EUTHANASIA. - From "good" and "death." In its currently current sense it means: "merciful, painless killing of a patient considered by now incurable or tormented by intolerable sufferings"; it can be applied at the voluntary request of the subject or through coercion by others. The problem can be considered in a particular way from the point of view of medical deontology, criminology, psychology, and Christian morality.
From the perspective of medical deontology, since the aim of medicine is to preserve human life as long as possible and to oppose death, the homicide that liberates from sufferings cannot be admitted, as essentially opposed to the aforementioned aim; moreover, one cannot have absolute certainty of the incurability of the disease, given the possibility of an erroneous diagnosis, the unimagined resources of the organism, and the continuous progress of the means of treatment. On the other hand, medicine possesses the best means to alleviate sufferings, usable with great liberality, without appreciable harm to the life of the sick person.
From the criminological aspect, the problem takes on innumerable aspects, and leads to clearly negative conclusions with respect to the practice of e., and to a possible legalization of it. In almost all past and present legislations the hypotheses, both of participation in suicide and of homicide of a consenting person, are held to be punishable, albeit with mitigation of penalties in regard to the determining motives. Even setting aside generically the conditions of illness of the victim, if the type of infirmity is such as to invalidate self-consent, this becomes ineffective, since it is not an expression of free will. Hetero-consent, in the case of those incapable, is unlawful because of the lacking will of the patient on the one hand, and on the other because of the grave risk of hidden selfish and criminal aims on the part of those concerned. To come to consider e. a ground for non-punishability of the active subject (as is today desired and proclaimed by some and even carried out in sensational trials, which is a sign of an abhorrent tendency of our day) would be socially imprudent and extremely dangerous. Indeed, it is undeniable how often, with similar laws, the apparent aim of good would become a pretext masking the most shameful interests, that is, how often the "merciful death" infiltrated would be the arbitrary anticipation, in the flourishing field of evolved criminality, of a death otherwise too late in coming for the desire of those concerned.
On psychological examination, investigating the determining motives, the aim of e. most often cannot be considered altruistic, considered in the apparent merciful desire to interrupt the intolerable sufferings of the patient; on a deeper examination, the motive appears materialized by the refined egoism of not wanting to suffer the suffering of others, or of wanting to free oneself from the burden of a painful assistance. Christian charity is thus destroyed and social philanthropy resolves itself into the most banal egoism.
From the side of Christian morality, e. is unacceptable, as a violation of the fifth commandment: "thou shalt not kill," which stands, as an insuperable barrier, to warn that God alone is the absolute master of life and that it is not lawful to put to death oneself or others. Even the pagans (Pythagoras, Cicero) had clearly in mind 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).
With regard to deep anesthesia, it is morally lawful, provided that it does not serve to accelerate death and allows the sick person, at least at intervals, that lucidity which permits him to attend to the supreme interests of the soul and to regulate his duties of justice (v. ANESTESIA).
From the practical point of view, at present in America every manner of obtaining the legalization of e., whether voluntary or coercive, is being attempted; in New York there exists a "Euthanasia Society" (which also has a numerous group of adhering physicians; it has organized an "American Advisory Council" composed of one hundred members, among whom are numerous members of the Protestant clergy, prominent political men (the senator of the state of Nebraska John H. Comstock, who already in 1937 had proposed for vote in his state a law that would legalize voluntary e.), leading exponents of negative eugenic propaganda (Margaret Sanger); they actively work and press for a "proposed bill to legalize euthanasia" to be brought before the state assembly of New York.
Bibliography8 works
Gialero Flesch