The Secret is How to Die

Dan Brown’s hit book The Lost Symbol opens with the words “The Secret is how to die. Since the beginning of time, the secret has always been how to die” (3). Truly, there are only two guarantees in this life: (1) you will be born, and (2) you will eventually die. As such, birth and death should be of great interest to everyone.

In society, talking about death is taboo. Death is something that is not fully understand. In fact, it is something that many do not wish to contemplate. For those lives that death has touched, it leaves a burning hole, a feeling of loss, often chased by despair and depression. As society politely sweeps the dead under the carpet with as little exposure to the living as possible, the people avert their eyes from the unknown and unknowable. We fear death because we know it not, we cling to life because it offers warm familiarity. Death is no tragedy, death is no sin, it is a step into the dark, a step all must one day take. The secret is how to die.

    In Greek there is a word that is defined as “good death”, this word is Euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of allowing one to choose when they wish to end their life.  Euthanasia is most often performed when an individual has decided there is more unavoidable pain and displeasure to come than happiness and they would prefer to end their life prematurely. The choice to be euthanized can extend to the family of the person if the said person is not in a condition to grant consent.   Currently, there are only five countries that legally allow a form euthanasia.

 As one examines the nature decision making, it is a parent that individuals constantly make choices they believe will bring happiness and joy. We weight the possibilities and make an individual choice of which option will afford us the most happiness or the least amount of displeasure. All our rights have been given to us so that we can achieve a greater level of freedom and happiness as individuals and as a society in general. There comes a point where the happiness of the individual and society would be greater if the individual were allowed to end his life.

That being said the legal acceptance of Euthanasia should be carefully defined and outlined as this concept could introduce several cultural and social issues if improperly applied. Many of us feel at points in our life that we would rather not have to continue living, we may feel that there is nothing worth living for. More often than no we come to realize in retrospection how wrong we truly were. It would be inappropriate and irresponsible for society to allow a healthy sixteen year-old boy to end his life prematurely because of a failed romantic relationship. Although he may wish his life to be over it would be rash and illogical for him to do it on the basis of utilitarianism and on the study of others such experiences.

Despite the potential negative implication of Euthanasia if inappropriately applied, the beneficial qualities far outweigh potential depravities. Let us consider a case wherein Euthanasia would be considered moral by utilitarian standards.

Doris’ husband was 82 years old when he started having serious medical issues. He had specifically placed in his will that “[He] didn't want any extreme measures taken [to preserve his life].” The time came when he was no longer conscious and his life was in question. Doris was influenced by her children to place her husband into a special care facility. She visited him every day that he was in the facility. Doris described it first hand:

     He was in intensive care. Tubes were inserted in his neck, oxygen was given, and he had a tube down his throat. Every day different specialists examined him. He remained unconscious.                       

     After a while, the tube down his throat caused a problem, so it had to be removed and a tracheotomy performed. He had to be suctioned to keep the fluid from filling his lungs. The tubes in his neck area became inflamed, so they were moved to his other side. He was turned constantly to avoid bedsores.

     Every day we were told he was improving in one area but failing in another. The resuscitation cart was always outside his door. The one time he regained consciousness, he started shouting that he wanted to get out of there. The doctors assured me that he didn't know what he was saying.

     This went on for 45 days. Every day I stayed with him, and the family gave me what support they could.

            As we consider the ethical values implicit in the Euthanasia issue we must put ourselves in the plae of Doris and her Husband. What is the ethical thing to do in that situation? Is it ethical to prolong his life indefinitely or would it better to stop his suffering?

            Doris chose, with the affirmation of the doctors, to discontinue further treatment. Her husband was placed on a morphine drip to quell his pain and was taken off of treatment. He died the next day.

This is a day of rights, where all humans are given the ability to choose what they believe to be right. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the Declaration of Independence we have past milestones in obtaining freedom and morality while remaining in civilized society. For one to be restricted on a reasonable medical request to end one’s life is paramount to taking one’s life out of their control. In the afore mentioned Declaration of Independence it states:          

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

            To deny euthanization can be seen as an obstruction to the pursuit of happiness. When the pain and degradation of life, or unavoidable future pan and degradation, outweighs the pleasure and happiness that their life bring the logical course of action in the pursuit of happiness is to end your life. This would beneficial not only the recipient but also society as a whole, as it would allow for better medical attention, less money spent by the family and government, and better peace of mind and closer for the family and friends knowing that the person is no longer in pain.   

            As responsible loving pet owners often we see this issue much clearer.  There comes a time when you can see an animal is in pain, when you see that it hurts every moment of every day. To euthanize it is the responsible thing to do, it is the charitable thing to do, the human thing to do. How are humans different? How much more do humans deserve this treatment when they so ask for it? We deserve to die in dignity in whatever way we see fit, to aid in the reasonable termination of life is not a tragedy, it is not a sin, it is a service. We all must die at some point, when you leave this life do you want to do it in a situation of control or a situation of compulsion? The secret is how to die.

Works Cited 

Brown, Dan. The Lost Symbol. Doubleday, 2009.

Harris, NM. "The Euthanasia Debate". J R Army Med Corps 147 2001: 367-370.

Doris. "DORIS' STORY." Compassion & Choices. Compassion & Choices. Web. 06 July 2010.       .

Jecker, Nancy Ann Silbergeld., Albert R. Jonsen, and Robert A. Pearlman. Bioethics: an Introduction to the History, Methods, and Practice. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett, 2007. Print.

17 USC. Sec. 304. 2000. Print.

Meier, Diane E., Carol-Ann Emmons, Sylvan Wallenstein, Timothy Quill, Sean Morrison, and  Christine K. Cassel. "NEJM -- A National Survey of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the United States." NEJM -- Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists. The New England Journal of Medicine, 23 Apr. 1998. Web. 06 July 2010. .

Book Review: The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown

                This marks the third Dan Brown book I have read, the previous two being the initial novels in the “Robert Langdon Trilogy”, as it stands now.  These books are: “Angels and Demons” (2000), “The Da Vinci Code” (2003), and now “The Lost Symbol” (2009).

                For those unfamiliar with these bestselling books, or their plot(s), these books focus on the protagonist Robert Langdon, a professor of religious iconology and symbology at Harvard University, who in is called on to interpret ancient symbols to aid in resolving and preventing murders and national crises.  He delves into the secrets of religion and spiritualism discovering the hidden aspects of historic religion.

 Above I put “plot(s)” because after having read the trilogy I find that they all are essentially the same book, with the same elements and modes, the difference is found primarily in the research that Dan Brown focuses, the locations in with the book is places, and the objects in which are interpreted.  I created a list of common elements found in the books.

Characteristic	Angels and Demons	The Da Vinci Code	The Lost Symbol
Murder Investigation	X	X
Catholic Conspiracy	X	X
Science and Religion	X	X	X
Scavenger Hunt	X	X	X
Evil Sadistic Mastermind who wants to play with them giving them hints instead of just being evil	X	X	X
Symbolic Deaths	X	X	X
Misleads into thinking Robert is dead	X		X
Ascetics	X	X	X
Incapacity of Police	X	X	X
Beat the Clock scenario (or more people die)	X	X	X
Brilliant Romantic Interest (which can only be pursued if the system is cracked and the bad guy taken out, but even after this is done they never actually go anywhere)	X	X	X
Crack The Code and Puzzle Scenario	X	X	X
Antagonists to Protagonist Swaps (or vies versa)	X	X	X
Unexpected Twist (relating to family connections)	X	X	X
TELL ME OF MORE SIMULARITIES

                Aside from the fact that I feel like I read the same book three times, how was that book?  I enjoyed it the first time, and a little the second time, less so the third time.  There is a lot of action, fair amounts of suspense and wonder, and a pretty decent twist at the end of each book regarding familial connections. He deals with mystical teachings and generally unknown but accurate facts and tidbits. He then draws exiguous implications and possibilities from these singular and isolated facts drawing tentative possible conclusions.  For me the greatest wonder while I was reading his books was not the accuracy of his research but if in his book Dan Brown would accept the mystical claims of the subjects he was researching and which beliefs he would disregard as fallacious. 

My first objection to the book The Lost Symbol is that the book itself takes place in a space of 12 hours and the book itself is 528 pages.  That is almost 50 pages per hour, I have not tested my theory but I believe that it would be impossible to do what they did in 12 hours, with all the traveling that they had to do.

The plot is decent, but it is common for all the books.  Robert is lured to Washing D.C. where he is manipulated by an unknown man for unknown reasons eventually leading to Robert unveiling Masonic secrets and symbolism.  He explores various Masonic symbols and meaning imbedded in Washington D.C. and in US history,  gets his hands on many rare Masonic devices.  He is called upon to crack a century old code else his long time Masonic friend will die.  This night is a scavenger hunt to the death especially, beat the clock or people start dying. 

 As far as the characters go, I feel no real connection or attachment. Robert Langdon, the main character, is Dan Browns vision of himself, or of who he wishes he was; they share the same birthrate and birthplace.  He is omniscient, he knows just about everything about anything, is never wrong in his theories, and commands respect and honour from everyone as there is none that is his equal intellectually.  He cannot die nor can he be lectured too by other people. 

After three books I find myself tiring of this static character that rarely learns and never grows.   To illustrate my feeling towards him, there was a time in this last book where Robert Langdon appears to die, there seems to be no way he can still be alive.  As I read this I said to myself “Dan, if you actually killed Robert Langdon I would applaud you.”, I said this for two reasons, firstly because it would make me respect him as a writer more showing a little bit realism and meaning, the second because I growing annoyance of Robert Langdon.  The other characters are rather forgettable, with no true character development to be found.  Dan seems to try to attach you to the characters by threatening to kill them, which didn’t work for me, but only offered me false hope.

                The writing style is fairly weak; there are several moments in the book where the characters just stop in the middle of a time pressing chase or when there is great urgency and Robert stops and gives a well rehearsed 10 minute monolog to his audience on what everything means, the history behind it, alternative theories, what that means to him, and what he is going to do because of it. This is all done while a crazy axe murderer is running after them screaming at the top of his lungs (not literally).  But the prevalence of monolog (verbal or mental) and lecturing to Roberts inferiors seems to be Dan’s favourite way, if not the only way that he communicates vital information to his readers.  I often found myself feeling as if I were reading an encyclopaedia, references and all.  I have already talked about the similarity in his books, so I will not discuss it further here though it is a writing weakness of him.

                Despite anything the books may lack they are a good source to learn about conspiracy theories, random facts, and symbols.  They all have value if you want to wade through the speculations and poor drama. 

                Although not knowing much about Dan Brown I feel that I do through his books, I know his religious, political, and ethical values.  I know how he feels about Mason, Catholics, and various other religious belief systems.  Through reading his book you see into the man’s heart and honestly I am not that impressed. 

For those of you who have not read any of his work I would recommend reading Angels and Demons, I like this book the best of the three and it is a worthwhile book to read.  For those who have read one of his books, I would recommend you not read another as it will only disappoint you.  For those of you who have read two books, you probably don’t need my recommendation, only the knowledge that there is no writing difference in his third book.  For those of you who have read all three, my condolences and empathy.

The Da Vinci Code was so successful and well rated because at that point Dan was an unknown author, so those that read it were generally being exposed to Dan Browns books for the first time, but once you have read one of his books, you will find low motivation to preserver through another, and even less for a third.  When you do start one of his books though it is rather like someone who puts a bag of peanuts in front of you, you may not even like to eat peanuts but you do anyhow for some reason.  At the end of this last book I was relieved to start a new book.

P.S. This book will be made into a movie in 2012, right before the world ends(probably the subject of Dan Browns next book), so I would recommend only wasting 2 hours and watch it then instead of 20 hours reading it now.