EUTANASIA. — From “good” and “death.” In its current meaning, it signifies: “the merciful, painless killing of a sick person considered by now incurable and tormented by intolerable suffering”; it may be carried out at the subject’s voluntary request or through the coercion of others. The problem may be considered particularly from the standpoint of medical deontology, criminology, psychology, and Christian morality.
From the perspective of medical deontology, since the purpose of medicine is to preserve human life for as long as possible and to oppose death, killing to liberate a person from suffering cannot be admitted, as it is essentially opposed to the aforementioned purpose; moreover, absolute certainty regarding the incurability of the illness cannot be attained, given the possibility of an erroneous diagnosis, the unforeseen resources of the organism, and the continuing progress of therapeutic means. On the other hand, medicine possesses the best means of alleviating suffering, which can be used with considerable latitude without appreciable harm to the patient’s life.
From the criminological standpoint, the problem assumes innumerable aspects and leads to conclusions that are decidedly negative with regard to the practice of e., and to its possible legalization. In almost all past and present legislation, both participation in suicide and the killing of a consenting person are considered punishable, although penalties may be reduced in view of the motives involved. Even setting aside, in general terms, the victim’s medical condition, if the type of infirmity is such as to invalidate self-consent, the latter becomes ineffective, since it does not express free will. Consent given by others on behalf of incapacitated persons is illicit, on the one hand because of the patient’s absent will and, on the other, because of the grave risk that those concerned may have concealed, selfish, and criminal purposes. To come to regard e. as a ground for exemption from punishment of the active party (as some today demand and proclaim, and have even put into practice in sensational trials—a sign of a present-day abhorrent tendency) would be socially imprudent and extremely dangerous. Indeed, it is obvious how often, under similar laws, the apparent aim of good would become a pretext masking the vilest interests; that is, how often the “merciful death” would conceal the arbitrary anticipation, in the luxuriant field of advanced criminality, of a death otherwise too late in coming for the desires of those concerned.
Upon psychological examination, when the determining motives are investigated, the purpose of e. can most often not be considered altruistic, despite its apparent merciful desire to interrupt the patient’s intolerable suffering; upon deeper examination, the motive appears to be inspired by the refined selfishness of not wishing to endure another’s suffering, or by the desire to free oneself from the burden of painful assistance. Christian charity is thereby destroyed, and social philanthropy resolves itself into the most ordinary selfishness.
From the standpoint of Christian morality, e. is unacceptable, as a violation of the fifth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill,” which stands as an insurmountable barrier, warning that God alone is the absolute master of life and that it is not lawful to cause death to oneself or to others. The pagans themselves (Pythagoras, Cicero) clearly understood and expressed in their works the concept that it is unlawful to depart from life without the command of Him who gave it (Cicero, De senectute, 20, 73; Somnium Scipionis, 3, 7).
As regards deep anesthesia, it is morally licit, provided that it does not serve to hasten death and allows the patient, at least at intervals, that lucidity which enables him to attend to the supreme interests of the soul and to regulate his duties of justice (v. ANESTESIA).
From the practical standpoint, efforts are currently being made in America to achieve the legalization of e., both voluntary and coercive. In New York there exists a “Euthanasia Society” (which also includes a large group of affiliated physicians); it has organized an “American Advisory Council” composed of one hundred members, among them numerous members of the Protestant clergy, prominent politicians (including the Nebraska state senator John H. Comstock, who had already proposed in 1937 that his state vote on a law legalizing voluntary e.), and leading exponents of negative eugenic propaganda (Margaret Sanger). They are actively working and exerting pressure so that a “proposed bill to legalize euthanasia” may be brought before the New York state assembly.