1

Ethics Paper: Me Before You

Erynn R. Dunnigan

Respiratory Therapy, University of Mary

RTH 420: Professional Seminar

Dr. Chris Sperle

February 18, 2024

“You only get one life; it is actually your duty to live it as fully as possible.” This is what

character Will Trainer said to Lousia Clarke in the film Me Before You. The plot of the movie is

however, centered around a paraplegic, Will, who plans out and actively takes his one life by

means of a romanticized assisted suicide, failing his duty to let alone live fully, but even to live.

Me Before You ironically depicts main character, Will Trainor, putting himself before all else.

When analyzing the main ethical dilemma in Me Before You, I think the principal value is

quality of life. There is conflicting value placed on the quality of Will’s life as he lives as a

paraplegic. The unclear recognition of value in life with disability leads to a very subjective

definition regarding quality of life. This idea sets a very poor perspective towards individuals

who live with various disabilities because quality of life becomes subjective, and many would

argue that a life with disability still holds great quality. Quality, when referring to life, is outside

of time. One does not know, unless omnipotent, what the next moment in time will bring-

therefor the concept of quality of life from a physical standpoint falls apart on itself because it is

immeasurable and subjective, it’s out of our control to be able to truly determine and this is why

the dispute with quality of life exists- because it is subjective and outside of time to truly define

and prove. Life itself is not a spectrum of measurement, it is all, that is alive, or nothing, which is

dead.

Will, now may have more challenges than before, however they are manageable, and

treatable challenges that are well below what would be medically considered life sustaining

measures. The measures of assistance Will requires are considered by the Ethical and Religious

Directives to be “ordinary and proportionate care (USCCB, 2016).” Other aspects of Will’s life,

such as the limit to his old activities and his mobility, the loss of his girlfriend, his job- yes, they

are challenges, but what Will fails to recognize is they are changes too, and change is a dynamic
 3

thing. Change has potential. Will still has his life, he has emotion, and community, it just has

changed, but I would argue that all the abilities he still holds define some measure of quality. As

human beings, we live to survive- from the beginning of time- we adapt. This is what living with

disabilities is- it’s changing and adapting. It is unnatural to desire death- we refer to this state of

thought as disordered and even disease within the mind, that is mental illness termed suicidal. On

the trip, at a meaningful moment Will says, “I am deciding that this is it, and I want things to end

after this.” This is unnatural, and it is a thought process that goes against his still beating heart

and natural inclination to live – a diseased thought process. I argue what Will is really

experiencing during this moment, in a profound way, is disordered joy. C.S. Lewis used to say

that all joy reminds, it is a kind of sorrow, a longing for a moment one has now that they want

again. Will experienced joy in this moment with Lousia and fears for it to end, especially because

he has great challenges and changes at such time in his life, and the disordered part is not the fact

that he wants to stay in the moment, but the desire to not want it again and again in the future.

When we grieve a moment of joy we want it back, we want a future that reminds us of the

moment so we can feel it once again, this motivates us to go on- this is ordered. Mental illness is

treatable- Will’s desire to die is not innate, I would argue that it then comes not from a place of

desiring good, but of disorder, and thus cannot be justified. It is natural for humans to fight to

escape pain, but not to desire cease from existence in doing so. Therefor, though Will believes

there is benefit to death because in such scenario he escapes the emotional and physical pain he

is experiencing, it is against not only what one might believe or feel is right, but it goes against

the foundation of one’s own biology- to live. Ironically, the last words from Will in the film are

to “Live boldly. Just live well. Just live and I will be with you every step of the way.” This

demonstrates conflicting values even within himself.

To live, in fact, means to survive challenges and to change with them- to adapt. Medicine

exists in the very essence of adaptability. Medicine would not exist if it did not alter the human

body for the better. The greatest foundation healthcare strives for is to do no harm. I argue there

is a difference from withdrawing life sustaining measures than directly and intentionally causing

a lethal consequence to one’s life. When a family or an individual decides to withdraw care while

utilizing life sustaining measures, it is not an intentional and direct action or use of lethal means.

It is an indirect action with an unintentional cause- death. This is what happens when a patient on

hospice care is given morphine to manage pain. They are not given a lethal amount to cause

death, they are dosed to be made comfortable and on occasion unintentional death occurs in the

process due to the nature of the indirect side effects of the pharmacologic. The Ethical and

Religious Directives summarize such in stating, “The task of medicine is to care even when it

cannot cure (USCCB, 2016).” Direct action with intention does the most harm anyone can do to

another – that is inflicting death, and it goes against our natural inclination and the duty in

medicine. For example, Lousia’s mom when she finds out expresses that she should not be a part

of this, Will couldn’t be in his right mind, and “it’s no better than murder.” I agree with this not

only for anyone involve with assisted suicide, but especially the healthcare system, and the fact

that we allow employees to be paid and hospitals or pharmaceuticals to make profit from such is

far beyond what I find ethical, let alone moral.

The film glamorized this process with the depiction of the character’s acceptance and

grandeur music, gestures, and death in a beautiful setting. The movie shows Will’s parents and

Lou accepting Will’s decision and they all hug each other and are showing brave faces and

smiles as Will makes his, what is depicted to be, a noble act. Assisted suicide is not noble, it’s

counterintuitive. I think this is why this film was so popular, because people wonder whether
 5

assisted suicide is right, or wrong and the movie’s glamorization and seemingly noble character

Will, places a stake in the atrocity and progressiveness of assisted suicide.

Morally, the Catholic perspective permits legal care plans such as a DNR in a terminally

ill patient, as they believe in the dignity of the human person and in death with dignity. However,

one must be cautious in defining terms like dignity, and especially death with dignity. The

supporting argument in a DNR from the Catholic perspective is also the slogan for many assisted

suicide facilities- death with dignity. Ironically, the facility Will goes to in Europe to die, in his

mind with dignity, is called Dignitas, the Latin term for dignity. This, is a double-edged sword

and we must define terms carefully when using such language around assisted suicide and death

in general. However, the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs)do make further clarifications

as to why and what death with dignity means in a moral sense. The ERDs disclose “Dying

patients who request euthanasia should receive loving care, psychological and spiritual support,

and appropriate remedies for pain and other symptoms so that they can live with dignity until the

time of natural death (USCCB,2016).” This means that healthcare providers recognize the desire

to die as a state of disease and offer treatment to alleviate such suffering while preserving life

and respecting the dignity of that person. This approach, I consider to be ordered and how Christ

receives such, and many people would still be alive today if we followed this philosophy instead

of inhibiting it with laws to induce death.

I think every person in their life experiences moments that could be an out. Though we,

as humans are not designed to take the out, we are made to survive, and as children of God, we

are made to serve. We serve and we survive until we naturally cannot. Individuals with

disabilities and greater challenges than most have the same unwavering quality of life as

everyone else- with the common determining factor being alive. Assisted suicide is unethical to
 6

the human person who receives and to those who give. Me Before You is yet another anecdote to

tragic misalignment of truth and value in life.

References

Sharrock, T. (2016). Me Before You. Warner Bros.

USCCB. Ethical and religious directives for catholic health Care (2016).

https://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/ethical-and-religious-directives/upload/ethical-

religious-directives-catholic-health-service-sixth-edition-2016-06.pdf