doctor’s active participation in physician-assisted suicide is essential. In situations where the individual wishing to die is disabled to the point where they cannot physically take a pill or inject a lethal dosage of morphine, we are allowing a right that should be extended to all to only certain disable people. If we are to give the opportunity to one disabled individual, then we must give the same right to all. If we are to pass a bill that would allow physician assisted suicide, then let us do it correctly and in a civilized manner. We have trained physicians and modern medicine for a reason, we need them involved in this process. It is barbaric to expect the individuals wanting to end their lives to do it themselves. Come on! We live in the twenty-first century. Not only that, but we need have some sympathy for these poor people.

Some argue that to allow physician assisted suicide would imply that we view disabled people as less valuable, and that as we give them permission to do what they wish with their lives, that we depreciate their worth. When I first heard the argument that if we were to legalize physician-assisted suicide that we might also be devaluing a disabled person’s life, I completely disregarded the concept. After having given the argument some thought, I realized its validity. Would it be wrong if we were to allow disabled, or terminally ill people a right to die even though no one else has the same right? Does it insinuate that we consider their lives less valuable? Perhaps it is an inappropriate matter for human beings to help other human beings die.

After deeper consideration of the issue I have come to the conclusion that physician-assisted suicide is not an issue of indirectly insinuating a disabled person is less valuable, but instead simply granting the individual a right to their own life. In doing so, we show our respect to a human and their capability to make a wise and informed decision about what they wish to do with their lives. It does not devalue the disabled, but rather places more value in the individual and their choice. If we are to ignore the right of a person to a “dignified death,” as Pieter Admiraal explained it, we will also “fail to respect the patient as a self-determining person.”

In regards to a large organization such as the Catholic Church, I do not see it fit for these organizations to extend their views onto everyone else. If the Catholics believe it is wrong to end a life at any stage, then so be it. Let them choose to live their lives to their natural dying day, but, in turn, they should allow other people the same choice. In a decision such as this one, no one else should impose their personal beliefs. Notice that I have not stated my own opinion when it comes to physician assisted suicide? How I would feel if a loved one decided that this was the fate they wanted? I have done this for a reason, to make my point that my own outlook should not matter in the greater scheme of things. Give people the opportunity to make up their own mind, rather than being forced to live under conditions they detest to the extent that they would rather end their life, and give brave doctors like Jack Kevorkian the chance to implement their practice in the light of day rather than as cowards an in fear.

Sincerely, Noelie LeBlanc

JT To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="jt-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,

Thank you for your time and consideration of our classes’ opinions on this touchy subject. I hope that you are both in good health, and will both enjoy and be informed by what we have to say. My name is John Tyler Love, I am a senior at Foothill Technology High School, and am seriously considering a career in the medical field.

The world has changed a great deal in the past 40 years, and progressions in health services have given humanity a great deal of previously unknown concepts to wrestle with. Amid controversies over animal-rights and post-humanism movements, the most important of them all is euthanasia. Advancements in medical technology enable doctors to keep alive patients who would normally die without direct intervention. The issue of moral identification and legality of physician-assisted suicide is coming to a head in this nation, and American may be forced to make a definitive, all-encompassing decision on the subject.

Whether it is necessarily the right thing to embrace euthanasia or not depends greatly on an individual’s moral inclinations and religious affiliations. Time and time again, the two largest groups most ardently in opposition to physician-assisted suicide are the American Medical Association and the Catholic Church. Many doctors will most usually declare that the purpose of their medical practices is to save and protect lives, never to destroy them, whilst the Church insists the sacredness of life can be infringed upon by no one but their god. In the Vatican’s officially issued papal bull regarding euthanasia, absolutely no deviation is tolerated in their eyes; any desire to end one’s life, regardless of the pain and suffering one may be burdened by, is comparable to murder. The terminally ill and bedridden are even encouraged to embrace their misfortune and accept it as “sharing in Christ’s Passion”. I am not a religious person, so seeing the intolerance the Catholic Church has for any and all situations that euthanasia might be a favorable choice bothers me a bit. You will see many students bring up the importance of patient autonomy, and I find it to be integral to this subject as well; because of this, the Church’s wide generalizations and their imposing of religious morals as the only “right” option seems cruel and closed-minded.

One of the strongest and most reasonable arguments against euthanasia is the simple matter of time. How much time is needed for deliberating the situation and coming to a rational conclusion an easy death? Can this decision be made within months, or does it require years of attempted adjustment to terminal/disabled life before one can rightfully decide? In the case of Daniel James, a young British rugby player who became quadriplegic and required 24-hour care, the decision to seek active euthanasia at Switzerland’s Dignitas was made in less than a year. In the eyes of Dr. Peter Saunders of the Care Not Killing Alliance, this choice was made far too hastily. “…[he] did not need help to kill himself: he needed help to live with severe disability… what is needed is a more positive outlook in caring for people’s physical and spiritual needs. People can come through these difficulties.” This demand for a “grace period” spanning several years ensures that no hasty decisions for euthanasia are made without the proper forethought. However, I believe that the right to euthanasia to patients who are disabled (as opposed to those with terminal illnesses) should be decided on a case by case basis, in which time since they became handicapped is one of many factors, not the deciding feature,

Yet euthanasia activists are not without point and purpose. Consider Chris Hill, who presents a very important juxtaposition of his pre- and post-disabled life. Before, he was a true adventurer with a lust for life, yet the toll of his hangliding incident was immense. Left paralyzed from the chest down, he exemplifies the traditional image of a handicapped person asking for euthanasia: incontinent, unable to move and left physically disconnected from the world. Imagine coping through years of immobile torment, in a life that is but a pale shadow of everything you once knew. Hill writes in his suicide note “Everything I saw and did was a stinging reminder of my condition and I cried constantly… I never imagined that somebody could hurt so bad…” Hill makes it clear that he indeed tried to accept his new means of existence, but he was unable to make it work for himself. “It’s a challenge, many of you said. Bullshit. My life was just a miserable existence, an awful parody of normalcy. What’s a challenge without some reward to make it worthwhile?” Here the incredibly important issue of autonomy comes into play: for Chris Hill, that reward was his taking of his own life. It was his own decision, not one that was forced onto all other handicapped people. The fact that he was forced to commit suicide on his own in a possibly painful way brings to light the benefits of a safe, physician-regulated death.

I strongly believe that physician-assisted euthanasia for terminally ill patients (and a few others as well) is something that should be encouraged and made a legal medical option. Although there is indeed a slippery slope present (it certainly doesn’t extend as far as patients being terminated against their will), with close regulation it will not be a problem. Respect for death is just as important as respecting life, so if a mentally sound terminal or disabled patient wants to end the suffering of their life, they have the autonomy do so. It is only man-made laws that interfere with it, not a lack of the actual right to control one’s life. I also have come to the conclusion that making a distinction between terminally ill patients and handicapped persons is extremely important. Anyone facing inevitable, painful death within a few years has a right to euthanasia, yet those with handicaps must be considered on an individual basis. How long have they been handicapped? Have they given adequate time to adjust to the changes in their life? The decision to let a doctor peacefully end your life must not be given away freely, so intense deliberation is necessary beforehand. Jack Kevorkian’s efforts to introduce physician-regulated euthanasia is massively important and should be supported, however difficult this is for physicians to do. Getting the ball rolling for euthanasia legislation is near-impossible due to so many doctors preferring to practice illegally and not openly admit to it. But in the end, merely having the option of euthanasia represents a freedom that we all should have in certain situations, and is a goal in the medical world worth fighting for.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Sincerely, J.T. Love

Michael L To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="michaell-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20" Dear Mr. Drake and Ms. Coleman My name is Michael Lowe and I am a 17 year old student attending Foothill Technology High School. I want to start off by saying I truly appreciate you taking the time out of your day to read my letter. I hope we can agree to disagree on some of the issues and I truly respect you and your opinion even if ours may not be the same. Dr. Kevorkian is right to help people with there final wish to die. During his case he was tried for murder because he took the life of another human being and that was all the jury saw. What the jury didn’t see was the suffering he was ending for the patient. Life should be prolonged at all costs but if the patient doesn’t even want to live then we should listen to what they want and not be selfish or be a “coward”. Committing euthanasia is the right thing to do because it ends suffering, is a mercy killing, and allows for the patient to have control over how and when they leave this earth. When a patient is living in unbearable pain and doesn’t want to live anymore, is it necessary to keep them alive? Doctors in California and across the nation want the doctor to always be looked at as someone who prolongs life and doesn’t end it. I feel that this is the wrong way to look at a very complicated problem. Doctors need to look at this in the way that they are ending there life, but doing that they are also ending the patients suffering. When a patient only has weeks to live doctors shouldn’t just stand around and watch them live in this pain, but take action and go through with the patients wish. Another question that goes along with this is whether or not the doctor should take part in this or watch the patient take there own life. Doctors should have an active part in ending the patients life as long as it is requested many times over a long period of time. A doctor should see there patient through till the end and help them with whatever they would like. Sometimes a patient cant actively take part in there own suicide because they are so disabled. Sometimes people can’t swallow the pills that’s needed so they can’t do this without the doctors help. Doctors should be able to take an active part in this without be looked at as murders. The last and biggest reason why doctors should help the patient commit suicide is because it is what they want. The patient should have control over what happens to them and if they want the doctor assist them in suicide then the doctor should do this. Disregarding patient’s wishes is the exact opposite of what a doctor should do. Doctors need to follow through with whatever the patient would like. The patient should be able to determine when they want to end there life and not have to wait for “natural causes” because the doctors are to scared to get in trouble with the law. In the end, I feel doctors need to take an active role in the suicide of patients who are living in unbearable pain and don’t have very long to live, or terminally ill patients. If the doctor doesn’t listen to the patient then they shouldn’t be a doctor. Patients come first in the healthcare field and that shouldn’t change even when life and death is being talked about.

Sincerely, Michael Lowe

Sam To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="sam-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Drake and Ms. Coleman,

My name is Sam O’Donnell. As a nondisabled seventeen-year-old high school student, I hope that you will accept my opinions as valid in spite of the fact that you may disagree with them.

Since my classmates and I share a similar opinion on the matter of physician-assisted suicide, I will try to avoid repeating the same ideas that my fellow bioethicists have so tactfully expressed on this forum.

I stand in favor of physician-assisted suicide being a legitimate option of treatment for the terminally ill and substantially disabled. Notice the word “option.” I would never suggest that suicide is a wise or preferable choice, though I maintain that it should be available as an alternative that anybody who meets the qualifications I have stated should be entitled to. This belief is rooted in my strong commitment toward patient autonomy. I’m sure you are sick of that phrase after reading it so many times. Still, I see no reason why the basic right of a person to live or die should be compromised.

I have nothing but respect for the handicapped. Though I do not know any handicapped people, the stories I have heard never cease to inspire me. I am truly in awe of the human capacity to overcome great odds and make the best of what life offers. Granted, my respect has not increased my understanding of the physical, mental, and emotional trials that the handicapped must go through each and every day. I have no basis from which to make judgments about the mindset, experiences, and worth of a handicapped person.

However, this does not limit my ability to judge what a human being should have the ability to do with his or her life. I have already stated that I could not even begin to imagine what is going on in the mind of a disable human being. This can be extended in two ways. First, I have no idea what //anybody// is thinking and feeling at any one time. I would be going beyond my mental capacity. Second, //nobody// knows what //anybody// else is thinking or feeling. Empathy is an illusion. We can only assume that what happens in our minds is equivalent with, or even similar to, what happens in the minds of others. Therefore, we must make decisions based not on what is “politically correct” or what we think will make others happy, but rather on what will give individuals greater control of their own respective fates.

Despite the factual inconsistency of the film, “Million Dollar Baby” provides a good example of this principle. Maggie Fitzgerald felt that her life was over once she lost control of most of her body. Had she been a real person, this would have been a legitimate feeling to have. Perhaps neither of you would have felt this way were you in the same situation (in fact, I’m sure you would have felt differently), but regardless, she should have been able to end her life quickly, easily, and pain-free. (Mr. Drake, I understand that anyone on a ventilator can request to have it removed, but for argument’s sake, I’ll ignore that fact.) Frankly, it doesn’t matter if the audience could “imagine a happy and meaningful life for Maggie as a quad.” All that matters is that Maggie could not.

It is one thing to claim that a film takes a one-sided view on a controversial issue. It is quite another to claim that a film has single-handedly convinced America that quadriplegics are better off dead. (Both claims are, in my humble opinion, flawed. There are conflicting viewpoints in the film, each of which is given its due time. Moreover, the prevailing idea is that of choice, not a prejudice against the disabled as you suggest.) It is the purpose of art to confront controversial issues. It is only natural that the conclusions made in a piece of art are disagreeable to certain people. This does not in any way detract from the quality of the work. I would suggest that this //adds// to the meaning and worth of the piece.

It is arguable what the film’s conclusions even are. I would contend that the film seeks to illuminate the true nature of personal destiny. Each character has to grapple with his or her own identity and journey. Eastwood’s goal was not to make a blanket statement about the worth of quadriplegics. If anything, he was making a blanket statement about the interconnectedness of humans and our duty to give others the choice to control their own lives.

I am however, neglecting the numerous people who buy in to the “better dead than disabled” fallacy that you so despise. Granted, there are those who will take that message away from this film. However, it is unfair for you to make a blanket statement about the perceptions of “typical” Americans. What of the moviegoers who silently begged Maggie to reconsider? What of the reviewers who gave the film high marks simply because Maggie’s decision to forego all that life as a quadriplegic would have afforded her made them cry real tears?

Though, what if the “better dead than disabled” perception were accepted by a handicapped person? Would this necessarily be a bad thing? To be clear, I am speaking about a person who, through solitary, pensive deliberation has decided that his life as a handicapped person is less valuable to him. Ultimately, we must respect that person’s ability to decide what is right in the context of his life. Though his friends and family have their own opinions about his worth as a human being, only his sense of self-worth can determine his quality of life. If, he has decided that there is no reason for him to live, then he shouldn’t be forced to live or, worse, forced to end his life painfully or through great difficulty.

Regardless of the atmosphere we create or the arguments we spark, there is no option as just as providing the terminally ill and permanently disabled the opportunity to terminate their lives.

Though I disagree with many of your views, I respect your right to express them freely and fully. I commend you for the passion you have for your cause. I thank you for your time.

With all due respect,

Sam O’Donnell

Brent To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="brent-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,

I wish to thank you for your time and the ability you have given me to confer thoughts with you. I am Brent Ocker, a student at Foothill Technology High School, studying to become a physician. Though I share a polarized view with you, I respect your point and would ask you do the same. Thank you.

Fundamentally, since birth, man has been graced with his ability of autonomy. This autonomy is shown in his ability to decide his actions; decide what he wishes to do with his life; decide what career to pick. The idea of autonomy is now the basis of the abortion issue for it is a woman’s right to her own body. This same ideology should be seen in euthanasia. The reason why we are humans is our ability to see the life we have been given and pick one of two paths. The path of difficulty, or the “easy way”. Neither path should be frowned upon for it is that person’s decision and, consequently, the issues brought up by that choice are left for him to bear. If this scenario continues, it is easy to see how autonomy in our decision-making process is evident throughout. Thus, if a person decides to take the “easy way out” of euthanasia rather than “bearing their cross”, it is their choice entirely and should be respected.

My aunt was bed-ridden, in a coma, connected to a ventilator and feeding tube and essentially, a limp body having air thrusted in and out of her body. What moral law states that she must deal with this pain day in and day out, till God decides to take her pain away completely? What is the entire basis of medicine, if not to provide effective pain management and coping with an illness? Is death not an illness one must handle with dignity and humility in? Why should her doctor not be able to provide her with the relief necessary to cut her pain entirely?

As stated by the Catholic faith in their Doctrine of Faith, “[Euthanasia] is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity”. This makes me wonder; am I “Public Enemy Number One” for advocating euthanasia of my father and aunt? What makes it morally right to stand along and see your fellow human being lay in excruciating pain wasting away until his body is taken by God’s will? Why should they suffer because man’s intuition and analysis on euthanasia has not progressed from ancient times?

It is understandable with, such cases as Daniel James, that these committing suicide have not brought themselves to see the “light at the end of the tunnel”, but what if some people never end up seeing that light? What if, like Ramon Sampedro, they go thirty years bitterly fighting for their right to die, not losing any faith in the morality or religiosity of their actions? I believe it is their right and that right is theirs alone. It should not be influenced by any outside views and, if those outer viewpoints do come into perspective, then the necessary time for the “victim” to be euthanized must increase for a specified amount of time but, alas, that “victim”’s right to die should not be eliminated.

In the movie, Million Dollar Baby, by Clint Eastwood, I believe his actions were justified. She saw what ability and extent to life she had as a human with full capacity of life and how that drastically changed when she was “injured”. Her new stage in life, as, excuse the term: a “Head-in-a-Bed”, is far different than that she was previously used to. Is it right that she should be made to suffer for what accidently happened to her? As a metaphor in the movie, the dog put down by her father is symbolic of the lives of any human being not capable of dealing with his pain. I am not advocating for middle schoolers having a hard day to just decide to end their life; I am here to state that life mustn’t be dealt with in the most painful fashion possible or else the entire field of medicine wouldn’t have been created. As I saw the film, I felt no disgust in Eastwood’s action; I felt wholeness for I saw bits of my dad and aunt in her life. I saw how she no longer wished to bear her pain and how hard it was to just deal with life as the day passed. I felt sorry for her. She deserves to have her wishes respected. As Peter Admiraal stated, “as doctors, we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients, and to respect their autonomy.”

Through the cases of Chris Hill, I believe euthanasia should become legalized in order to provide these people with the ability to finally receive some form of relief. If you live your life as Hill states, “Everything I saw and did was a stinging reminder of my condition “, I would wish for my life to end as well.

Issues of life and death will continue to be questioned based on their moral and ethical natures. I do not mean to advocate the right for all to “die” as they wish, I mean to provide those necessary means for those inclined to use them. Sometimes, when the "worst case possible" happens, we look at the good of its happening and grow as people.

Doctor Jack Kevorkian is correct in critiquing the modern practice of physician-assisted suicide, or lack thereof. I strongly believe that if a doctor practices euthanasia but doesn’t publicly defend it, he should be imprisoned for 1st degree murder with malice aforethought. For, if he sees the practice as immoral, he obviously has some sort of “malice” towards the patient in order to “kill” him. Why else would he be practicing it? If not, he should be a proponent for “dying with dignity”, not hide in the day of light when he is begged to give his opinion over euthanasia. If a person isn’t willing to fight for their beliefs, what are they willing to fight for? This isn’t an issue of ethics, well, for the most part; the patient believes in the practice, the doctors follow through with it, and the Hippocratic Oath supports its action. Being able to guide a person from life to death with as minimal pain as possible is just as imperative as insuring they travel through live with just as little pain.

Euthanasia, hopefully, will develop and will be expressed as a good rather than an evil by physicians who gain enough courage to put their patients before their titles as Dr. Kevorkian has done. I commend “Doctor Death” for his actions in hopes that sometime in my lifetime it will be legalized for, if I become bed-ridden and incapable of controlling my Somatic Nervous System, I would love to take a cocktail.

“One short sleep past, we wake eternally, And Death shall be no more ; Death, thou shalt die.” -Holy Sonnet X John Donne-

Thank you for your time.

Most Sincerely, Brent Ocker

Dillon To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
Dear Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman,

I am a Senior at Foothill Technology High School and hopefully will enter the medical field as a professional. Thank you for taking time out of your busy lives to read my opinion on a demanding issue. I have no idea what it is to be "handicapped" and have no idea what courageous lives you folks live. And I truly respect your points of view on such a mellow topic. However, I do have contrasting views to our tissue-bassed subject.

Euthanasia is such a controversial topic. Is it morally right, ethically right? Is it morally wrong, ethically wrong? Many groups oppose such a idea while others embark on the notion. Dr. Kevorkian once mainstreamed a trivialized issue. And even went to jail for it. He was wrongly acquitted. I understand I am writing to proponents siding with disability advocates and the Catholic Church. Whom completely disagree with the "easy death" method. But then if the backers want to be included in the "wrong death" scenario then look no further than the mirror. Dr. Kevorkian displayed acts of wisdom and ethical-flawlessness. He was known as the honest, candid doctor, while other doctors are like Batman, act in the light of dawn. Either way, euthanasia is necessary to practice medicine.

In 1980, a paper, "Declaration on Euthanasia" produced by Cardinal Frejo Seper, lays the fundamental position on euthanasia in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Seper states "..No one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease." The Catholic Church has one of the most didactic stance on the issue presented. They rule out mercy killing or the casual saying, "easy-death." Seper further states that "..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” The Church's view on such, is understandable, and even admirable. Because there are no exceptions, and no matter the circumstance, the group is assertive and proper in its stance. Passive euthanasia is accepted but is that just God's course? Or what about a man who is terminally sick, and he commits active euthanasia on himself. What if that alone was God's course and not him passively dying? The Church is conceded with God's course. But how does the Church know what is God's course and what is not.

In the scholarly article, “Why Disability Rights Movements Do Not Support Euthanasia,” by Dr. Wolbring, quotes "We believe that the legalization of euthanasia will force people to be euthanized in a misbegotten effort to do the right thing: save their loved ones from financial ruin, remove family members from the care taker role, cease to be a burden on the state.” In this, Dr. Wolbring, speaks about a another sort of metaphysical side effect of euthanasia. A negative perception of a characteristic. If one dies, then one other individual thinks that this individual that has died, has life that is not valued. In simpler terms, if a terminally ill person commits suicide, than another person in the same state can think life is valueless as well. A another understandable point, but is weak in the "grand scheme" of alleviating original suffering.

On the defense of euthanasia, Dr. Admiraal's "Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way,” states that euthanasia should be practiced "openly and unashamedly" in the country of the Dutch. A place where euthanasia is practiced legally and occurs through "special" tests and confirmation through Dr. Admiraal's and his team. Dr. Admiraal says that, “as doctors we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients, and to respect their autonomy. The first duty entails that we should seek to restore patients to health and, if we can’t, that we should try to reduce their suffering. The second duty entails that we listen closely to, and respect, the wishes of our patients.” Active euthanasia encompasses the latter and all the above. The ending to his patients life is normal, and assisting people that do not want to survive on machines and suffer everyday is simply, alleviating. A plea of a lifetime. He then states “to fail the practice of voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient.” The main goal of any physician is to assist the patient, and if the patient wants to flee, then the doctor must want aid in his or her request. As he said of patients, “they can count on their doctors when they need them most.”

If people want to die, then let them. And it SHOULD be the doctors responsibility, to aid them in suicide, because doctors need to alleviate pain and suffering for people, and sometimes active euthanasia is the answer. The rationale by the patients are probably well executed since they went and checked through the all the possible choices. Hours and probable days were spent in order to make, what some call the biggest decision to make. No one has the right to make the resolution for the ones who are "confident" in the euthanasia choice. Kevorkian is a 100 percent right when he states doctors are cowards. Those who shall not actively participate in euthanasia are called the latter, along with those who shall not do it, in the light of day. My friend Loren Hansen makes a brilliant yet lucid argument when he states, "Hopefully, with the recession of religion on the rise in the United States and around the world, and the recession of the moral values associated with them, Dr. Kevorkian's viewpoint and philosophy on physician assisted suicide will eventually prevail within my lifetime.'' Basically, stating that religion and "moral values" get in the way of making a rational yet radical decision in our countries' healthcare laws. But what are moral values? To some are not, moral values, euthanasia? As they assist people to end suffering. Does that not seem moral? To help?

Million Dollar Baby. A inspiring story about a woman who loves to box. But like all athletes, she faces a injury; however, this one is severe and detrimental to her liveliness. The protagonist broke her vertebrae broke at the neck and is in a fair position to be called terminally ill. She called her trainer to perform active euthanasia, and he did. Was it right? Of course it was. She knew that life for her was, well, kinda "dead". I am not saying that all people terminally ill should apply the above. But rather making a claim that if one is in a position to not endure his or her current lifestyle, and hate being a vegetable, then it is truly the patients choice, and more importantly, obligation to make that choice. We all get to vote or choose what we want in life, but why can not we choose to die, if we want to?

Many say that Kevorkian is a evil disposable human. Sort of like a "Neo-Nazi." But I could not agree more with classmates, in which he brings up the point where Kevorkian only simply gives a viable option, no demand or persecution. Simply, just following the oath as he swore, in the 50's. Kevorkian needs to be a national figure because the above, provides sufficient reasoning. He helped them.

In summary, the option must be available for anyone. First maybe a intricate complex test must given out and maybe some time to evaluate, say 1 month? Active euthanasia is morally perfect and proponents of the opposite are maybe misinformed. Maybe because an higher authority says its wrong or perhaps, its too harsh to go past the epidermis of discussion.

Euthanasia is seen as a way out. But the topic at-hand is certainly tricky. But, in truth, needs to be a vital option, for patients with a advanced directive or a person that can have the ability to give informed consent. Eligibility for euthanasia should obviously run through some tests: special cases, recovery possibilities, patient-autonomys, and/or plausible mind conditions. Maybe the intricacies are too huge to overcome, or maybe the answer is simple. But what is right from wrong is evident. Any personal living with a terminal illness has the right to take the easy way out, rather than suffer and suffer they may not. Euthanasia is a freedom and a freedom we must all have, as a right to live, is a right to death. A definite goal in medicine is euthanasia, something that needs to be fought for.

I thank you again for reading my view on euthanasia. I personally admire your guys dedication to stand up for what you guys believe. If only more people do what you guys have done. The commitment from your dedicated group, is nothing short of inspiring.

Again, Dillon Patel

Danielle To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="danielle-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Drake and Ms. Coleman,

I wanted to first thank you kindly for giving us time out of your busy lives. Here goes.

In a world where logic and constitutionality prospers over compassion and emotion, it seems that there is one thing and one thing only that we have control over; our will to live. As human beings, we first enter this world with little control over our bodies and lives, but over time our experiences, knowledge and instincts become increasingly rational and valuable compared to those younger than us. It is agreeable we all have the same right to life no matter your age, race or income, but why does all the sympathy and understanding get thrown out the window when euthanasia for the terminally ill is mentioned? Upon turning eighteen years of age in the United States, we are legally an adult, which means constitutionally we are old enough to handle things on our own and make our own rational decisions.. If our very own constitution supports our decision making as long as it doesn’t harm others; then how and why can the government interfere with our decisions about our life or death? The only person fit enough to decide when we die is ourselves. It takes a certain relevant personal and life changing experience in order for one person to understand what another human being is going through, especially during their weakest and most painful of days. Thus, we have the constitutional right to end our life in times of terminal painful suffering It is simply our decision and no one else’s The most famous or infamous person for challenging the distinction between these two ideas was Doctor Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian believed that the continued denial of a good death to doomed human beings is a step backwards; a step away from a truly civilized society, so he did whatever it took to try and make assisted euthanasia legal. He video taped himself injecting a quadriplegic with a shot to end his life and sent it to numerous media outlets which ultimately hit national television. He was soon taken to court and tried for murder in the first degree, just like he wanted. Eventually the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court and in 1997 the court ruled that Americans who want to kill themselves, but are physically unable to do so, have no Constitutional right to end their lives. After all his efforts, Kevorkian was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison and still has no regrets to this day. The reason so many people were against Kevorkian was because he, like in Romeo and Juliet, seemed to be romanticizing death. It had been perceived by many people that Kevorkian brought forth the message that death is good and ending your life is good. This impression didn’t go over so well with the traditional and extremely religious Evangelic Christians. As Evangelical doctor J.P Moreland puts it “According to the traditional view it is never appropriate to withhold ordinary treatment. Extraordinary treatment can be withheld.” There are two problems with this traditional way of thinking. Number one is, not everyone has the same stance on what tradition really is, therefore it wouldn’t be right to base our laws on what one group of people believe. Secondly, the “moral” reasoning behind their tradition is too questionable and debatable to treat it as if it’s the only right way of thinking. For example, people would think of “ordinary treatment” differently than Dr. Moreland does. Ill patients get injected with pain killer medications on a daily basis so technically that could make euthanasia by injection “ordinary treatment”. There is too fine of a line to distinguish between “tradition” and constitutionality. Extremely catholic and quadriplegic Franco Card Seper claims“ It is obviously wrong to have recourse to arguments from political pluralism or religious freedom in order to deny the universal value of our rights” (Seper).Even with his strong religious background and a day to day visit from his priest, Seper went against what his people believed and ended up taking his life. It has been noted that one of the major reasons they are so against euthanasia is because it interferes with “God’s Plans”. They believe that we should let nature take its course and embrace death when it comes. If this is true, then why do they believe in the practice of medicine, or doctors, don’t they tamper with god’s plans as well? If they strongly believe that we should let nature take it course, then would we need doctors to help us get better when we are sick or hurt? If there was a valid argument on their side, people would without a doubt agree with them, but the truth is, it is too close minded and inconsistent for the majority of us. Other than the morality of this issue, there is some constitutionality involved as well. The eighth amendment prohibits all cruel and unusual punishment, and some people say that making a human being painfully suffer when they don’t have to is indeed a cruel and unusual punishment. In addition to this, the ninth amendment theoretically mentions enumerated or implied rights of the people, and indirectly states that just because there isn’t a specified right directly stated in the constitution, it doesn’t mean someone isn’t entitled to it. This has always been a problem because there are too many ways to interpret what are natural rights are. Everyone deciphers the Constitution differently which leaves many of our amendments to questionability. Some say we have the natural born right to life and respectively to death as well because they are respectively coupled together. Last but not least, the fourteenth amendment states “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property”. Since this issue isn’t black and white to begin with, these kinds of statements seem to increase the amount of gray area to the matter, so it’s becoming too hard to draw a line between constitutional rights and rights that aren’t implied. With that being said, there have been a number of cases testing the questionability of the constitution and its enumerated rights. Cruzan versus Missouri, Washington versus Glucksburg, and Gonzales versus Oregon are just a few cases that have made it up to the Supreme Court in the last few decades, and yet euthanasia is still illegal. If there have been dozens of people trying to make the right to die a natural born right then there must be some logic behind it. As citizens of the United States, we have been told from day one that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the intent of a terminally ill person wanting to end their life is to stop the suffering and leave this earth happily, then no one should be allowed to hinder with that natural right to pursue our happiness..

Kristen To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="kirsten-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman,

I would first like to start off by thanking you for giving your time and sharing your views on this issue. Despite our different views on this topic, I respect your standpoint and understand that we are coming from different backgrounds and lifestyles. My name is Kristen. I am an eighteen year old girl who loves running, shopping, and being active. Due to this unit on euthanasia, I have realized just how fortunate I and my family are to be so physically healthy. I remember coming home from school one day after this unit, I was in an upset and confused mood from a Bioethics conversation, and my mom said to me “please take out the trash”. I replied with an “ugggh”, but than I realized that I should be grateful to even be capable of taking out the trash. I have it so good compared to so many, and I shall be thankful.

We can all agree that euthanasia is “the act of killing someone painlessly in order to relieve suffering from an incurable illness” (dictionary.com). Euthanasia is, and has been a very controversial issue across the United States. With the advancement of science and technology in the medical field, this topic has become very controversial, and honestly, I find it a bit difficult to discuss. At first, this idea seemed inhumane to me; it is an unwritten duty that citizens preserve life whether it be a newborn baby or an elderly person on their death bed. I always thought that people are supposed to look up to physicians and medical professionals to save lives, not to end them. It just didn’t seem right to me. In fact, many others argue that euthanasia is sheer murder; however, when looking into the multiple factors, I began to see that it is truly mercy to the afflicted patient.

Even the 8th amendment states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” meaning that all citizens are protected from cruel and unusual punishments. The intention behind many doctors is to often to relieve their patients from the cruel and painful punishment of suffering every day.The 9th amendment backs up doctors as well. The 9th amendment states that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. In other words, to protect rights that are not granted in the Constitution. This makes it easier to see that doctors are trying to respect their patient’s rights and grant them their wishes. Most importantly, the 14th amendment grants citizens the right to “life, liberty, and property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. This amendment made me think deeper. If a person has the right to their own life, then why not their own death (if they are terminally ill and suffering)? A person should be entitled to their body and their choices. I think that it is alright for others to influence their decision, but ultimately it is their body, soul, life, and choice.

One of the many ethical factors of euthanasia is its accessibility. Some argue that legalizing euthanasia will be a disadvantage to the poor and disabled whom have little access to advance and possible life-saving medical care. “It would be their easy and inexpensive way out of misery- and life” claims Madison G. Although it may seem that way, that is not the case. If the advanced treatment of euthanasia were to be legalized, it would still be difficult to receive without lots of time, money, and patience. Currently, two out of fifty states in America have legalized and are practicing active euthanasia; Washington and Oregon. Although they have given their citizens the “right to die”, it is not as simple as signing a document and going straight into procedure. In Oregon, a potential patient must meet multiple qualifications including; being at least eighteen years old, having two requests to die within two weeks, obtaining a confirmation from two doctors that the patient has no longer than six months to live, and that he or she is not suffering from any mental illness-including depression. “Since 2002 about 40 Oregonians each year have taken advantage of the law, the majority being elderly and close to death” ("Euthanasia."). It is important to realize that even with the passing of Euthanasia, it will not be accessible for just anyone to receive whenever they desire, yet rather a small number. It’s not the same as going in for a prescription; it’s a much bigger process.

One group that disagrees with the ethical reasoning of euthanasia is the “Disabled Rights Activists”. Disabled Rights Activists worry that with the legalization of euthanasia, disabled citizens will feel that their life is worth less than an active human being. In the article “Why Disability Rights Movements Do Not Support Euthanasia,”( "Euthanasia.") author Dr. Wolbring says of the disabled that many feel like they need to “save their loved ones from financial ruin, remove family members from the care taker role, or that they cease to be a burden on the state”( "Euthanasia."). Wolbring worries that the acceptance of euthanasia will devalue the life of a disabled individual; making it more acceptable for them to want to die. It is important to realize that disabled individuals have a right to live; they have the same amount of freedom and rights as any other individual. However, limited to their activity, many lose hope in their lives, and the option of euthanasia can be comforting. Allison Davis however is a perfect example of someone living with a physical disability that still lives her life to the fullest. Allison Davis was born with myelomeningocele spina bifidia. Today she still speaks about how fortunate she is to have not had her life taken away from her at birth. She claims that “no doctor could have predicted” that when she was 28 days old that “despite (her) physical problems, (she) would lead such a full and happy life”( Fogo). Allison cherishes every moment and is against active euthanasia at such a young age. Fortunately, if euthanasia were to become legal, the laws enacted with it would not permit the death of a newborn baby anyways. I respect every single disabled person that has seen their physically disability as a new opportunity in life and branched out.

One also needs to consider the emotional factors that come with the issue of euthanasia. Emotionally, it is difficult to let someone that you love so deeply go. Many feel like they are letting down their loved one by implying that they are too weak to continue their life. There is also the stress of paying off outrageous hospital bills. Time is important large factor that one needs to take into account. My grandma on my mother’s side died from cancer when I was in the third grade. Her treatment was long and painful, but due to her strong Catholic faith, she continued her treatment until her weak lungs eventually gave out. Having my mom on the other side of the Country for long periods of time was hard on my father and my sisters. My dad had to step up and take the position of my mother while she cared for her mom. The day my mom’s mother ended up passing away was one I will never forget. I had never seen my mom in tears until this day; it was frightening. I almost wish my grandma had been let out of her misery through active euthanasia. It would have been easier on her and my family. Just two weeks ago, my father’s mother had a stroke. She is now paralyzed on her right side and currently living in a nursing home. She is in such pain, but probably not as much as the loved ones around her. If this continues and she remains paralyzed for at least a year then I think it would be acceptable to consider euthanasia. Although it is very hard to let my grandma go, it would be the least selfish thing to do. She is already in her later days and has experienced life to the fullest, and there is a happier place waiting for her.

Coming to conclusion, I view euthanasia as a basic human right and an emotional discussion topic. Though it is clearly not the choice of everyone, some disabled and terminally ill people have decided that their lives are no longer worth living due to the immense amount of suffering that they experience every day, and they shall have the right to do so. If they wish to continue their life in their current state then they may do so as well. No doctor, family member, or friend can force them to do that in witch they do not provide consent or approval. However, if the patient is terminally ill and near death, and an “easy death” is what they desire than they shall be granted it; because overall it is their body and their choice.

Thank you so much for your time and thoughts. Best wishes to your and your families, and Happy Hollidays!

Sincerely, Kristen S.

Andrew To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="andrew-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman

First and foremost, thank you very much for taking the time to read and response to our our Bio-Ethics class overall, it is greatly appreciated.

Euthanasia; the act of taking one’s life out of an act of mercy, with their consent, in a humane, relatively painless manner, has over the past couple years been the issue in the spotlight of debate. This topic has become focused upon the polarizing sides of the debate, such as the Catholic Church in opposition, and Pieter Admiraal and Dr, K advocating the practice of active euthanasia, while I have a qualifying opinion on the subject.

The Catholic Church, one of the biggest opponents to doctor assisted suicide, has a hardened stance that life should be protected at all stages no matter the burden. In the 1980 paper by Cardinal Frejo Seper, layed out the catalogued position of the Catholic Church on the issue. In the article Seper states, “no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying… 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.” The Catholic Church’s position, leaving no room for exceptions, believes there is no such thing as a mercy killing, when committing euthanasia. Even in cases, when a patient is in extreme suffering, or a mother is going to die from her unborn child, the Catholic Church would not permit the act of euthanasia upon the terminally ill, or an unborn child to save another life, or to end one’s suffering. The only leeway seen form the Catholic Church is the fact that they will allow passive euthanasia, by allowing patients to say they don’t want any extreme measures made to keep them alive, like claiming DNR.

Advocates for euthanasia of all types see euthanasia as a right, and a governing of ones own autonomy. Pieter Admiraal, a Dutch doctor, and defender of the active euthanasia, has been helping individuals die since the 70’s. Admiraal’s stance, similar to that of Dr. K’s, sees euthanasia as right which all terminally ill, and severely handicapped should be able to practice. Admiraal in his article gives examples of people he helped to die during his career as a doctor. One such person, Carla, who after a long battle with cancer, and no more preventative options on the table, decided she wanted to end her life on her terms, and while still attentive, chose to end her suffering with the help of doctor Admiraal. Doctor Admiraal, after eye witnessing the amount of suffering this woman had to deal with, decided “How god could have wanted this,” in reaction to the Catholic Church’s position, and decided to go forth with the procedure, with the acceptance of another doctor, a nurse, and a priest. However, similar to Dr. K, Admiraal believes that doctors are “sometimes required” to carry out these acts of euthanasia for their patients and as Dr. K would say, are cowards if they don’t “help” them.

After spending several weeks discussing the subject of euthanasia, I have almost switched on my opinion by 180 degrees. I’ve gained a new understanding of those seeking to end their own life, under the pretences of “ending their suffering”, and believe the choice should ultimately be left up to the patient, with some limitations. I also believe Dr. K was in fact right to help those in need of his assistance, by effectively and humanely ending their suffering, but I still dislike the guy. Claiming doctors are cowards, because they do not want take someone else’s life is going just a little too far into the deep end. No doctor, unless voluntary, should be put into that situation, which is why I do believe that assisted-suicide should be legal, but only passively, and never actively, and to those who are either terminally ill, or severely disabled. When a human being is in a situation with unbearable and intolerable pain, I do find it appropriate to give them the option of doctor assisted suicide, and though I do understand the position of many patients seeking this permanent treatment, I also believe most only seek it out of depression. This is why I also hold a strong opinion that before the final decision is made, all patients seeking suicide, should be counseled with, in hopes of finding an alternative course of action to relive their pain, and/or misery.

Although as of now it is still considered illegal, without a doubt in mind I am sure that in the near future, every state in the union will allow assisted suicides from doctors. However I hope that in long run, the value of life will not be demeaned or that people will become more desensitized to the idea of it. Suicide to me is simply disturbing, and from a religious perspective immorally, yet I do wish that those who hold a strong opposition to the procedure overall can come to terms, and understand that it is done to truly end a patients pain and suffering, and perceive it under as an act of compassion rather than murder as I once did.

Overall I find that both sides of this argument presented in class are the polarizing figures, who are either so caught up in the religious aspects of it, they are blinded to the positive outcomes it may have for some, while on the other side people such as Admiraal, and Kervorkian believe so strongly about active euthanasia that they disregard the moral implications, and the fact that most doctors go into the healthcare business to save lives, not to end them, and in response calling them cowards like Dr. K did, is being juvenile and insensitive. Because of these reasons, I decided that euthanasia should in actuality be legal, but the procedure should be kept passive, to avoid the doctor dilemma, and give the patient, ultimately the final decision.

Sincerely, Andrew Stuhr

Madison To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="madison-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman, My name is Madison Thompson and I am a senior at Foothill Technology High school. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. Although I honestly have no idea what you must be going through I hope you can understand my point of view. “Whose life is it anyway?” This quote said by Sue Rodrigues, a terminally ill resident of British Columbia sums up my thoughts on the issue of “the right to die.” Over the years there has been much controversy on the issue of the “the right to die.” Some people believe that God has a plan and euthanasia is just a “mercy killer.” Disabled advocates will say that making euthanasia legal will make their life seem less valuable. On the other end of the spectrum people say it is their life, why should other people have any say on whether they continue life or end it. If someone is at the point in his or her life where they’re getting oxygen through a machine and have no more drive in living, why should we make them suffer?. I believe that everyone should have control over his or her own body and no one should interfere with that.. Take Daniel James. Daniel James was a 23 year old in his prime years. He was on his way to become a professional rugby player when he had a horrific accident. “He couldn’t walk, had no hand function, but constant pain in all his fingers. He was incontinent, suffered uncontrollable spasms in his legs and upper body and needed 24-hour care” (Daniel Foggo). Should James have to endure the suffering of this terrible accident for the rest of his life? Daniel James heard about a Swiss clinic, Dignitas. Dignitas is a place where they practice assisted suicide. A year after his accident Daniel James decided to drink the “milky liquid” and die in peace. No person should have the right to tell Daniel James that his decision was un-justified. The justification in his mind should be enough. “The Roman Catholic Church is the largest single funder opposed to euthanasia. It invests more money in its fight against euthanasia than all the combined resources of right to die societies around the world many times over.” The Catholic Church believes that one would be committing a dire sin if they were to commit suicide or use euthanasia. They believe that God has complete control over our time to die. “We have no claim on death-death as a claim on us” (Pavone). They say it is complete “mercy killing” for someone to use euthanasia. “Political leaders, who have the grave duty of serving the good of the human being, and likewise doctors and families, must remember that 'the deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit” (Encyclical Evangelium vitae, n. 57). But are doctors really doing harm when their finally ending the pain and suffering in which this person has been through? In the Romans point of view its ending a precious life that God has created, and ending it is an unthinkable sin.

Disabled advocates are also against euthanasia. “I was born with myelomeningocele spina bifida…I now work full time defending the right to life of handicapped people” (Alison Davis). Would making euthanasia legal, possibly undermine a disabled persons rights? As Davis would say, “ Who could say I have ‘no worthwhile quality of life’?” (Davis). This side of the right to die debate depicts euthanasia as a possible “slippery slope” to where patients are killed without consent. It has even been connected to the Neo-Nazi days. Hitler would simultaneously kill off all the handicapped and disabled in a way to create “the master race.” But in those days it was in no way the persons consent to die because of their condition. Today euthanasia is only performed on the people who asked for consent to die. None of this is happening without much thought from the recipient. I believe that it should be the person’s decision on whether they continue living or die in peace with euthanasia. If I personally am not feeling that complete discomfort and agony that person is going through then why should I or anyone say whether they should live or not? The point of life is happiness. If that person no longer has the will to live then they should have the option to die in peace. I believe that we all have ownership over our own bodies-therefore should be able to do whatever we want with our own bodies. Neither the Government, nor any religion should have say in that. The only person feeling you feel and knowing what you know is yourself. If somebody chooses to end their life because they can no longer stand being in a vegetative state, their decision of dying should be supported rather than fought. In all honesty how many procedures can one go through? How many rounds of chemo can one handle until their bodies are just tired and done. If someone has a life threatening disease, and in the long run will take over their bodies and mind why shouldn’t they have the option of dying in peace with euthanasia? If euthanasia became legal its not like doctors are going to force it on people, instead it can be an option. It can be the option of dying a “happy” death with dignity. “The right to die” will always be a debatable issue. People are going to be diagnosed with life threatening diseases and wish to die and others are going to survive through a car crash and become a disabled advocate. No side is going to step down on whether euthanasia should become legal. But in my personal opinion I believe everyone has ownership over his or her bodies therefore should have the option of euthanasia. The State in no way should have the power to decide if ones going to live or not. That decision should lie within the person fighting for death. Will this cause issue still cause continuous court cases? Of course! But after researching both sides I think this is the leading answer.

Josh To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="josh-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman

Thank you for taking the time to read my stance, I hope I do not offend you by it. I am writing to you now not to provoke, only to explain.

Suicide, assisted or otherwise is not a malicious or dark act that reflects poorly upon the person or the society that accepts it. It is an individual's right to decide when their time has come. If a person of a disabled nature decides to follow this path, like the young boxer in Clint Eastwood's film "Million Dollar Baby", it is not a reflection on state of all who are disabled, it is a personal choice, that individual has decided they cannot live in such a state of being and therefore wish to end it. If one can live in a state of disability and enjoy such an existence that speaks loads of the character and garners my respect, for I personally do not believe I would have the strength to exist in such a manner. This however, does not give you the right to dictate what others must do.

It must be incredibly difficult to look out at a world that seemingly advocates your demise, that attempts to subvert all your progress, perhaps it even brings attention to similar questions of your own state. I can't pretend that I know what it feels like, because I don't. In my limited view though, I don't see the granting of a final peace to someone who has thought about the subject immensely and still sees suicide as their only option, akin to Dr. Megele and the nazi regime. All I advocate is the right to make a choice.

The Catholic Church has created a clear position on this matter and that is that life is a gift from god and that any attempt to shorten its span through human intervention is consider a heinous sin. Life is an interesting thing, it is the most valuable thing we as human being may ever possess, but it is still a possession of the individual, and though you may call the man who discards his gold with the Tuesday trash a fool, it is still right to do so. The life of individual is his own and he may do with it as he pleases. I do not see why this fundamental right should be infringed upon because of the views of others on the subject of suicide.

There are two sides to every coin. Dan James, Ramon San Pedro, Chris Hill, all chose to end their lives, to end what they considered to be a state of suffering. However, there are those who are perfectly happy with their state in life, such as yourselves, Alison Davis, Stephen Hawking, and many more. The point of this ethical issue is not weighing the importance or value of disabled life, it is assessing wether a human being has a right to and can control their existence from the moment they become cogiesncent till death and anywhere within that time frame. The right to die is not an attack on the disabled, it is a plea to give those in pain, those who suffer, physically, emotionally, or mentally, a choice to bear their cross or to see what perhaps lies beyond. Suicide is a right and should be treated as such.

Thank you for your time

Sincerely,

Joshua Walker

Charlotte To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="charlotte-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Dear Mr. Drake and Ms. Coleman,

Thank you for taking the time to read through the opinions of my classmates and myself. This is truly an excellent opportunity. Now I shall share my personal opinion on the matter:

While we, as Americans, are granted the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", we are not granted the right to choose to die. The medical practices of assisted suicide and euthanasia are illegal in America in all but two states (Oregon and Washington- and only assisted suicide, under certain circumstances, is legal). As many have realized, the issues of assisted suicide and euthanasia cannot be looked at from a "black and white" or absolutist perspective. Before taking any standpoint, one must ask them self numerous questions regarding the complex issues presented. Is assisted suicide okay? If so, under what circumstances? If not, why not? What if the person is in unbearable pain, and suffering a terminal illness? What if the person isn't? Is it the doctor's responsibility to actively aid in this procedure? Why? Why not? Will this change the perspective and duties of licensed medical professionals if assisted suicide were legalized? And, lastly, is this procedure devaluing life, or is it providing a service?

The famous Dr. Kevorkian, or, as some call him, "Doctor Death", believes that it is a doctor's duty to perform active euthanasia. He says that any doctor who disagrees with this is a "coward". Kevorkian openly discusses how he aids people in committing suicide, and states that he is performing a "public service" by doing so. He does not believe that he is killing the patients, but rather, "ending their suffering". While Kevorkian's views are quite extreme, he makes a point by stating that he is ending the patients' suffering. Kevorkian's patients are all terminal, and in extreme pain. To end their life with a quick, painless method could, perhaps, be ending the patients' pain, and helping them "die with dignity". However, as noted before, Kevorkian's views are quite extreme, and quite disturbing in the way that he is so passionate about legalizing active euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Daniel James, a 23-year- old rugby player, was left almost completely paralyzed as the result of a sports accident. In 2008, James committed suicide, with assistance, at Dignitas, a Swiss clinic that offers assisted suicide. Despite the fact that James was not suffering from a terminal illness, the clinic still granted him his wish to die "with dignity". Upon James' death, his parents were present, and the liquid that would place him in a never ending sleep was given to him by a volunteer. This practice, done in Switzerland, is legal, as long as it is done by a volunteer and no one profits from the death. Despite the legality of this, one must question whether it was right for James to commit suicide. James is one of the youngest patients to have died at Dignitas, and the procedure was done so shortly after the accident occurred, giving him little opportunity to adjust to or learn to appreciate his condition. It also leads one to question whether or not he was of sound mind, or whether he committed this action as the result of depression.

On the contrary, Alison Davis, a spina bifida patient, disagrees with assisted suicide, even going to the extent of comparing it to Nazi Germany. Davis is employed full time "defending the right to life of handicapped people". She argues that, even as a disabled woman, she leads a "full and happy life". At the age of 28, David has an honor's degree in sociology from a university, has been married for eight years to an "able bodied man", and has traveled to numerous countries throughout the world. While some, like Dan James or Ramon Sampedro, chose suicide after becoming disabled, Alison Davis made the most of her life, despite her disability. Some would say that, despite her opinions and lifestyle choices, Davis should allow "to each their own" and let others choose what is best for their own body. However, Davis' lifestyle and words of encouragement bring hope to others like her- Davis sets an example, and shows those with similar circumstances that their life is not "second class" or invaluable.

I believe that assisted suicide is okay in some circumstances. I strongly value life, and I feel that one should fully take advantage of this "gift" given to them- however, I feel that in some cases, assisted suicide relieves some of their pain and suffering. If one is suffering unbearable pain, is terminal, and is of sound mind, I feel that this person has the right to choose assisted suicide. Before such measures are taken, though, the patient should be psychologically evaluated and be counseled by a professional, in order to make sure that they are making the right decision. While I do believe assisted suicide is acceptable under these circumstances, I feel that in any other circumstance, for example, regarding quadriplegic and paraplegic patients, it should not be allowed. As someone who has lost family members and friends due to tragic accidents, I feel that one should live their life to the fullest extent. These family members and friends would probably have done whatever it takes to resume their life, and to postpone their death for many years to come, even if it meant being disabled. It makes me sad to think that some choose to end their life as the result of a disability.

Thank you so much, once again, for your time and contributions.

Best Wishes, Charlotte W.

Paige To Mr. Stephen Drake and Ms. Diane Coleman
media type="file" key="paige-euthanasia-cohort5-2011.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Before I start, I want to thank you for your time and for considering the opinions of myself and my classmates on this subject. I have the utmost respect for your and your opinions, regardless of my own personal views. My name is Paige Wood, I’m a senior at Foothill Technology High School and I hope to enter the medical field.

“First do no harm” is a phrase that every doctor swears to, but its interpretation is where things get complicated, especially as pertaining to euthanasia. It's proponents believe that allowing a patient to suffer, to watch their body completely deteriorate, to fully rely on machines to breathe or get nutrients into their bodies, is doing more harm than allowing them to die on their own terms, with dignity. Its opponents believe that it is merciless killing, which completely devalues the preciousness of life. So which is it, mercy or murder? I think that the practice of euthanasia is an act of mercy and that each and every person has the exclusive right to their body and to decide what happens to it. If a person wishes to die with dignity, they have every right to it.

I don’t think that this right should be extended exclusively to the handicapped or terminally ill. I think that human beings are capable of making choices and should have complete control of their own body. If they wish to escape from it, that is their choice. If they don’t, it’s their choice just the same.

One man,  Ramon Sampedro  , fought for the right to die for 29 years. He was a quadriplegic, a "head in the bed", what he considered a humiliating slavery. His disability took away his  ability to take his own life and so he had to fight for it. He lived in  Spain  , one of the countries where assisted suicide is illegal. He fought against the government, pleading for them to just let him die. He said constantly that he should be allowed to die for the simple fact that he knew it was what he wanted, that he was not living with dignity. He believed that living was "a right, not an obligation" and stated to the court that  "to deny the private property of our own selves is the biggest of cultural lies. For a culture that worships the private property of things -among them, earth and water- it is an aberration to deny the most private property of them all, our personal Land and Kingdom. Our body; life and conscience. -Our Universe”. It was his firmly held belief that his body belonged to him and no one else and if he should choose to want to leave this world, no one should have the right to stop him. With the aid of 11 people, each person playing a small enough role as to not be charged with assisting in suicide, Sampedro finally was able to take his life. He filmed the suicide, reciting his final words and ending by drinking a cup of potassium cyanide. At the very end of his speech, he states that "it is not that my conscience finds itself trapped in the deformity of my atrophied and numb body; but in the deformity, atrophy and insensitivity of your consciences". The issue was not so much that his mutilated body trapped him, but that everybody else's views trapped him.

Often, people who live with disabilities are still very happy and have no problem going on with their lives, unlike Sampedro. I applaud those people. I don't know what it's like to live a day in your shoes, but I have a great amount of respect for you and the things you go through on a daily basis. Allison Davis, a woman who was born with  spina bifida  , and whose parent's were advised by their doctors to have an abortion, is very grateful that she was given the opportunity to live. She responds to the idea that babies with congenital defects being aborted because they will have "no worthwhile quality of life" by saying, “legislation of the type proposed could well also lead to the de facto decriminalization of the act of killing a handicapped person of any age, just as it did in Hitler’s Germany". She believes that euthanasia for the disabled, especially babies, will lead to a  slippery slope   of inhumane murder. She says that she has led a "full and happy life", attending university, having a career and being happily married, and she sees no reason why any other disabled person can't do the same.

What's the difference between Davis and Sampedro? They are two completely separate people, with completely separate lives and completely separate values. Davis chose life, Sampedro chose death. Neither was right or wrong, because they made their own choice. They are two people and both deserve to make their own decisions about the end of their life, simply because it is just that- their life. Davis claims that legal euthanasia for the disabled will lead us down a slippery slope to a "Nazi-like" society, but does this have any truth? It’s my personal opinion that this idea is ridiculous and that it is more "Nazi-like" to deny someone the choice to die than it is to give it to them. It's illogical that our society will every go down a slope so far as to allow the terminally ill or disabled to have their lives taken against their will, because of the very ideals at the foundation of assisted suicide. The idea is not at all that the disabled or terminally ill are lesser people, it's that they are people with the ability to reason and to make decisions for themselves; if they want the right to live or not. Her argument that allowing euthanasia for the disabled will make other disabled people devalue their lives doesn’t make sense to me. First, how can a completely separate person affect how they think of their own lives? I have atypical depression with chronic dysphoria, panic disorder  and  body dysmorphic disorder; a real party-pack of mental disorders. It’s something I will have for the rest of my life and something that affects my life greatly. More people with my disorder kill themselves every year than any other mental or physical disease. I’m sure the same would ring true if suicide were legalized, but their decisions have no affect on how much I value my life. I want to live, the fact that someone else doesn’t, will never change that. Also, Davis’ argument shouldn’t hold up because suicide should be legal for everyone. The ability to think critically and make decisions is what makes us, as a species, unique. We all have the ability, and deserve the right, to make an informed, responsible decision to choose to end our life.

"The task of health care is to cure sometimes, relieve often and care always". If a patient can no longer be cured or relieved, a doctor should care enough to take them out of their misery, if it's what they want. It’s obviously never the ideal treatment, but sometimes when a patient is down to nothing else, euthanasia is the best treatment. It makes perfect sense why some people may not want to be euthanized, but legalizing it does not force them to be. Legal euthanasia does not take away anyone’s right to a natural death, if that is what they wish. Criminalizing it, however, makes it impossible for anyone who does wish to choose when they want to die. Euthanasia should be a right because we have the right to life, and the ability to think critically and make decisions. With the exception of minors and regulations such as a strict waiting period, family consultation and possible rehabilitation, everyone who wants the right to die should be allowed to make that choice. It is selfish and against our rights as humans to force someone to be alive when all they want is to end whatever suffering they’re going through. As Dr. Death himself once said, “dying is not a crime.”

Thank you again for your time.

Sincerely, Paige Wood.

= EUTHANASIA =





= COHO RT 5 =