Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly

Hi! I will try my best to explain my position more clearly because I do not believe you fully read and understood my last argument completely... Let me begin by explaining the truth of dignity and the problem with the phrase "dying with dignity". Dignity is defined as the "high value" which is intrinsically part of every human being and does not depend on the quality of a person's life. Please understand that suffering in no way could ever reduce human dignity but could rather "intensify" it through the fruitful goods that can come from suffering itself. (Which I previously listed). Also, no where in my arguments have I said that suffering is a complete good thing but it is not a completely evil thing either... (Read carefully) It is both good and bad, but the goodness or badness of it can be increased through one's view of suffering. One who believes suffering is a completely bad thing will fail to see the fruit it can bear and thus will make their suffering pointless. However, one who chooses to recognize the goodness suffering can bring to themselves (and to their family) will be able to more easily endure the suffering because of this end goal in mind. If Brittany would choose bravery over cowardice and trust in the plan of the "higher power" to provide for her until her natural death, her and her family would be able to grow deeply as persons and experience the goods that would come from the unfortunate situation of suffering of cancer. The second intrinsic quality of the human person (which distinguishes us from any other creature on earth) is our "intellect." The human "intellect" is defined as the quality all humans possess which enables us to truly "know" things, to be conscious of ourselves, to be able to grasp concepts, problems, the Truth about Natural Law, the Truth about a "higher power". See, the intellect and free will cooperate hand in hand in the way that intellect "forms" the will. Since the intellect is able to know Truth, it is naturally bent on enabling our wills to love (rather than kill). This allowance of cooperation leads us to the climax of our dignity! In your first paragraph, I disagree with everything accept for the unfortunate reality of what Brittany will have to endure if she chooses to embrace suffering instead of death. It would be far more loving for Maynard's family to endure suffering with her than to cooperate and allow Brittany (their own daughter) to kill herself. There is no argument for the extremely unfortunate situation of cancer but the choice (again) is not hers to make. She is able to make the decision, but this does not mean that it is a morally good decision! I have to challenge you to answer this, if we are unable to choose the time of our birth, then how can you believe that we have the right to choose the time of our death whenever we feel like it is time? My second question is: Society has never condoned euthanasia until the modern century, so why do we all of a sudden believe it to be acceptable? For a second, I would also like to add that if it is any person in this conversation who has based her beliefs on anything but her own opinion, it is me. If you truly believe that there is a God then you would trust in him completely to provide for all people's lives (including your own) through suffering until their natural end. You would not be here arguing for the "right" people have to end their own life. This brings me to my next truth about "rights". A "right" is not freedom. Rather, a "right" is a duty (also a "moral claim") that is owed to others, society, the "higher power" (God). I have a feeling that you may be confusing a "right" with freedom so let me try and explain the difference in a more practical sense. No person on this earth has the duty to kill themselves or to kill someone else. Would you agree? It may sound silly but this is exactly what you have said euthanasia is. You argue the euthanasia is a duty for us to fulfill, it is a duty for us to kill ourselves and help others do the same. "Freedom", however, is different. "Freedom" is defined as being able to choose between two or more things. We can choose to take a shower everyday or we can choose to not take a shower. We can choose to eat breakfast in the morning or we can choose to start off our day with an empty stomach. We can choose to kill ourselves or we can choose not to kill ourselves. These are all choices we (as humans) are able to make because (as you said) we all have a free will! However, just because we have the "freedom" (not the "right") to do all of these things, does it make them all morally good to do? I surely hope you don't think so. You are correct that God gave us a free will, "which allows us to make our own decisions, even involving our own deaths" but this does not make it right for Brittany to take her own life or for anyone to do so. In your third paragraph, you argue that it would be disrespectful for me to not allow "them" (meaning an individual) to make their own decision to end their life... this is partially true and I will explain why. It would be wrong for me to try and hinder a person's ability to choose (though we always have a choice!) but it would also be wrong for me to completely ignore their decision to kill themselves. For example, if my husband wants and is planning on killing himself because he has just been diagnosed with a terminal illness, it is my duty as a loving wife (and a person in general) to help him realize the evilness of his desire as well as try my best to lead him to embrace his remaining time on earth rather than choosing death. I would do the exact same for any other family member, friend, or peer whom I know but I am not morally responsible for making trips to a hospital in efforts to convert and lead every terminally ill patient I can to the Truth. Disregarding God for a moment (Sorry God...) the truth of euthanasia is that it is gravely and morally evil according to natural law. According to natural law, we should not murder. Can we agree on this law? This is because euthanasia is the direct (or indirect, aka "enabling") killing of a human being and that is a fact! Euthanasia IS murder. Regarding your fourth paragraph argument, I never said that there should be any "guidelines about assisted suicide" nor did I say that there should be "certain parameters put in place". I believe you misread my argument or mistook that section as my argument where as it was really "benjaminimuffin " who stated that. I would be very grateful if you would re-read my position on that (in my previous argument) explaining the corruption and conflict that is bound to occur from an "assessment" as "benjaminimuffin" and you are both bringing up. Should I re-state my opinion on the matter just to be clear? Not only should there not be parameters/guidelines set up for euthanasia, there should be NO euthanasia period! Regarding your final argument, because I already addressed the goodness and the badness of suffering as well as the fact that the gift of our free will allows us to choose to do anything we want in life, I want to focus more now on your question regarding people who commit suicide and try my best to explain it in conjunction to the logical and moral reasoning behind the evilness of murder. (Read carefully) Any person who suffers from severe problems such as depression and chooses to commit suicide (this is directly similar to euthanasia) is finding a permanent solution for a temporary problem. Do you see the problem with this? See, although killing yourself may technically "end" the suffering you are enduring it is actually prolonging the suffering of the ones who are affected by your death. This is why suicide in a sense is "more bad" than euthanasia because (in most cases) it is done without the knowledge of family, friends, peers... I look forward to hearing your thoughts/questions and hope I have led you to a more complete understanding of the Truth!