himself, he disapproves of the Death with Dignity law, and I agree with Ben Mattlin that there is haste to
assisted suicide, and thus I want to make use of your column to express my reasons why assisted suicide
should not be encouraged.
Ben Mattlin’s article divulges precisely that disabled or lethally ill people do not have to designate
death to lessen the burden of their family and prove themselves exalted by their self-sacrifice. Not all
families would derive paying the heavy medical fees as an encumbrance. Firstly, the sick patient himself has
to have the right, positive convictions in his mind. Assisted suicide is not the only option to a life full of
melancholy, and no one should feel pressurized until the point of choosing death. When the choice of death
is affirmed, there will be no turning back, and also much too late for regret to submerge. When the moment
of remorse for their decision comes after the patient is already killed, no one will be able to afford to
shoulder all this guilt. Not everything can simply be straightened out with death, and communication among
family members is what’s essential at this moment. For the ill people who cannot speak, their family should
carefully put forth the will of the sick person and respect the sick person’s will at all cost, with no right to
influence their choice.
Which leads me to my next point: what exactly is the duty of a physician? It is understood by
everyone in this world that physicians are people who heal the sick and injured. But now the adoption of the
assisted suicide law would be the same way as saying the physicians could also kill. A physician is to do
everything he can to cure the patient, finding every possible way and thinking ‘it’s possible’, but not
believing that it’s impossible to save the patient and pays no effort to cite optimism. Taking Ben Mattlin’s
situation as an example, the doctors questioned whether it was worth trying to extend his life. This kind of
attitude is what’s unerringly bringing pressure to the terminally ill patient, giving the chance to question
about their existence. Assisted suicide may be a self-decision, but even a person’s value can be twisted by
the coercing surrounding environment and people. We have the right to expect that our doctors will give
serviceable counseling throughout the most difficult times in life.
Some people may say that assisted suicide is just a way to put a terminally ill patient out of misery,
and is classified as doing that sick person a favour. However, inducing an ill man to believe that his only
alternative aside from impoverishing his family would be assisted suicide is immoral, a concomitant way of
killing someone. When we think about it, can we just lucidly allow someone to die with a signature on a
clarifying document, ending that someone’s life so easily? No matter how ill a patient can be, the patient has
the right to live until the last moments, because nobody is certain that there will be a misdiagnose, or a
miraculous change of events to the sickness like Ben Mattlin’s. When we hold all these possibilities, we
cannot make the decision of whether life or death that easily anymore, and encouraging everyone to think
positively, the law of assisted suicide should always be abolished.
In a society where everyone’s will is respected, it is considered truthful that even a terminally ill
patient has the right to choose his or her own fate. Living is a priority given to us, and we cannot throw
away such an important thing away. There is no need for self-sacrifice, as it is only an idealized
independence. We all need help, and as for patients, they should not feel any guilt and shame for relying on
their family and friends or on the medical care of hospitals. That is why, assisted suicide on no occasion
should ever be an option.
Yours faithfully,
Jocelyn Huang
XXX. Hong Kong. Nov 27, 2012