We, as a society, do not feel they are in a position to make prudent decisions. For instance, we limit the decision-making autonomy of children and of those who are mentally impaired. We typically grant decision-making autonomy only where someone has a legitimate right and ability to decide.
But in such a state of presumed depression, is it in her best interest for us to give her decision-making autonomy to end her life? Indeed, Maggie's severely disabled state is an enormous challenge to the human spirit. From a purely humanitarian approach, we may still question her autonomous decision.
We are certainly never permitted to shorten the life of someone like Maggie who is in a very compromised state, but not dying.īut it does not require an edict from the Code of Jewish Law to recognize that Maggie is making the wrong choice. Jewish law approaches the preservation of life as a moral obligation, but recognizes that there are times, particularly when a patient is terminally ill, when intervention should not be performed. (See: Should Terri Schiavo Live or Die?) Yet Judaism categorically states that one may never actively shorten the life of even a terminally ill patient. Jewish law does not require the preservation of life in all instances, and in fact, when someone is terminally ill and suffering, we do not necessarily require treatments to prolong life. Judaism recognizes that a person has the autonomy to make healthcare decisions, but insists that they must do so in a prudent manner (see " Doctor Knows Best?"). "I had it all," Maggie tells Frankie, "so don't take it away from me."įrom a Jewish perspective, euthanasia is never permitted. So we need to ask: Is Maggie's decision to die reasonable? She describes her previous fame, the crowds chanting her name, and feels that having achieved that exulted status, there's no point in living as a quadriplegic. Stories of businessmen jumping off buildings after a stock market crash fill us with pity for the lost chance at intervention, not a feeling of satisfaction of them "having done the right thing." The stated reason, whether devastating or trite, would lead us to conclude that this person is depressed and needs emotional support and possibly psychiatric treatment.
Yet let us consider: If a physically healthy person, with a stable family, wealth, and a successful career, would state that he wants to die, we would naturally find it hard to support such a decision. Common wisdom declares that the wishes of a patient, whether they be for more treatment, less treatment, or physician-assisted suicide, must be respected and carried out. Let us analyze the issues raised by the movie: Why would someone ask to die and should we be willing to oblige? We take for granted a world where patient autonomy is the overriding ethical principle to which all other considerations must bend. Without hope of recovery, she attempts suicide, before finally persuading Frankie to help her die.
We can all identify with Maggie's suffering: the glory that could have been and the horrible turn of events that has left her helpless. She is mentally alert, but feels no reason to go on living. Suddenly, an injury renders Maggie permanently paralyzed from the neck down, unable to move, and dependent on a respirator to keep her alive. (Spoiler Alert: If you don't want to know the film's plot twist, stop reading now.) On the strength of believing in herself, Maggie reaches the pinnacle of success and is about to become world champion. Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) is a tough-luck waitress, who persuades a grizzled old trainer named Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) to help turn her into a world-class boxer. The Academy Award-winning movie, Million Dollar Baby, strikes deep at the issues of self-worth and the value of life.