OVERLAY REPORT

The controversy surrounding the ending of *Me Before You* (both the 2012 novel by Jojo Moyes and the 2016 film adaptation) stems primarily from its portrayal of disability and assisted suicide. While the story is framed as a tragic romance, many disability rights activists and organizations viewed it as a harmful reinforcement of negative stereotypes. Here are the specific details of the controversy: ### 1. The "Better Dead Than Disabled" Trope The central criticism is that the story suggests a life with a severe disability is not worth living. Will Traynor, the protagonist, is a wealthy, successful man who becomes a quadriplegic after a motorcycle accident. Despite falling in love with his caregiver, Louisa Clark, and experiencing a renewed sense of connection, he ultimately chooses to end his life at Dignitas, an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland. Critics argue that this reinforces the "Better Dead Than Disabled" narrative, implying that physical impairment is a fate worse than death and that no amount of love, wealth, or support can make a disabled life fulfilling. ### 2. The Romanticization of Suicide The ending is framed as a bittersweet, noble sacrifice. Will tells Louisa that he wants her to "live boldly" and leaves her a significant inheritance so she can pursue her dreams. Activists, particularly those associated with the group **Not Dead Yet**, argued that this romanticizes suicide. They pointed out that if a non-disabled character in a film were suicidal, the plot would typically revolve around getting them help and showing them that life is worth living. However, because Will is disabled, his decision is treated as a "rational" and even "brave" choice, which many find discriminatory. ### 3. Disability as a Plot Device for Non-Disabled Growth A common trope in literature and film is the "Inspiration Porn" or "Tragic Disabled Character" used solely to facilitate the growth of a non-disabled protagonist. Critics argued that Will Traynor’s life and death served primarily as a catalyst for Louisa’s personal evolution. By dying and leaving her money, he "frees" her from her small-town life. This portrays the disabled person as a burden or a stepping stone rather than a fully realized human being with an inherent right to exist regardless of their utility to others. ### 4. Lack of Representation and Perspective Many in the disability community were frustrated that the story was written by a non-disabled author and directed by a non-disabled filmmaker, without significant input from people living with quadriplegia who lead happy, productive lives. The controversy intensified during the film’s press junket. Activists used the hashtag **#MeBeforeEuthanasia** to protest the movie, and protesters often appeared at red-carpet premieres with signs reading "I’m not a tragedy" and "Life is worth living." They argued that the media rarely shows disabled people who are happy, focusing instead on those who want to die. ### 5. The Message to the Newly Disabled Organizations like **Not Dead Yet** and **ADAPT** expressed concern about the message the film sends to people who are newly injured. They argued that the first few years after a catastrophic injury are the most difficult and that portraying suicide as the "dignified" way out could influence vulnerable people who haven't yet had the time or support to adapt to their new reality. ### Summary of the Author's Defense Jojo Moyes has defended the ending, stating that it was intended to be a specific story about one man’s choice rather than a statement on disability as a whole. She emphasized that she did extensive research and that Will’s decision was based on his personal loss of autonomy and his specific physical pain, rather than a lack of love for Louisa. Despite this, the controversy remains a landmark case in the discussion of how Hollywood and the publishing industry handle the intersection of disability, bodily autonomy, and the "right to die."