The Morality of Euthanasia

The morality, or lack thereof, of euthanasia is a heavily debated topic in recent times. This topic is, and always will be extremely important, as it is literally a matter of life and death. Given the very nature of the topic, there can be no resolution regarding it that will please all parties involved. There are many so-called “right-to-death” groups, who obviously believe that euthanasia is morally acceptable, and as an example we will take The Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Scotland. The Pro-Life Council on the other hand, takes a contrasting viewpoint of euthanasia, believing that euthanasia is unacceptable under any circumstances. After examining the views of these two groups, we will critique them from the standpoint of the Catholic Church.

It is important to examine just how important the issue of euthanasia is before debating the topic from an ethical position. If we look at how the issue has been resolved in regards to the laws of the countries of the world, it would appear that the argument has been settled by quite a clear majority. The lawmakers of the world seem to believe that suicide is acceptable (or at least that it cannot be effectively decriminalize). However when it comes to letting doctors assist patients to commit suicide, most countries are against it. Some countries allow it under only very specific circumstances (Intolerable pain and inevitable death) but they are very much in the minority. “Unless a person lives in Colombia, Japan, the Netherlands or the state of Oregon, the only lawful option is to remain alive, sometimes in intractable pain, until their body finally collapses.” (Gerald Larue,
euthanasia
) Upon digging a little deeper though, we find that the truth is far different than the laws of countries would have us believe. In Holland, for example, it is technically illegal to for a doctor to euthanize a patient. However three percent of all deaths in Holland are reportedly doctor-assisted. (B. Robinson,
<a target=”_blank” href=”http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth_wld.htmreligioustolerance
) It is suspected that the real figure is much higher than this. Euthanasia is a major contributor to the death tolls of many other countries as well, so this issue is obviously one of much importance and interest.

There are many groups who believe that every human being should be allowed the choice of whether he or she wishes to continue living. One such group is the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Scotland. As most of the right-to-die groups use similar (if not identical) arguments, it is reasonable to use one group as a representative for all the groups. This particular group believes that everybody should have ultimate control over their own lives. This Society believes that the choice of whether or not to continue living is an extremely personal one, and that it is wrong for the state, or any religious group, to have the right to force a person to continue living against their will. This is a simple argument and one that is hard to refute without sounding like one is advocating a totalitarian state. What this does not take into account however, is whether the person who wishes to be euthanized is actually competent to make that decision. For instance; a person in the grips of a deep depression might wish to kill himself one day, and be full of the joy of life the next. Such a person may well find themselves grateful that euthanasia is illegal, after they recover from their depression. The group also argues that some people, whose death is inevitable and live in constant pain, should be allowed to die if they so wish. It must be noted though; cases such as this one are very much the minority. “Some groups in the pro-choice faction have described horrendous cases of terminally ill individuals, suffering terribly, in intractable pain, even though such cases are not the norm.” (B. Robinson, religioustolerance). Also, many people who have been told that death is inevitable for them have defied the expectations of medical experts, by living on much longer than they were expected to, or recovering, either partly or fully. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Scotland does not properly address these points; either ignoring them or dismissing them out of hand, and believe that euthanasia is ethically acceptable.