Marie Eschenfelder [Click to enlarge]

She is dying from an incurable brain disease and wants to commit suicide. Death is just a part of life, so why can’t she just carry on with her life? She would need help to commit suicide, and Brian, her husband of 25 years, would have to help her.

Prosecutors have said Bryan would face a 14-year jail sentence if convicted. The government in Britain decides when a person can’t die, but in America the problem is worse.

Here you cannot legally kill yourself, but the state can legally kill you.

Several months ago, I heard that the government was declaring "War on Suicide." (This was long before Sept. 11, and it had nothing to do with suicide bombers.)

What that phrase really meant was that the government was going to declare war on depression.

People think suicide and depression are one and the same, but they are not.

Depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and should be treated with the most appropriate weapon in a doctor’s arsenal.

But if a Buddhist monk wants to set himself on fire for a cause, that is freedom of speech.

Although he will die and it is technically suicide, it should be his right.

The courts have ruled that donating to a political campaign is free speech. Surely a Buddhist suicide must be beyond a dollar amount.

If someone wants to go on a hunger strike for a cause, possibly dying in the process and technically committing suicide, it should be his or her right.

The government can not prosecute a dead person, so why even put the law on the books?

A person like Diane Pretty should be able to die with dignity. Her husband could legally take her off breathing machines after she becomes a vegetable, after he watches her wither away to nothing but a shell of the woman he loves.

For the two of them to have a wonderful conversation, kiss each other good night, and say, "See you later," as she falls into a peaceful slumber, it is illegal — so illegal it would punish him with 14 years behind bars.

The English court said no one had the right to "procure their own death." I guess the court reserves that right for the government.

The BBC reports that Diane "wants to carry on" the fight to end her life. The phrasing does seem rather ironic.

There must be some middle ground here. Granting Diane her wish would not be granting a license to kill, as the English courts have said.

The courts act like her death would spark a series of suicides, like thousands of black cats going off in the night. This analogy just isn’t true.

Life as we know it will not end when assisted suicide is legalized.

It didn’t end in the Netherlands when they legalized it. On April 10, 2001, that country became the first to legalize euthanasia and physician assisted suicide although there are strict medical guidelines.

An issue is never just black and white, and the Netherlands’ law shows that there is room, even in death, for compromise. Since government exists for the people, it should bend to the will of the people.

If I were faced with Diane’s situation, I may not take the same path she has taken, but no government should have the right to make that woman suffer or allow her husband to watch her deteriorate into a limp sack of flesh.

They should just let her get on with her life.

Eschenfelder is a journalism major from Longview.

Reach her at estenflower@aol.com.

Article Tools