Warning: "Me Before You" spoilers ahead.

If you haven't yet heard, "Me Before You" is the sad, romantic movie of the summer. It has British accents. It has love triangles. It's adorable. Oh, and it has also sparked a global debate on assisted suicide. For those who haven't read the book (why are you still here? I told you there'd be spoilers), "Me Before You" is the story of quadriplegic Will and his summer caretaker Louisa. True to romance novel form, sweet Lou comes into her duties as caretaker with sunny optimism, only to be met by a cantankerous Will who has very little interest in any of Lou's sunshine. But, in a tale as old as time, Lou's innocence and positive attitude change Will for the better. A little into Lou's stay with Will, Lou finds out that Will has decided to pursue assisted suicide in a Swiss firm in 6 months time. Stunned, but unbroken, Lou then sets off to spend the time she has left with Will to give him reason to live, falling in love with him all the while. But -- and here's where the controversy kicks in-- Lou and Will's family's efforts ultimately prove fruitless, as Will continues, unrelenting, to the end of his story in Switzerland.

Several voices have arisen after the book and subsequent film's fame to criticize what they feel to be an inherently pessimistic and ableist message. Quadriplegic author Francesco Clark, whose autobiography "Walking Papers" was mentioned in the film, stated that he was "angry to be associated" with the story. He continued to say: "While I am by no means taking a stance on the issue of assisted suicide, I feel compelled to express that I am angry to be unwittingly associated with a storyline that suggests the only option for those who sustain injuries like mine is death.”

I disagree. First, a disclaimer: I haven't watched the film yet, and I understand that complexities are inevitably lost in the adaptation to the screen. The following article deals with what I believe to be the core truths of the novel.

The novel I read was not an advocate for the idea that the disabled are better off dead. That is not only a gross oversimplification of a far more complex issue but also a blatant misreading of the book. As a reader, I can tell you that at no point was I fully okay with Will's decision. But that's what Moyes intended. By writing primarily through the voice of Louisa, a girl who is desperately in love with Will and committed to keeping him alive, the narrative itself keeps you clinging onto the hope that Will chooses to live until the very last chapter. Therefore, it's difficult for me to fathom the prime takeaway being that "disabled people are better off dead" when Moyes's entire narrative had me desperately hoping Will would live. The entire novel is a celebration of life, and, when it comes down to it, it's a fight for life. Lou and Will's family fight for six months to prove that the world is still worth living in. While they ultimately did not convince Will, I have no doubt that Moyes intentionally made the narrative compelling enough that the reader believed it.

Distilling the entire novel's message to a generalization about the fate of the disabled is an oversimplification itself. For example, In researching how to best help Will, Lou finds a rich community of quadriplegics online. In it, she approaches the topic of assisted suicide and continuing life after such a radical change to it. Lou, and subsequently the reader, is exposed to more perspectives than just Will's, showing that no, not every disabled person is better off dead. In fact, Lou meets several champions of life after a disability, but humans are complex enough that not wanting this life is something some might consider. There are so many perspectives surrounding assisted suicide in this book, from Will's sister who believes it to be the pinnacle of selfishness, (she's been cut from the film, unfortunately) to the quadriplegics online who have found life to be worth living again, to Will himself who ultimately decides that the life he has been given is not one that he wants to live, that it's a stretch to say that it leans one way or another.

In the end, I believe that suggesting that this novel is advocating that death is a better fate than being disabled is an unfortunate misreading of what I believe is the fundamental truth of the book. This was Will's story and his experience. Although everyone around him was desperate to keep him alive, Will needed to be able to make this decision on his own. This book is not whether or not generalizations can be made about who lives and who dies, it's about the power that lies in being able to choose one way or another.

This is my understanding of a novel that touched me, and it is entirely up to you to choose to interpret in a different way. Ultimately, that's what I perceive to be the truth of this story: for better or for worse, your choices are yours.