Euthanasia

We call euthanasia the act of deliberately causing the death of a sick person because they are terminally ill or have a condition that is difficult to bear. Is it correct to kill someone who asks for it or is in a serious medical situation? We know well that one must not kill anyone, but in complex cases doubt may arise and it is worth studying the subject.

(We speak now of ordinary homicide, not euthanasia.) There are several reasons not to kill a human being, just as we do not want to be killed ourselves:

• Human dignity calls for special respect toward human beings.
• Within ourselves we know we must not do it: human nature demands it, and our conscience grasps this requirement (natural law).
• The Creator of man has expressly forbidden it: "You shall not kill" (commandments).

(We speak of ordinary suicide, not euthanasia.) Here too there are several reasons, which coincide with the previous ones.

Euthanasia is wrong for those same reasons: human dignity, natural law and the Creator's commandment. No one must be killed.

Normally nobody desires euthanasia. It is only proposed in exceptional cases, such as a troublesome and incurable illness. For example, certain paralyses, neuronal damage, advanced Alzheimer's, comatose states, severe depressions... In these cases euthanasia is still not correct, but doubts arise.

No, no. To understand this, it may be enough to think about the question of time: if instead of being incurable, it were an illness lasting a week or a month, would euthanasia be correct?... And if instead of a month, it took a year or three to recover?... And if it were eight or fifteen years?... And if health returned after 30 or 40 years?... And if after fifty years the person recovered, would it be right to kill them now?... And if after a few years doctors discovered an antidote, a prosthetic, or a new computer technique?... In short, a circumstance of time does not legitimize murder.

- The duration of an illness requires endurance, patience and capacity for sacrifice that increase as the situation is prolonged. For this reason, time makes an illness more burdensome. But the fact that it is hard to endure does not allow suppressing one's own life or that of another.

The word incurable sounds much more painful than fifty years, although often death arrives naturally before that time of suffering. The word incurable suppresses hope and then suffering loses meaning, and one even thinks of euthanasia.

It is difficult to understand the meaning of suffering without spiritual references. On this see the topic pain. For many people those sacrifices and patience open the doors of heaven and reduce time in purgatory.

- No doubt one does many things with one's life that one wants, but this does not mean acting rightly. One can get drunk, take drugs or kill oneself, but these are mistaken actions. (See the topics freedom and my body.)

That would be an interesting idea for killing some politicians and mothers-in-law. But it is not right.

- A dignified death, palliative care and therapeutic obstinacy are broad topics that we can summarize as follows:

• It is necessary to employ ordinary means for the care of the sick person, but extraordinary means are not obligatory. This does not mean euthanasia but acceptance of a death that cannot be avoided.
• It is good to palliate pain, proportionally to the situation.
• No one should be deprived of consciousness without their consent. Before doing so, it is advisable that they have received spiritual care and have fixed their final wishes, testament, etc.