Dear Dr. Ted,

So killing all quadriplegics was definitely not the first thing that came to mind after I saw this movie. The moral I took away from the movie was to follow your dreams, even if some one says you can’t. I definitely feel like this message applies equally to everyone, no matter how many limbs they have. If you really want to you could definitely lambast this as a “million dollar euthanasia movie” written to promote assisted suicide, but it seems just as fair to say that Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet to promote teenage suicide. I also feel like one case of Eastwood not having handicapped accessible bathrooms really isn’t enough evidence to consider him diabolical genius who launches “brilliantly executed” attacks to fulfill his “disability vendetta.” Overall I think this is an instance of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

You say that “love should never trump conscience,” that murder is inexcusable. I agree that murder is inexcusable, but this can hardly be considered murder. He helped a quadriplegic do something that she couldn’t do herself, nothing more, nothing less. I feel like it should be considered suicide more than euthanasia, except that she was not capable of doing it herself.

I also think that anything short of her killing herself would have seemed unrealistic. She loved fighting and that is what she lived for. She made a perfectly valid decision, as do many with permanent life altering afflictions. You can’t just sweep assisted suicide under the rug, hide it from all forms of media, pretend it never happens. You may have your will to live, your religious law, or whatever keeps you wanting to live, but you cannot force that upon everyone. She was an intelligent adult who no longer wanted to live, nobody convinced her to kill herself, she chose by herself. This film was a portrayal of someone living their life then ending their life, not of the need to kill off the handicapped.
Sincerely,
Bryan