“In order that the question of euthanasia can be properly dealt with, it is first necessary to define the words used. Etymologically speaking, in ancient times Euthanasia meant an easy death without severe suffering. Today one no longer thinks of this original meaning of the word, but rather of some intervention of medicine whereby the suffering of sickness or of the final agony are reduced, sometimes also with the danger of suppressing life prematurely. Ultimately, the word Euthanasia is used in a more particular sense to mean ‘mercy killing,’ for the purpose of putting an end to extreme suffering, or having abnormal babies, the mentally ill or the incurably sick from the prolongation, perhaps for many years of a miserable life, which could impose too heavy a burden on their families or on society.… By euthanasia is understood an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated. Euthanasia’s terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used. It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity. It may happen that, by reason of prolonged and barely tolerable pain, for deeply personal or other reasons, people may be led to believe that they can legitimately ask for death or obtain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected. The pleas of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. What a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love, the human and supernatural warmth with which the sick person can and ought to be surrounded by all those close to him or her, parents and children, doctors and nurses. [1]
According to a Gallup Poll conducted May 4-8, 2016, 69% of those polled say that euthanasia should be legalized and 51% said they would consider ending their own lives if they personally had a disease that could not be cured and they were living in severe pain. In the same Values and Beliefs poll, Gallup asked Americans if they believe doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable or morally wrong. A slight majority (53%) say the practice is morally acceptable.[2]
“Involuntary euthanasia refers to a form of euthanasia, wherein, euthanasia is performed on a competent person. It is performed on a patient against his/her will. Involuntary euthanasia is a crime in many legal jurisdictions. It is a mercy killing not chosen by the affected individual.”[3]
“Why does Catholic Christianity condemn euthanasia? Because, no matter what sentimentalists or social engineers may say, it is a grave crime against justice, both human and divine. God alone has the ownership of human life. Those who practice euthanasia assume the right of ownership over life. Therefore, the sin committed is either murder or suicide.
“There is a built-in respect for human life in the biblical tradition that has created the Judeo-Christian culture. “You shall not kill” is not only a mandate of the Decalogue. It is the expression of reverence for a human person, no matter how young or old, how strong or weak, and irrespective of his physical, mental, or emotional condition.”[4]
To date, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg have legalized euthanasia.[5] [6] The laws in the Netherlands and Luxembourg also allow physician-assisted suicide (PAS). In the United States, the states of Oregon (1997), Washington (1999), Vermont (2013), California (2016) and Colorado (2016), District of Columbia (2016) legalized PAS. Involuntary euthanasia (murder) remains illegal.
California, often a bellwether for change throughout the U.S., may persuade other states to consider passing legislation permitting physicians to allow terminally ill people to end their lives. While Americans appear to be solidly comfortable with the practice, the nation is more divided on the moral acceptability of doctor-assisted suicide.
[1] Sacred Congregation for The Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia, May 5, 1980.
[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/193082/euthanasia-acceptable-solid-majority.aspx
[3] People v. Kevorkian, 447 Mich. 436 (Mich. 1994).
[4] John Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, (New York: Doubleday & Company), 1975, p. 330.
[5] Deliens L, van der Wal G. The euthanasia law in Belgium and the Netherlands. Lancet. 2003; 362:1239–40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14520-5.
[6] Watson R. Luxembourg is to allow euthanasia. BMJ. 2009;338:b1248. doi: 10.1136/bmj. b1248.