"Life
has value as long as we value ourselves; when that is no longer possible, it is
better to end it than continue without meaning. The choice must be an act of
personal freedom, and it must be easier to find help when we need it. This is
also a way of showing love!”
-Ramon Sampedro
Mar
Adentro was based on the true story of Ramon Sampedro, a sailor who became a quadriplegic
and has been bedridden for 28 years. He was the first Spanish who asked the courts
to grant him the right to assisted suicide or euthanasia. The film can be
captured by the above quote in Ramon’s book “Letters from Hell” (Cartas desde el infierno).
There are two major ethical issues
that I felt strongly portrayed in the film: euthanasia and adultery. Euthanasia,
dignified death, the right to die, freedom of choice, etc., are the terms with
which the main topic of the film could be defined. I can say that the film
revolves around this major ethical issue since the protagonist, Ramon, strongly
wishes to die and was evidenced by how he rejects resources that might improve
his quality of life (e.g. wheelchair), his confinement in a non-accessible
environment and his stubborn desire to die. However, a love story that is more
delicate than the discussion on euthanasia, which is the film’s main topic, also
develops throughout the film. This love story between Julia (Ramon’s lawyer)
and Ramon was an example of what I consider as an unethical act. Theirs was a
forbidden love since Julia was already married at that time. Although their
love story was not really emphasized in the film, it can be deduced from their
actions and decisions how they really love each other despite knowing the harsh
reality they both face.
Ramon perceived his life as “a living head in a dead body” and talks
with cold detachment of lives that should not be lived like his. He refused to
use the wheelchair because “to accept the
wheelchair would be like accepting scraps of what my freedom used to be”. He
believed that living is truly experienced when one has freedom; freedom to move
and to act to chase his dreams.
Gené and Marc, defenders of the pro-euthanasia
association, also become standard-bearers of life, explaining their ideals as
the defense of all: “we support freedom:
that of those who wish to live and that of those who wish to die”. Conversely,
those who are against of euthanasia, like Fr. Francisco, who was also
quadriplegic, engaged Ramon in a debate on the possibilities involved in living
in a wheelchair, setting forth arguments such as “life is not only moving one’s arms or running from one place to
another or kicking a ball…” and “life
is a gift”, clearly reflecting, in the scenes where he appeared, on the
architectural barriers that exist where Ramon lives.
Both sides of the argument had fair points;
one talks about his right to life and death while the other contends that life
is so much more than merely being able to move. I believe that Ramon’s reason
for wanting to die was not morally justified. Although this situation of his is
relative, his reasons are not enough justification to end one’s life because he
did not even try to “live” in the past 28 years that he was bedridden; he
merely existed and fought for his right to die. He became pessimistic and
antisocial. He refused to accept a wheelchair or even go outside the confines
of his room. He clouded himself with thoughts of being a liability to his
family. His stubbornness against attachment to life was obsessive, and his
desire to die became pathological. He simply did not try to live; that’s why I
believe that his reasons were not morally justified.
Ramon’s family could be best described
as supportive. Supportive in the aspect of caring and helping him and not in
his decision to die, since it was clearly stated that he did not listen to any
of their opinions because for him, what they say about his life didn’t matter
at all. For me, I admired how his older brother stopped working to be able to
be close to Ramon and deal with his situation, how willing Manuela, his
sister-in-law, was to look after him unconditionally without any help, how his
father supported him although it clearly pains him and how his nephew loved,
respected and cared for him.
At the end of the film, even though he
was not granted the permission for euthanasia by the courts, Ramon decided to
finally end his life. There are two ironies I noticed in this particular act.
The first was the fact that the one who assisted Ramon to die, Rosa, was the
same person who at the beginning of the film said that she wanted to befriend
him and convince him that the best option is to continue living. The other was
the last scenes where we see the double-edged sword of the ultimate life
decisions: live or die. For one (Ramon) it is the fires of hell and the
recapture of a freedom taken, yet for another (Julia), the consequences of life
without a memory.
__________________________
This reflection paper was made for our Theology class :)
No comments:
Post a Comment