By Elizabeth Coscia ’12, Commentary Editor

Newark Academy students may fondly recall their 7th grade experience of reading The Giver, a dystopian novel included in middle school curricula across the country. The novel uses simple, understandable syntax to describe the complex themes inherent in a dystopian society, without explicitly spelling out their implications.

In a crucial scene in the novel, a “caretaker” of the dystopia, interpreted as an agent of euthanasia, “releases” the less suitable of a pair of twins, injecting him with lethal poison. Recently, critics have argued for the banning of The Giver in schools for this appalling depiction of euthanasia, a disturbing image for pre-teenage children to ingest.

However, Newark Academy has rightfully held to its presentation of the novel. While Ms. Mahoney, who teaches The Giver at Newark Academy, claims that she does not discuss the political issue of euthanasia with her seventh graders, she holds the belief that these young students learn a critical moral lesson from the novel. Middle school students should be exposed to ethical issues at an early age in order to allow their thoughts to marinate as they grow. The Giver proves capable of introducing a vitally important moral dilemma to young minds without beating them over the head with its terrifying, and at times political, present day relevance.

Not unrelated, President Obama has reinstated Section 1233 of his health care bill effective as of the New Year. Previously rejected, Section 1233 provides for Advanced Care Planning for the elderly. Advance Care Planning encourages people over the age of 65 to discuss the formation of Advance Life Directives, documents that indicate their decisions about end-of-life care ahead of time. Although difficult to discuss, these consultations are beneficial to the elderly. Instead of having their families confer over the continuation of their medical treatment a time of high emotion and anxiety, individuals may decide for themselves in advance.

Conservative politician Sarah Palin has called the instructional committees that would arbitrate these directives “death panels,” insisting that they encourage the elderly to concede to ending their lives earlier so as to save on the cost of their treatment. Palin has insisted that Section 1233 of the health care bill essentially allows for the euthanasia of human beings. However, deeming end-of-life planning as “euthanasia” proves to be not only ludicrously inaccurate, but also counterproductive. Palin’s misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the proposed plan, if perhaps feigned for the sake of conservative acknowledgment, simply adds to the current political scene, which is one of immaturely-avoiding the making of a decision. The time has come to differentiate between euthanasia and a maturely-executed evaluation of an individual’s rights and personal preferences.

Just as critics cower at The Giver‘s exposure of euthanasia, Sarah Palin and her conservative followers shudder to think of Advance Care committees because of their morbidity, even going so far as to call their methods “euthanasia.” However, all critics must recognize the importance of discussing difficult issues. While students should be exposed to ethical issues at a young age in order to let their ideas develop over time, elderly people should determine their end-of-life preferences in advance as opposed to leaving the burden of decision-making to their families. As Ms. Mahoney wisely pointed out, The Giver “brings out the things we would love to avoid – especially grief.” If we put off or ignore the complications that grief places on society, we will ultimately face a more difficult world.