So first, it is important to know what euthanasia is.

So basically, according to BBC,

Euthanasia refers to the deliberate ending of a person's life for compassionate
reasons..because they are suffering, uhmm for example from a painful or incurable disease.
In other words, it refers to mercy killing, giving a patient a gentle and easy death to end their
suffering.

So In most cases uhmm, euthanasia is carried out voluntary because the person who dies
asks for it. Uhmm An example would be asking a doctor to end your life. But there are also
cases of non-voluntary euthanasia where a person can't make such a request due to coma
or severe brain damage.

So Euthanasia can also be either active or passive, active when one deliberately does
something that causes another person to die...like giving a lethal injection to a dying patient.
On the other hand, passive euthanasia is when one does nothing..or stop treatment that is
keeping the patient alive...such as uhmm switching off life-support machines or not giving
life-extending drugs.

So my ethical standpoint on whether euthanasia is uhh morally right or wrong, is that IN

GENERAL I’m against it. We know that intention is very important when it comes to this
issue. Having a bad intention automatically makes any euthanasia action morally wrong. But
even though one has a good intention in ending someone’s life, I’m still against it in general.
This is because I believe that every human life is sacred, hence it must be respected and
protected. So following this argument, killing someone who is very sick is just the same as
killing a healthy person. I might have this ethical perspective on this issue because I grew
up as a Catholic who teaches the value and sacredness of human life. However, I mentioned
that I’m against euthanasia in general, so there are special cases wherein it is morally
acceptable for me. So let me give you some examples.

So for example if we have patient A who has stage 4 cancer and he approaches a doctor
and asks to end his life with a lethal injection to stop his pain and suffering, so this is
voluntary since the person wants to die and asks for it, and this also active since doing this is
a deliberate act of causing patient A to die. So If I am the doctor, I would not perform the
request of patient A primarily because there is still a small possibility for him to survive and
recover from the cancer.

Here’s another example, we have patient B who is already experiencing multiple organ
failures and is already brain dead with no chances of recovery, the only thing that makes him
alive is the life-support machine or ventilator. His family then decides to remove the
ventilator to end his suffering. So this is a non-voluntary and passive case of euthanasia and
for me this special case is morally acceptable since all the family wants is for their loved
ones not to suffer anymore.

Therefore, for me, the best action is the one which causes the greatest happiness or least
unhappiness for the patient and for the patient's loved ones.

Hinduism
Hinduism primarily revolves around the concept of dharma and karma. It mainly focuses on
the consequences of our actions. Positive actions produce positive effects; negative actions
produce negative effects. So when it comes to Hinduism, there are two contrasting points of
view on euthanasia.

First, most Hindus would say that euthanasia is mainly a disruption of the karma cycle. A
doctor should not accept a patient's request for euthanasia since this will cause the soul and
body to be separated at an unnatural time. The result will damage the karma of both doctor
and patient. This is because there is a reason why that person is suffering in the first place,
and based on Hinduism, is that it is because the person is paying his bad karma. Suffering
before death may be a result of previous bad actions, maybe committed in previous lives.

Even if the intention is good, disrupting the timing of the life, death and rebirth cycle gives a
person bad karma consequences. It also goes against their moral and religious principle of
ahimsa or non-violence.

On the other hand, there’s another perspective that helping a person in ending his suffering
and painful life is considered as performing a good deed and so fulfilling their moral
obligations.

In Hinduism, they have this so-called Prayopavesa, or fasting to death, which is an

acceptable way for a Hindu to end their life in certain circumstances. This is done through
only drinking water, but no food. Prayopavesa is different from suicide as it provides a sense
of serenity rather than frustration or anger and it is also publicly declared.

That said, many Hindus would still say the alternative to euthanasia is to offer physical and
spiritual care and support for the dying until they die naturally.

Buddhism

The main goal of Buddhism is to reach freedom from suffering by coming to see the world.
However, although Buddhism has a strong focus on removing suffering, for many Buddhists,
they are against euthanasia as a way to end a person’s suffering and painful life. They
believe that this is not a good way of achieving this.

They actually have a Buddhist version of a code of conduct or rules to help people behave in
a moral and ethical way, called the Five Precepts which include the following: Refrain from
taking life, Refrain from taking what is not given, Refrain from the misuse of the senses,
Refrain from wrong speech, Refrain from intoxicants that cloud the mind. So in this case, we
will focus on the first precept, which is Refrain from taking life. This refers to not killing any
living being. For Buddhists, this includes animals, so many Buddhists choose to be
vegetarian. This is one of the reasons why Buddhism is against euthanasia.

Similar to Hinduism, Buddhism also revolves around the concept of dharma and karma.
Suffering before death may be a result of previous bad actions, maybe committed in
previous lives. In this sense it is necessary for the person to experience this suffering. As a
result, euthanasia would not remove this suffering, as it will simply postpone the suffering to
a future point when rebirth occurs.
Another focus of Buddhism is being compassionate. However, even if the intention of
euthanasia is love and compassion, one of the famous Buddhists around the world, Dalai
Lama, mentioned that human life is precious and it is better to avoid euthanasia. That said,
instead of doing euthanasia, they prefer compassionate acts such as physical and spiritual
care and support for the living and the dying until they die naturally, which they consider as a
‘good death’.

Islam

Similar to Catholicism, Islam is also against euthanasia. Muslim believe that all human life is
sacred because it is given by Allah, and that Allah chooses how long each person will live.
Human beings should not interfere in this. As mentioned in their sacred text, Qu’ran, “Do not
take life, which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice.”

There are numerous passages in the Qu’ran that emphasize that euthanasia is morally
unethical. Euthanasia, either active or passive, either voluntary or non-voluntary, is not
allowed. It is considered a major sin, as attested in a mass of Prophetic reports. It is
mandatory upon doctors to know that there is no obedience to other people in a manner that
constitutes a disobedience to God. Whenever a patient asks this of them, they must not
accept, nor are they allowed to kill another person without right.

That said, many devout Muslims believe that Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders represent a
soft form of euthanasia which is strictly forbidden in Islam. However, the Islamic Code of
Medical Ethics states "it is futile to diligently keep the patient in a vegetative state by heroic
means... It is the process of life that the doctor aims to maintain and not the process of
dying". This means doctors can stop trying to prolong life in cases where there is no hope of
a cure.

Therefore, the only allowed method to end the suffering of a patient is turning off life support
for those deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state. The use of certain pain-killing drugs
is not allowed as this would equate to euthanasia. The islam perspective is somehow similar
to mine.

Aquinas

In a natural law perspective, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, euthanasia is morally wrong.
Killing someone who is terminally ill is just the same as killing a healthy person. According to
him, “Because in man there is first of all an inclination to good in accordance with the nature
which he has in common with all substances:...whatever is a means of preserving human
life, and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law.” This means that the sanctity
of life must be preserved. Every human life is sacred, hence it must be respected and
protected. Life is a gift from God. It belongs to God in a special sense.

His main argument in euthanasia is that that it is forbidden to kill an innocent person; life is to
be conserved; but death at some point may be accepted as the will of God.