One of the problems with the Wallendas is that they are always falling down on the job. So, why do we keep hiring them? In particular, why is the city of Chicago allowing Nik Wallenda to perform his death-defying feats of walking on a tightrope between two buildings, followed by a second walk, optimistically speaking, using a blindfold? And why is the Discovery Channel going to cover it? And why are we going to watch?
There are those whose thoughts tend to the morbid who would say that we want to see him fall. If so, then the Discovery Channel has it all wrong, because they are going to have a ten-second delay in televising the event, so that they can cut away if something goes wrong. But if we want to see him fall, let’s see him fall. And let’s have a camera ready to focus on the pavement when he hits, complete with sound so we can hear the splat. As is it, only those who are present for the event in person will be able to experience the thrilling fall to death.
"But we don’t want to see him fall," it will be argued. "We only want to see him display a combination of skill and courage in doing something that may result in death." But he will fall to his death, if not this time, then the next time, or the next time after that, but sooner or later he will slip, fail to recover, and fall. It’s a family tradition.
Nik says that if he dies, it will not be much different from dying in an automobile, train, or airplane accident. The idea is that traveling by trains, planes, and automobiles is something we all do, which will presumably forestall any criticism. But most of us travel for a purpose other than defying death, and our chance of survival is much greater. In any event, the Discovery Channel will not be televising me when I get in my car to go to the store later on today.
It all comes down to a question of freedom. Most of us agree that Nik should be allowed to take risks, if he wants to. And if he is free to walk the tightrope, we should be free to watch. Of course, by watching such events, we encourage them. Our individual encouragement may not be as great as that of Chicago or the Discovery Channel, but it exists nevertheless. The question is, Does this encouragement constitute culpability, or is it a guilt-free spectacle of an act freely chosen?
There are a few who will argue that people should not be free to take such risks. They are the sort who probably argue that boxing should be illegal, and who are giving thought to the idea that football should be banned as well, what with all the head injuries that the players sustain. But they are in the minority. Most people will not watch Nik do his thing simply because they prefer to do something else, not because they are morally repulsed. And those who do watch will feel no guilt, not even if Nik dies. Organizations will not boycott Chicago for permitting such an event, nor will people quit watching the Discovery Channel for filming it.
God seems to approve of what Nik is doing too. Nik says that God helped him cross the Grand Canyon by calming the cable. An article in Catholic Review seemed to be of the same opinion, bringing to mind the poem Footsteps in the Sand. And Pastor Joel Osteen found the event inspiring as well. So, I guess we’re all good here.
How strange it is then that there is such a profound shift in tone the minute the subject of suicide is raised. There is, of course, the difference between merely risking death and actively seeking it out. But as the risk taken increases, the difference between the death-defying and the death-embracing becomes vanishingly small. Yet we never say that people like Nik need to get counseling, and perhaps start taking medication to treat their condition. And we never seem concerned about how his death will affect the friends and family he leaves behind. It seems to be all right to risk one’s life from a sense of optimism and excitement, but not to take one’s life from feelings of depression or from a desire to avoid pain.
In particular, there is the case of Brittany Maynard, who plans to take her own life today to avoid the ravages of brain cancer. Though I am not in possession of hard statistics on this matter, yet I cannot help but suppose that a lot of the people who would praise Nik would condemn Brittany, and the people who support Brittany may have misgivings about what Nik is doing. The God who cared so much about Nik’s cable was apparently too busy to prevent Brittany’s cancer, and what is more, he disapproves of what she is going to do, even to the point of damning her to Hell for all eternity. Presumably, God disapproves of suicide because the act impeaches his creation. God created the heavens and the earth, and he saw that it was good. But the suicide says it is not, and backs it up all the way.
New Age philosophy would seem to be in agreement with traditional Christianity on this point, if the movie What Dreams May Come (1998) is any indication. In that movie, people do not go to Hell because they are evil, but because they got confused and committed suicide. When Annie (Annabella Sciora) kills herself, she is trapped in Hell by her confusion. Her husband Chris (Robin Williams) manages to rescue her, but all the other suicides remain in Hell for eternity. Too bad for them. Anyway, Chris and Annie make it to Heaven where they are safe. But Chris suggests that they be reincarnated so that they can experience life again. Of course, that means taking a chance of becoming confused, committing suicide, and going to Hell, with little likelihood of there being another rescue. Talk about taking risks! Nik has nothing on them. But the idea is that life is so wonderful that it is even better than Heaven, even worth the risk of committing suicide and being eternally damned. In other words, this movie would say to Brittany Maynard that life is so good she should live it as long as possible, no matter how many headaches and seizures she has, and no matter how much of a vegetable she becomes. And if she thinks otherwise, she is just confused and must go to Hell. Of course, the brain tumor would probably be the cause of her confusion, but that is no excuse.
The real difference then between Nik and Brittany is that Nik does not say that life is bad when he risks death, and thus does not offend God; whereas Brittany, by saying that her life is no longer worth living, calls into question God’s wisdom, and thus must be condemned. How many people still believe that suicides must go to Hell, either in the Christian or New Age sense, it is hard to say. Certainly, there are many who believe neither form of such nonsense, and thus support Brittany Maynard in her decision to take her own life. But the fact remains that only a handful of states have death-with-dignity laws, with no indication that there will be many more to come. In short, most people do not want to legalize doctor-assisted suicide or any other form of euthanasia, and the result will be many more like Brittany, but who are denied the choice of ending a bad life.
In other words, if you have a terminal disease that threatens to cause you great suffering, you may be forced to disguise your suicide by falling from a tightrope.