I was young during the tragedy of Sept. 11, but I was still privy to the discussion of the jumpers and whether or not what they did was “suicide.” You might remember the incident sparked this conversation in which some claimed that those who chose to leap from the towers rather than burn to death were sinning, as the act of jumping was deviating from another path to death that didn’t involve their own hand.

I was taken aback that people truly believed jumping off a burning building, even in the face of impending death, was tantamount to this made-up concept (suicide) we use to describe this complex thing (death involving one’s own hand), and I was shocked to see that some viewed the jumpers so negatively for this.

It pains me to see that this line of thinking is still at large. When Brittany Maynard recently shared her story of seeking death with dignity with the nation, many accused her of glorifying suicide, and some said she should be willing to suffer because it was part of “God’s plan.”

This narrative of suffering does not sit well with me, especially because it’s so thickly based on certain conceptions of morality pulled from certain conceptions of religion that only some of us share. But I am confident the rest of us can combat this with educated dialogue that seeks sympathy for situations like that of Tom Byrne’s.

I have heard a worthy debate with regards to death with dignity: the concern that once assisted suicide is widely legalized, the right to die will morph into the duty to die when terminally ill patients and their families are faced with the financial costs of prolonging their lives.

But I think many of us can agree that the duty to live and suffer for a version of morality we don’t all share is more concerning, especially when some suffering people can’t exercise the sort of choice that Tom was able to exercise. Slowly suffering or quickly and painlessly meeting the end – the choice should belong to the individual.

Ronni Souers

Durango