PAURASTYA VIDYÂPÎTAM

PONTIFICAL ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES

VADAVATHOOR, KOTTAYAM – 686010, INDIA

ETHICAL PERSPETIVE OF EUTHANASIA

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor in Philosophy

By

Mattakottil Rikhil

Reg. No. 3701

Director

Rev. Dr. Lindo Kuttikadan

Kottayam,

December 2016
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I take this occasion to acknowledge with heartfelt gratitude

to the service of all those who helped me in different ways

to complete this dissertation.

With immense joy and yawning sentiments of gratitude

I bow my head before the Almighty God

who enabled me to complete this work.

I am very much thankful to Rev. Fr. Lindo Kuttikadan

who has always encouraged me in finishing this work

by giving precious direction.

I am thankful to Rev. Dr.Anto Cheranthuruthy,

dean of the faculty of philosophy who made

methodical arrangements for the completion of this work.

I would also like to convey my heartfelt gratitude

to the librarians, computer in charge

and my dear friends

who have worked together with me in different ways

for the completion of this dissertation.

Once again, I thank all of them for their assistance.

Bro. Rikhil Mattakottil

 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER I

EUTHANASIA; A GENERAL OUTLOOK

1. Towards the definition to “Euthanasia”............................................................... 3

2. “Euthanasia” back to its history........................................................................... 4
3. Types of “Euthanasia” ......................................................................................... 5
3.1. Passive “Euthanasia” .................................................................................... 5
3.2. Active “Euthanasia” ...................................................................................... 6
3.2.1. Voluntary “Euthanasia”.......................................................................... 7
3.2.2. Non voluntary “Euthanasia”................................................................... 7
3.3. Assisted Suicide ............................................................................................ 8
4. Various Approaches ............................................................................................. 9
4.1. Utilitarian Approach ..................................................................................... 9
4.2. Deontological Approach ............................................................................... 9
4.3. Religious Approach .................................................................................... 10
4.3.1. Christianity ........................................................................................... 10
4.3.2. Hinduism .............................................................................................. 11
4.3.3. Islamism ............................................................................................... 12
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 12

CHAPTER II

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST EUTHANASIA

1. Autonomy of the Person .................................................................................... 13

1.1. Autonomy Favours “Euthanasia”................................................................ 13
1.2. True Autonomy is Against “Euthanasia” .................................................... 14
2. ‘The Right to Die’ .............................................................................................. 15
2.1. ‘The Right’ to Die Favours “Euthanasia” ................................................... 16
2.2. There is No ‘Right to Die’ .......................................................................... 16
3. Compassion and Mercy towards Dying ............................................................. 16

III
 3.1. Compassion Favours “Euthanasia” ............................................................. 16
3.2. False Mercy and Compassion ..................................................................... 17
4. Dying with Dignity ............................................................................................ 17
4.1. Supporting “Euthanasia” ............................................................................. 18
4.2. Opposing “Euthanasia” ............................................................................... 18
5. Quality of life ..................................................................................................... 19
5.1. The Argument on Quality of Life Favours “Euthanasia” ........................... 19
5.2. The Argument of Sanctity of Life Opposes “Euthanasia” .......................... 19
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 20

CHAPTER III

TO CARE OR TO KILL; A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

GENERAL CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 27

IV
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
We are living in the modern era of technological developments. Science and
technology totally changed our life styles, culture, character and attitude. Just
observe the change in electronic items. We can see a change of phones into smart
phones, television into curved led television, watch into smart watches, desktops
into touchpad, etc. Now it is the age of free 4G data connection. That is the growth
of modern world. This growth or developments affected the life styles of people
very much. Today, people are relying on such electrical items and they are
forgetting the values of life.
Developments are affected in the area of medical field also. There are modern
electric equipments, medicines to both prolong, and as well, as end the life. It is
simple to end a life with such equipments. Today, the world received the most
danger sin related to the human life is “Euthanasia”. People considered it as a mean
to end the life when they affected with pain and sufferings. Patients are arguing for
the help of doctor to assist the death. “Euthanasia”, which means mercy killing is
one of the most acute and uncomfortable problems in the developing world.
There are many debates concern about the legalization of “Euthanasia”. Many
people are necessarily arguing for the implementation of “Euthanasia”. There are
also people, believe that “Euthanasia” is a sin. There was news last week about the
“Euthanasia” in Austria that is “Euthanasia” is permitted there. I selected this topic
only because it is the contemporary issue, which we are facing today. It is a relevant
topic for me. Through this chapter, I explore the ethical perspective of
“Euthanasia”. I try to prove that, it is strictly an immoral act. Therefore, I divided
my subject into three parts.
The first chapter introduces the definitions, history, types of “Euthanasia” and
various approaches towards “Euthanasia”. This chapter gives a detailed vision about
what is “Euthanasia” and different kind of “Euthanasia”. The second chapter is
known as arguments for and against “Euthanasia”. Here we can see that, there are
people for permitting “Euthanasia” as well as denying “Euthanasia”. Third chapter
is my critical analysis about “Euthanasia”. According to me, “Euthanasia” is wrong
and I present the reasons to support my view. My concentration is to deny the
concept of “Euthanasia”. Because, it is a major issue in the twenty-first century. So
I try to oppose the “Euthanasia” through my views.
“Euthanasia” has become most stormily debated issue all over the world. Most
of the religious groups stand against the practice of “Euthanasia”. I used the
synthetic view of “Euthanasia” since it is a wide discussed subject. Mainly I utilized
the book “Euthanasia”; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death
written by Saju Chackalackal, to write my thesis. There are many books related to
“Euthanasia”. Even, a declaration is published by congregation of the doctrine of
faith about “Euthanasia”. I think, through this thesis I can study a great problem that
is going to be faced by the future generation. My thesis will helpful for the next
generation too. So that I am happy to do this thesis.

2
 CHAPTER I

EUTHANASIA; A GENERAL OUTLOOK

Suffering and pain had been integral parts of human existence, and they have a
history dating back to the beginning of human existence. In the context of a creative
and compassionate caring in the family and community, human suffering is
meaningful, and the whole issue is approached with optimism, though pain remains
an unwelcome phenomenon as ever. “Euthanasia” is one of the most controversial
and misunderstood issues of our time. A universally well known, undeniable
inevitable fact and one of the most lives threatening reality is death. How to face
this end of life is the main issue of “Euthanasia” discussions and debates. This is an
attempt to explore the history, meaning and various types of “Euthanasia”.
1. Towards the Definition to “Euthanasia”
For a human being, death is as certain as life. It is the ultimate reality. The
spontaneous psychological fear about death is aggravated by the present state of
practice and discussions on “Euthanasia”, as the possibility of directly and indirectly
killing people has come out in the open, that too in certain countries with legal
approval1.the term “Euthanasia” came from the Greek words eu, meaning good and
thanatos, meaning death, and originally meant a good or happy death”2. According
to encyclopaedia of knowledge, “Euthanasia” is the act of inducing a gentle, painless
death”3. Today however it has come to mean an easy and gentle death, but an
untimely, anticipated, forced and unnatural one. The term “Euthanasia” originally
meant only good death. But in modern society it has come to mean a death, free of
any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication. According
to the Germain Grisez and Joseph m. Boyle, “Euthanasia” is “the act of putting to
death someone suffering from a painful or prolonged mortal illness or injury”4.
Most recently it has come to mean ‘mercy killing’-deliberately putting an end to
someone’s life in order to spare the individuals suffering5. It is the silent type of
killing.

1
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 1.
2
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 1.
3
GROLIAR, ed., Encyclopaedia of Knowledge, vol. 7, 150.
4
G. GRISES and J. M. BOYLE, Life and Death with Liberty and Justice, 86.
5
M. MANNING, Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide, 1.
3
 The British medical ethics defines “Euthanasia” as “a deliberate intervention
undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable
suffering”6. Now it is necessary to know more about the history of “Euthanasia” in
order to get deeper into its ethical manner. New Columbia encyclopedia defines
“Euthanasia” very broadly. They say “Euthanasia” is either painlessly putting to
death or failing to prevent death from natural causes in cases of terminal illness”7.
Now “Euthanasia” is considered as the happy death. Happy death means a death
without any pain and sufferings.
2. “Euthanasia” Back to its History
“Euthanasia” is not a recent phenomenon and it has a long history of
philosophical discussions as well. Among certain primitive people, the killing or
abandonment of aged or helpless members was an accepted practise. The ancients
focused not on the act of hastening death itself, but rather on the manner of dying.
In Greek and roman antiquity “Euthanasia” was an “accepted practice, though its
nature and practice were different”8. In general, Greek seems to have favoured
“Euthanasia”. The stoics endorsed “Euthanasia” when a person’s life was no longer
in accord with his or her individual felt needs and self knowledge9. There were
many prominent thinkers who were 1against the very concept and practice of
“Euthanasia”. For example the Pythagoreans opposed it as they believed in the
human soul, and since the artificial termination of life was a violation of god’s
commands. Plato had a sympathetic attitude towards it. Aristotle opposed it as it
deprived the state of its productive members and as very act was cowardly. With
regard to Romans nothing more to add because their philosophy was borrowed from
Greece, and was for the most part of either stoic or epicurean. In ancient Rome,
largely due to the influence of the stoics, suicide was an accepted form of death as
an escape from disgrace or from death at the hands of enemies or political
opponents10. So we can understand that there was practising of “Euthanasia” in
early period itself.

6
N. M. HARRIS, The Euthanasia Debate, 147.
7
T. L. BEAUCHAMP, Intending Death: The Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, 3.
8
R. M. GULA, Euthanasia; Moral and Pastoral Perspectives, 6-7.
9
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 5.
10
J. GOULD and L. CRAIGMYLE, eds., Your Death Warrant? The Implication of Euthanasia, 21-23.
4
 We find the re-enforcement of the view of the Hippocratic School in the
Christian era, with that human life is basically a gift from god and therefore any
attempt to thwart that life is an action against him11. In medieval times, Christian,
Jewish and Muslim religions opposed voluntary “Euthanasia”. Both Augustine and
Thomas Aquinas were against any act to hasten death, as the manner and time of
death were god’s will alone. Aquinas grounded his arguments on the theory of
natural law. He maintained the sanctity of life, regarding of its quality. According
to him “Euthanasia” is wrong not only because god commands it, but because it
violates the meaning of the person and the nature of a human community.
3. Types of “Euthanasia”
“Euthanasia” is when the doctor kills the patient. But different kinds of
“Euthanasia” lead us to great confusion. “Discussion about “Euthanasia” centers
around the moral permissibility of ending life of a terminally ill patient who is in
intense pain, by a third party, usually by a healthcare worker or a relative”12.
“Euthanasia” becomes the core of all ethical arguments. It gives the acceptability of
ending the life of sick patients with severe pain, by the third party. We start the force
of the issue we understood “Euthanasia” to be the voluntary and intentional ending
of a parson’s life. In this section we are going to analyses the major conceptions of
“Euthanasia”. There are mainly three types of “Euthanasia”. They are passive,
active (includes voluntary and non voluntary) and assisted suicide. Let us determine
these briefly.
3.1. Passive “Euthanasia”
Passive “Euthanasia” means the “avoidance of extreme or heroic measures to
prolong life in the case of incurable and painful terminal illness”13. Its advocates
maintain that treatment should be withheld not to hasten death, but to avoid the pain
and suffering of prolonged dying. Thus, it stands for the withdrawal of medical
treatment. “Passive “Euthanasia” is proper care provided for the human being. If the
hospital is treating a patient with severe pain the hospital can discontinue life
sustaining treatment to the patient and thus allow him or her to as possible”14. It can

11
M. MANNING, Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide, 8.
12
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 7.
13
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 8.
14
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 18.
5
be through many ways. It discards the excessive measures to extend life 15. Passive
“Euthanasia” more is extremely depended with the medical treatment.
However, it should be noted her that it is certainly possible to commit murder
(morally speaking) by omission, as when in order that the patient should die. A
medical attendant omits, for example to turn on an instrument or when people
deliberately neglect to feed their child. At this same time there is the possibility of
allowing someone to die, when the treatment procedures become a burden and, in
fact, useless for the patient. In general it may be said that the reason for withholding
treatment is not a judgement about the desirability of putting an end to the Asians life
but a judgement about the desirability of putting an end to treatments, either because
is inefficacious or because it is imposing excessive burdens on the patient.
Involuntary passive “Euthanasia” consists in not administering the useless
treatment to terminally ill patient or to stop useless treatment by turning off the
machine or pulling the plug. Here, since death is not intended, it is morally justified
although the death may occur thanks to the disease in the course of time. Here the
death is more or less sure but never intended. Or in other words it consists in the
abandoning the extraordinary means to preserve the terminally ill patient.
3.2. Active “Euthanasia”
Active “Euthanasia” is a deliberate intervention, someone other than the person
whose life is at stake, solely intended to end his or her life. One can take active
measures to end the patient’s life. Such as, by “directly administering a lethal dose
of a drug. This practice is called “Euthanasia” since the action taken by the third
party is the direct cause of the patient’s death”16. This can be either voluntary or
non-voluntary. Voluntary “Euthanasia” refers to mercy killing that takes place with
the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient, either verbally or in a written
document such as a living will. Non voluntary “Euthanasia” refers to the mercy
killing of a patient who is unconscious, comatose, or otherwise unable to explicitly
make his or her intensions known to others. In these cases it is often the family
members or legal representatives who make the request. “Active “Euthanasia” can
also be non-voluntary or voluntary. Voluntary “Euthanasia” refers to mercy killing
that happens with the explicit and the voluntary permission of the patient; such as a
15
E. BARGALOW, Moral Philosophy; Theory and issues, 278.
16
G. GRISEZ and J. M. BOYLE, Life and Death with Liberty and Justice, 412.
6
verbal or in a written paper as an existing will. In these cases it is often the family
members or legal representatives who make the request”17. Active “Euthanasia”
whether voluntary or not, is the deliberate killing of a person by another. Active
“Euthanasia” can be realised in a number of ways; an overdose of pills, improper
usage of medications, lethal injection and a number of more violent ways.
3.2.1. Voluntary “Euthanasia”
Active “Euthanasia”, whether voluntary or not, is the deliberate killing of one
person by another, active “Euthanasia” is voluntary only if patient is legally
competent and gives informed consent to being killed by agent. Considering matters
from a moral point of view and from the side of the one whose life is to be ended,
voluntary “Euthanasia” is not significantly different from other cases of suicide.
“The proposal is to bring about death as a means to ending suffering. This proposal,
if adopted and executed; is an instance of killing in the strict sense. It can never be
morally justified”18. Of course a person who is in severe pain and who seeks death to
escape it is likely to have “mitigated responsibility or even to be drawn into
acceptance without a deliberate choice, just as is the case with others whose suffering
drives them to a deadly deed against themselves”19. Active “Euthanasia” is
voluntary only if patient is legally competent and gives informed consent to being
killed by agent.
Considering voluntary “Euthanasia” from the points of view of the person who
would carry out the killing, matters seem no better from a moral view point. “The
performance can hardly fail to be an execution of a deliberate choice: the one
carrying out the killing can hardly be driven to it, nor can anyone in the present
culture accept the duty unquestionably”20. Voluntary “Euthanasia” means that a
patient procures for himself a painless death either without the cooperation of others
or with the help of a doctor or some other persons.
3.2.2. Non voluntary “Euthanasia”
Non voluntary “Euthanasia” also clearly proposes death as a treatment of choice.
The act hardly can fail to killing in the strict sense. And in addiction to the violation

17
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 18.
18
GRISEZ and J. M. BOYLE, Life and Death with Liberty and Justice, 412.
19
M. MANNING, Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide, 27.
20
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 19.
7
of the good life, the rights of those to be killed also will be violated. For example,
denial to them of equal protection of laws. Non voluntary “Euthanasia” would
violate both life and justice21. Abortion is a subclass of non voluntary “Euthanasia”.
Non voluntary “Euthanasia” is a type of “Euthanasia”, wherein, “Euthanasia” is
performed on an incompetent person. It is performed on a person against his or her
will. A person is incompetent when he or she is incapable of understanding the
nature and consequences of the decision to be made and is not capable of
communicating this decision. In the case of non voluntary “Euthanasia”, the wishes
of the patient are not known.
3.3. Assisted Suicide
Does an individual have an absolute right to exercise control over his or her body?
This question lies at the heart of the “Euthanasia” debate. Some say yes and argue
that this right includes the prerogative to bring one’s own life to an end. Assisted
suicide is a kind of “Euthanasia” which we cannot directly affirm that it belongs to
“Euthanasia” or not. It means “whether or not a physician might assist patients in
ending their lives by providing appropriate and adequate medical means to do so”22.
It is a suicide in which one helps another to commit suicide or the killing another at
the request or with the consent of a person killed. This practice is called assisted
suicide. There is large number of individual s who wants to end their lives but they
are unable to secure either necessary means or desirable means. But most of the
drugs needed to end one’s life are available only with the prescription. Because legal
risks many physicians are not ready to write such prescription.
Richard Doerfinger warns us not to be fooled by the myth of neutrality. “The
myth that by approving “Euthanasia” we will merely be adding to people’s free
choices. By approving the choice of a physician-assisted death, society would
undermine people’s ability to make any choice other than suicide”23. Assisted
suicide is practiced by many nations today.

21
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 19.
22
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 20.
23
R. M. DOERFINGER, “Assisted suicide: The Moral Equation” in Linacre Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 4,
27.
8
4. Various Approaches
There can be many approaches to “Euthanasia” as there are different schools of
thought. “Euthanasia” being a hotly discussed issue in the contemporary society, it
would be worth reviewing some of the important approaches to make our discussion
more relevant. As it is a most eagerly discussed issue there can be many approaches
towards its merits and demerits. There are many schools of thoughts in the
philosophy. Here it is important to see the “Euthanasia” from different perspectives.
Here I limit my selection only to utilitarian, deontological and religious approaches.
4.1. Utilitarian Approach
We can call utilitarianism as a part of Consequentialism. Utilitarianism stands for
the pleasure and happiness of all. “Utilitarianism rejects all standard arguments for or
against “Euthanasia” as they are based on the right of the individual or on individual
freedom. Since they evaluate an action as right if it leads to the best consequences
and wrong if it doesn’t, an act of “Euthanasia” will be morally right when it leads to
most satisfaction and least frustration of desires”24. Utilitarianism says that sickness
gives pain to all. They mean not only physical pain but also our inner pain. We live
in the world only to get pleasure and happiness. When we do not get it or when we
become a cause for the sadness of others we should be ready to leave the worldly
life.
In order to illustrate this utilitarian principle, let us consider the case of someone
who is contemplating mercy death because he is terminally ill, and does not want to
endure the pain and indignity of a slow death. Suppose, moreover, it is quite certain
that the continued existence of this person will not produce any important benefits
for his family or his society. In this case, the utilitarians will claim that
“Euthanasia” is the right thing to do.
4.2. Deontological Approach
Ethical theories that are not based on consequences but on some other moral
standard are classed under deontological theories, such theories are Kantian duty
ethics, and the divine command theory25. The deontologist has the same basic
approach to both suicide and “Euthanasia”. Kant approaches the problem of suicide
and “Euthanasia” with the assumption that the moral question involved is whether

24
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 26.
25
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 28.
9
these actions violates someone’s right not to be killed. From the deontological point
of view, cases of suicide and “Euthanasia” are instances in which someone is killed.
Unlike the utilitarian, the deontologist agrees with many of the standard
arguments about suicide and “Euthanasia”. Deontology, moreover, says that the
standard for judging the rightness or wrongness of any contemplated act of suicide
or “Euthanasia” depends heavily on the victim’s desires. It is totally independent of
our judgement of the value of that person’s life. Another difference is that the
deontologist, places great significance on such distinctions as that between voluntary
and involuntary “Euthanasia” and that between active and passive killing26.
Paul Ramsey has exceptionally earned well deserved respect among the
theologians all over the world. He holds a strict deontological position. He
earnestly argues for the protection of human life and advocates compassionate care
and comfort dying. However he is open to an exception to the prohibition of the
direct termination of life in the limited exceptions of patients who might progress
beyond the reach of care and comfort27. In short killing (voluntary and involuntary
“Euthanasia”) is an action of directly turning against the basic good of life.
4.3. Religious Approach
God is the creator of this beautiful life on earth. Whatever we see in the earth
like plants, human being, insects, animals etc are created and protected by God’s
providence. Every religion has different opinion on “Euthanasia” though all are
against its practice. Nobody has the right to take decision about his time of death.
Because, he is not the producer or controller of his life. “Human life is the basis of
all goods, and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of
all society”28. Everyone has the responsibility to lead his or her life in accordance
with God’s plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must make
fruitful.
4.3.1. Christianity
Church always stands for the life. ““Euthanasia” is forbidden by the Catholic
Church, Because God has given us not ownership but only stewardship of our lives
or the lives of others says clearly the declaration on “Euthanasia” by the sacred

26
S. CHACKALACKAL, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death, 35.
27
P. RAMSEY. The Patient as Person, 13.
28
W. F. MAESTRI, Choose Life and not Death, 187.
10
congregation for the doctrine of the faith, May 5, 1980.”29 The Holy Bible teaches
we are made in the image and likeness of God. He made man as the crown of his
creatures. The catechism of the Catholic Church No.2277 says:

“Whatever its motives and means, direct “Euthanasia” consists in putting

an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally
unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention,
causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely
contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the
living God, his creator. The error judgment into which one can fall in good
faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always
be forbidden and excluded”30.
“Euthanasia” can be considered as the pure violation of the divine law. Because
according to Christian belief God created man and only he is the one who has power
to take it back. We find three arguments that reject any possibility of “Euthanasia”.
(1) Command of God: “Euthanasia” is not permissible because God forbids it,
through the scripture and tradition. The sixth commandment forbids killing. (2)
Dominion of God: this argument starts from the principle that the life of man is
solely under the dominion of God. It is for God alone to decide when a person shall
live and when he shall die. (3) Human life is a gift of God: human life is basically a
gift from God, and it remains the same no matter how much pain and suffering it
may bring at one stage or another of its continued existence.
4.3.2. Hinduism
Hindus believe in the reincarnation of the soul (or atman) through many lives.
Thus, the ultimate aim of life is to achieve moksha or liberation from the cycle of
death and rebirth. For most Hindus, a physician 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. Other
Hindus believe that “Euthanasia” cannot be allowed because it breaches the teaching
of ‘ahimsa’ (doing no harm). There are however, two Hindu views on “Euthanasia”:
(1) by helping to end a painful life a person is performing a good deed and so
fulfilling their moral obligations. (2) By helping to end a life, even one filled with
suffering, a person is disturbing the timing of the cycle of death and rebirth. This is a
bad thing to do, and those involved in the “Euthanasia” will take on the remaining

29
S. DHANRAJ, Ethically Wrong, Indian Currents, March 2011, p. 33-40.
30
S. DHANRAJ, Ethically Wrong, Indian Currents, March 2011, p. 33-40.
11
karma of the patient. The same argument suggests that keeping a person artificially
alive on a life-support machines would also be a bad thing to do. However the use of
a life-support machine as part of a temporary attempt at healing would not be a bad
thing31. Anyway Hindus are also not well supported in the matter of “Euthanasia”.
4.3.3. Islamism
In Islam it is believed that human life is sacred because it's a gift of Allah. One
should continue to live till Allah wills it no matter how sufferable it becomes as it
has its own worth in form of eternal reward. As Quran quotes: “Do not take life,
which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice”32. According to them,
Allah decides how long each of us will live. When their time comes they cannot
delay it for a single hour nor can they bring it forward by a single hour 33. They are
giving more importance to charity and brotherhood. These are included in their
religious principles. So that, they try to respect and help each other. So that
“Euthanasia” is a big evil for them. Suicide and “Euthanasia” are explicitly
forbidden in Islam.
Conclusion
Through this chapter I was trying to understand a general outlook on
“Euthanasia”. Here I have mainly focused on the very meaning and present
definitions of “Euthanasia”. I could just pass through the history, classification, and
various approaches to “Euthanasia”. It has become most stormily debated issue
whole over the world. Most of the religious groups stand against the practice of
“Euthanasia”. Because they all argue that only God has power to take away our life.
Here comes the basic question about the dignity of human person. But today, there
are people who necessarily want for “Euthanasia”. Highly educated people always
support “Euthanasia”. In many countries it is permitted to give “Euthanasia” as
legally permitted. Anyway Christianity and other religions never support
“Euthanasia”. Therefore, we have to keep a negative impact to it.

31
“Euthanasia” and Suicide – The Hindu View, in:
www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/”Euthanasia”/hindu.shtml, September 16, 2016.
32
Qur'an 17:33.
33
Qur'an 16:61.
12
 CHAPTER II

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST EUTHANASIA

We are familiar with the definitions, history, types of “Euthanasia” through the
first chapter. There are people in favour of “Euthanasia” and also people who are
against it. Through this chapter I try to explore the arguments for and against
“Euthanasia”. This chapter presents the arguments in favour of “Euthanasia” based
on autonomy and the right of the individual person, compassion and mercy towards
the patient. And also puts forward counter arguments, arguments against
“Euthanasia”, in particular that, God is the sovereign lord of life and every
individual person has the right to life. This chapter says that mercy or compassion
towards the patient in the case of Euthanasia is false mercy.
1. Autonomy of the Person
We have the right to rule ourselves. We have the right to make decisions. The
word autonomy means the right to self-government or self rule. “Etymologically the
word autonomy is a combination of two Greek words: autos(self) and nomos(law),
which implies a self governing community having personal freedom and freedom of
the will”34. Applicable both to persons and institutions, the word suggests the
presence of, or capacity for, self determination and freedom from coercion35. Its
opposite is heteronomy: rule by external forces.
1.1. Autonomy Favours “Euthanasia”
One of the major arguments to support “Euthanasia” is rooted in autonomy.
Human person are free and autonomous and therefore may choose a peaceful death
rather than bearing the painful life. These people believe that they are better off
dead than alive because they no longer find value in their lives. Any individual
person has the right to take such a decision and all others ought to respect his or her
decision. The argument based on autonomy is also applicable to voluntary cases of
“Euthanasia” and to physician-assisted suicide. The advocates of “Euthanasia”
argue that autonomy or self determination is the right of a person to control his or
her body and life decision. Whoever holds this view believes that autonomy
includes the freedom to choose the final exit. They claim that to prohibit voluntary
“Euthanasia” is the same as not to respect the freedom of those who wish
34
V. KOLUTHARA, Rightful Autnomy of Religious Institutions, 16.
35
E. P. FLYNN, Issues in Medical Ethics, 296.
13
physician’s help in their dying moment36. Actually do we have right to decide
anything about our body?
The question whether an individual has an absolute freedom to exercise control
over his or her body lies at the heart of the “Euthanasia” debate. Those who defend
“Euthanasia” argue that this right is an absolute one and includes control over own
life and death. It is the belief of the pro-euthanasia movement that a patient has the
right to choose whatever he or she decides, even death, and this right must be
respected by all, including the physician37. Voluntary Euthanasia is justified based
on the autonomy of the person who suffers great pain and for whom medication has
no more effect to relieve the suffering. In this case the patient has come to a mature
decision with a desire to impose no more burdens on others. The patient then may
request the help of a doctor in his or her dying moment, and since the patient made a
responsible request there is no injustice in carrying out “Euthanasia” upon him or
her. Thus those who support “Euthanasia” argue that since the person to be killed
mercifully gives free and informed consent to being killed, no injustice will be
done38. Respect for this person’s integrity and autonomy require one to honor his or
her request to die. It would be a real cruelty to the patient if the physician ignores
the request. It would be like compelling the patient to stay in a horrible situation
where he or she does not want to be any longer. Thus, to ignore the patient’s request
seems like a failure to respect the autonomy of the patient.
1.2. True Autonomy is Against “Euthanasia”
Supporters of “Euthanasia” hold their belief on autonomy. According to them
everyone has freedom of choice, and this must be respected by all. For Christians
and others it is not so. The Encyclical ‘Evangelium Vitae’ of Pope John Paul II
states “this is a distorted notion of freedom which destroys our solidarity with other
human beings”39. The Christian concept of freedom is that it is a freedom to be and
do what one discerns God wants him o1r her to be or to do. It includes autonomous
choice to accept or reject suffering and illness, and also to abandon oneself to the
will of God. The Christian perspective of freedom and right implies this: everyone
does have the right to life, but this right is not an absolute one because as life is
36
M. MANNING, Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide; Killing or Care?, 1.
37
M. MANNING, Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide; Killing or Care?, 1.
38
W. E. MAY, Catholic Bio Ethics and the Gift of Human Life, 262.
39
J. PAUL II, Evangelium Vitae, no. 15.
14
given by God as a gift: there is no absolute autonomy40. So that we have no right to
decide our death
According to the document to the sacred congregation for the doctrine of the
faith, ‘Declaration on Euthanasia’, human life is the basis of all goods and a
necessary source of every human activity in society. Moreover life is a gift of
God’s love and everyone is to preserve this life as well as to make it bear fruit 41.
The autonomy of the person is not absolute because, it has to respect the ethical
principles of stewardship and solidarity. The human person is autonomous but
within autonomy that is limited by the principles of stewardship and solidarity.
Fausto Gomez describes these two principles as follow. Stewardship: God is the
lord of life and of creation. Solidarity: love all persons, members of the human
family42. Thus autonomy is limited by the fact that the human person is related to
other humans through close ties of blood and also loves; besides, he or she is
dependent on God43. Then we have to respect each other.
2. ‘The Right to Die’
We deal with the rights such as the right to know, right to freedom, right to
equality, etc. But today the modern world makes arguments to the right to die. “In
1976, California became the first state to pass legislation dealing with the so-called
right to die”44. The pro-euthanasia supporters present another argument to defend
their stand. That is the right to die. Does a man have such a right to die? The
proponents of Euthanasia believe he or she does. “In 1938, the Euthanasia society
of America, predecessor of the society for the right to die, was founded to legalize
the right of incurable sufferers to a good death”45. There are many such societies
who argue for the right to die.

40
B. M. ASHLEY, O. ROURKE and D. REVIN, Ethics of Health Care; Introduction Textbook, 189.
41
Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia, 992.
42
F. B. GOMEZ, Promoting Justice Love Life, 219.
43
F. B. GOMEZ, Promoting Justice Love Life, 219.
44
D. J. HORAN, “Right to Die Legislation: Current Legal Status”, 151.
45
D. J. HORAN, “Right to Die Legislation: Current Legal Status”, 151.
15
2.1. ‘The Right’ to Die Favours “Euthanasia”
The defenders of “Euthanasia” argue that through right to die, the patient is not
choosing his own good only but also the good of others. The patient never wants to
be a burden to the loved ones and to society. Thus supporters of “Euthanasia” argue
that a sufferer has the right to choose death and society should respect and grant that
right. “The autonomy or as it is sometimes referred to self determination is the core
value of that has driven the development of the right to die, as well as the more
fundamental right to refuse medical treatment out of which the right to die has
grown”46. So they consider it as very valuable argument.
2.2. There is No ‘Right to Die’
There are different arguments against the right to die proposed by proponents of
“Euthanasia”. In opposing the right to die movement, there is also an organization
called right to life which is supported by the church as well. James Bopp an active
lawyer in the right to life movement says the principle responsibility of society and
government is to protect life, so it ought not to be legalizing the killing of one
person by another47. If a physician is allowed to terminate patients this is against the
role of a doctor as healer. Doctors are the messengers of god to heal the patients,
not to terminate them.
3. Compassion and Mercy towards Dying
The word compassion generally evokes positive feelings. We like to think of
ourselves as compassionate people who are basically good, gentle and
understanding. We more or less assume that compassion is a natural response to
human suffering. “The word compassion is derived from the Latin words ‘pati’ and
‘cum’, which together mean “to suffer with”48. Compassion asks us to go where it
hurts, to enter into places of pain, to share in brokenness, fear, confusion and
anguish. Compassion requires us to be weak with the weak, vulnerable with the
vulnerable and powerless with the powerless.
3.1. Compassion Favours “Euthanasia”
The next argument used by the promoters of “Euthanasia” is the argument of
compassion. “Euthanasia” is considered by its supporters as an act of compassion.
The request of those who want to end their lives should be honored and consider this

46
Encyclopedia of Bio Ethics, 2305.
47
C. E. KOOP, ed., The Right to Live the Right to Die, 105.
48
D. P. MCNEILL, D. MORRISON and H. J. NOUWEN, Compassion, A Reflection on the Christian Life, 5.
16
an act of kindness or beneficence. Compassion is a human experience shared by all.
It is a common human emotion that human beings feel and suffer along with the
suffering of others49. Here compassion is to end the suffering of the patients. There
are patients who suffer very much through cancer and other major deceases without
the hope to return to the normal life. In this situation the supporters of “Euthanasia”
ask the question that why we should prolong the painful life. The term “Euthanasia”
by itself also means mercy killing, mercy towards the patient is put forward as an
argument by people who are in favour of the legalization. Thus “Euthanasia” is
justified on the ground of mercy or of prevention of cruelty when the patient will
have to endure unbearable suffering. Most supporters of “Euthanasia” consider
compassion or mercy as the ethical path to facilitate the escape of the patient from
his or her misery with an easy and painless death. Mercy has become one of the
main arguments in support of the “Euthanasia” movement.
3.2. False Mercy and Compassion
True mercy or compassion never makes pain to anyone. It never kills anyone.
The counter argument or argument against the advocates of Euthanasia is that the
mercy of Euthanasia is false mercy. It is the false mercy or perversion of mercy as
clearly stated by ‘Evangelium Vitae’. ‘Evangelium Vitae’ (EV) by John Paul II is
one of the most important documents of the magisterial of the church on life. It is
for a culture of life and against a culture of death, including “Euthanasia”. EV
explains clearly, what true compassion is. True compassion never includes killing.
The encyclical affirms that it is never lawful to put someone to death, even if it is
requested by the individual, even when a patient is suffering much. The document
considers “Euthanasia” false mercy50. So we have to be kind and sympathetic
towards those who are terminally ill and show them support by being with them in
their final moment instead of giving “Euthanasia”.
4. Dying with Dignity
Death is a fact in life. Nobody can survive it or postpone it. None likes death.
Because, we are interested with this world and its pleasures. “In 1975, the
“Euthanasia” society of America became the society for the right to die, assuming a
leadership role as the only organization in the United States with a program

49
J. GRCIC, Moral Choices: Ethical Theories and Problems, 324.
50
J. PAUL II, Evangelium Vitae, 66.
17
dedicated to active support of death with dignity legislation”51. We humans have the
dignity rather than the animals. That is because only the reason that we are created
in the image of God. Life and death is not a matter being discussed by the human
beings. The reason is that we are not the authorized persons to take decision about
that. It is god who makes the decisions. Let him decide anything.
4.1. Supporting “Euthanasia”
Dying with dignity is one of the arguments put forward by advocates of
Euthanasia. For advocates of “Euthanasia”, to have dignity means to be able to look
at oneself with respect and with certain degree of satisfaction. There are cases
which doctors itself ensured the death in some patients. Doctors know that such
patients never come back to life. So the advocates of “Euthanasia” argue that
doctors should help the suffering patient to die. Thus, the patient can accept his
good death. Otherwise the patient suffers long until the death. If the doctor assists
the patient to die, there will be dignified death.
4.2. Opposing “Euthanasia”
For the opponents of “Euthanasia”, human dignity and dying with dignity have
other meanings. Dignity and dying with dignity do not mean choosing death rather
than life or artificial prolongation of life52. The ‘death with dignity’ argument
proposed by advocates of “euthanasia” is a distorted notion of human dignity in the
understanding of human and Christian moral tradition53. The view of dying with
dignity, which is suggested by advocates of “Euthanasia”, is not considered to be
true dignity of human person. These proponents make the sufferers feel
discomforted and even less than a person because they point out that the sufferers or
patients have lost their dignity due to the ravages of their serious sickness or
illness54. Human dignity is from God, and this dignity of the person has its origin
right from the moment of conception till natural death. It must be respected and
protected.

51
D. J. HORAN, “Right to Die Legislation: Current Legal Status”, 151.
52
K. WILDES SJ and A. MITTCHEL, Choosing Life: A Dialogue on Evangelium Vitae, 246.
53
D. J. HORAN, “Right to Die Legislation: Current Legal Status”, 152.
54
K. WILDES SJ and A. MITTCHEL, Choosing Life: A Dialogue on Evangelium Vitae, 246.
18
5. Quality of Life
As we know that human life is sacred and it should be treated well. The
Christian’s belief in the sanctity of life is derived from his doctrine of God as
creator. God has made man in his own image with power to reason and the capacity
to choose. “Man’s right to life, grounded in his divine origin, is the basis of all other
human rights and the foundation of civilized society” 55. Human beings are not
immortal by nature. Respect for life requires that it be protected rather than
attacked, preserved rather than destroyed. “Death is both the end of life and its
natural compliment but it is often experienced as its destroyer. Many of the fears
and the questions raised for us by death are direct reflections of our concerns about
the meaning and quality of our life”56. We should respect our gifted life instead of
destroying it.
5.1. The Argument on Quality of Life Favours “Euthanasia”
The argument on the quality f life plays a very important role in the “Euthanasia”
debate too. It is one of the factors taken into consideration in end of life decision
making. Those who advocate “Euthanasia” believe that patients with total
dependence on others, due to sickness, have no quality of life. Moreover they are
grave burden to society and family. They argue that it is better to die with one’s
own choice rather than suffering from unending pain. According to them quality of
life exists in happy life. So the painful life must be avoided from the human life.
They assert that life holds no value without the dimension of personal life and there
is no meaning of existing with bodily life only. Thus many advocates of
“Euthanasia” assume that “Euthanasia” is not harmful but rather it is beneficial
when a person’s life is no longer of value to him or her57. Today, people are not
considering the value of life.
5.2. The Argument of Sanctity of Life Opposes “Euthanasia”
One of the main objections to the concept of quality of life is defended by the
concept of quality of life. Human life sacred and it is the gift of God, therefore
cannot be violated for any reason. So “Euthanasia” is wrong. Human life is created

55
Dictionary of Christian Ethics, 196.
56
Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling, 647.
57
W. E. MAY, Catholic Bio Ethics and the Gift of Human Life, 263.
19
by God. And He has the right to take the life. “Euthanasia” is the violation to the
fifth commandment. The sacred congregation for the doctrine of faith in its
declaration on “Euthanasia” regards life as something sacred and thus no one may
dispose of it at will58. The declaration states that human life is the basis of all goods,
a necessary source of every human activity and of society59 . The ‘Catechism of the
Catholic Church’ affirms that life is sacred from its very beginning. It involves the
creative actions of God. The human person is forever in relationship with God who
is the only end of the human person and God has the dominion over life from the
beginning till the end60. So that we have to respect others for what he is also created
by God. All human life deserves care and respect equally.
Conclusion
In this chapter I have presented the arguments both pro and contra “Euthanasia”.
Those who are in favour of “Euthanasia” put forward their views based on
autonomy, the right to die, compassion towards dying, dying with dignity and
quality of life. These are the main arguments they use to promote the legalization of
“Euthanasia”. By these arguments, the promoters of “Euthanasia” claim to have
proven that “Euthanasia” is ethically right. On the other hand, those oppose to
Euthanasia, in particular Catholics, are against the legalization of “Euthanasia”.
They are presenting the arguments on the perspective of reason and faith. Anyway
“Euthanasia” is legally accepted in some nations, including Christian nations.
Catholic Church is always against the “Euthanasia”. I never support such kind of
actions. Because, life is sacred.

58
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia, 993.
59
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia, 993.
60
Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 512.
20
 CHAPTER III

TO CARE OR TO KILL; A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

“Euthanasia” is one of the major ethical problems faced by the modern world.
When I read many books concerning “Euthanasia” to write and complete my thesis,
realized that there are many debates conducted by the societies about “Euthanasia”.
I wonder that there are people who strictly argue for the legalization of
“Euthanasia”. There are also people who never support this anarchy. I understood
that, there is “Euthanasia” legally accepted as well as practiced in many nations.
Even some of the catholic countries also accepted it as a law. I am a catholic and
believe in God. For me such these practices are violation of the will of God. As a
catholic and believer, I never support “Euthanasia”.
After presenting this thesis, I would like to sum up briefly my reasons to oppose
“Euthanasia”. “Euthanasia” is unethical at the level of reason. The main
responsibility of society and government is to protect life. Precisely, the chief
responsibility of every society and government is to protect them from any danger or
threat. Our human reason makes clearly that killing a human being is unethical for it
is against human dignity and rights. So legalization of “Euthanasia” would be an
utter failure of society and government to safeguard its members from legal killing.
A physician is a messenger of God, who immediately takes care of the life. He
has the responsibility to preserve the life. He has no license to kill anyone in the
matter of medical field. If he is given the right to take life, there will be a lot of
ambiguity into the relationship between patient and doctor. This would destroy the
special role of the doctor, the healer. Legalization of “Euthanasia” definitely
damages the role of doctors because it includes killing. As we know that fifth
commandment announces us not to kill. The role of a doctor is to heal rather than to
destroy life. Doctors and nurses are the most part, totally committed to saving lives.
A life lost for them, almost a personal failure and an insult to their skills and
knowledge of their profession.
“Euthanasia” is unethical since it includes taking the life of the patients. Killing
is never justifiable for any reason. It is wrong to take one’s own life or to help
someone to commit suicide. As a Christian I believe that God the almighty is the
lord of life and death. Life is sacred. “Euthanasia” is an immoral activity towards
21
human life. It is considering as a path to erase sufferings and pain of a human
person and it is against fundamental principles of life. Human life is a great
responsibility to oneself and others. People consider “Euthanasia” as a good end to
the painful life. But it is wrong in the perspective of catholic teachings.
Today, the world is accepting the developments very fast. As a result, the
medical equipments are developed to even to prolong the life. At the same time,
people are using these equipments to end the life. Eastern and western traditions
have always against the direct killing of oneself either alone or with the help of
others. God is the author and the giver of life. We are only the managers or
ambassadors of life. We have the right to live life, but never to destroy it. Just as
we do not decide out beginning, do not decide our death.
As human beings, all of us have absolute freedom. It does not mean one can do
whatever and whenever he wants. Our life is designed by God. We should not
destroy it for our pleasure. Instead we should care the patients well. Give them
good care. So that they will have the desire for come back the life. If the doctor
already announced that the patient is in the position of death, we should prepare the
patient for the good death.
“Euthanasia” is a rejection of the importance and value of human life.
Advocates of “Euthanasia” always argue that obligation of a physician is both to
cure the patient and alleviate sufferings. When cure is not possible, the physician
must continue to help the patient by ending his or her suffering even through taking
the life. People who support “Euthanasia” often say that it is already considered
permissible to take human life under some circumstances such as self-defense. But
they miss the point that when one kills for the self defense, they are saving innocent
life either their own or someone else’s. With “Euthanasia” no one’s life is being
saved, life is only taken.
“Euthanasia” is clearly a deliberate and intentional aspect of killing. Taking a
human life even with subtle rights and consent of the party involved is a crime. No
one can justly kill another human being. Just as it is wrong for a serial killer to
murder, it is wrong for a physician to do so as well. Life should be valued, not
abused. Because everyone is only given one chance to live. This chance is very

22
precious and an offer by God. Here are some arguments by the advocates of
“Euthanasia”.

1. Every person has the right to take decision about his or her life. Therefore,
that he or she can choose whether to live or die in this world (personal
autonomy).
2. Everybody has the freedom to live his or her own way. Nobody should
interfere with his or her life, and should respect it.
3. Suffering is unbearable for human life. So, it is better to die rather than
suffering.
4. Through “Euthanasia”, we are helping a patient from his or her unending
pain. Therefore, it is charity to the patients.
5. A physician only can understand the integrity of pain of a patient. So that,
he should suggest and give “Euthanasia”.
6. Why we allow the patients to suffer from deep pain? We should consider the
pain of the patients and allow them to die without pain.
There are many arguments put forward by the supporters of “Euthanasia”. Here I
mentioned only some of them. When we read these arguments, we will understand
that all these arguments are against the teachings of Catholic Church. According to
the catholic principles, human life is sacred. We should not do anything against the
life. Instead of that we should respect it.
In the present scenario, there are many cases related to mercy killing. Today,
human beings are never considering the importance of life and relationships. There
is no love between the family members. There is no sharing in families. People are
busy with their great jobs. Parents forget the children in their endless jobs. So that
children never acquire the fundamental values from family. They are becoming
selfish in their life. They are provided with most advanced infrastructures for the
pleasure life. So they lack the respectfulness, cooperation, love, sincerity, maturity,
etc. in their life. This is the character of new generation. But they are skilled with
technologies, IT professions and advanced necessary discoveries.
I think, such situations will lead to much social anarchy in the contemporary
world. This new generation does not know the value of human life. They are
always seeking the most pleasurable things. As a result, they forget their parents
23
those who are old and sick. They have no time to be with them and give special care
in their needs. Because new generation is busy with their social media. Such people
always ask the “Euthanasia” to be granted. The only reason is that, they have no
time to protect their parents. Actually, advocates of “Euthanasia” always argues
with the justification that why patients suffer endless pain unto death? I think this is
not the reason they argue for the mercy killing. They don’t have time and cash to
spend for their parents. That’s why they want “Euthanasia” as legalized.
Today, there is “Euthanasia” legalized in Netherland, Canada, England, Wales,
Belgium, Luxembourg, America, and last week in Austria, etc. After many years it
will be considered as a part of life. That is the present situation. Why we need
“Euthanasia” as legalized? Why we violate the commandment of God? Why we
cannot suffer for the sake of heavenly life? All these questions are useless now.
Anyway catholic view is against the “Euthanasia”. Because it is the only one church
which follows the values of life.
“Euthanasia” is one of the most acute and uncomfortable contemporary problems
in our society. Therefore, we should not support “Euthanasia”. We should preach
the value of life. We should consider it as something sacred from its beginning till
the end. As future priests, we have the responsibility to protect the life. We have to
teach that “Euthanasia” is wrong, Should not kill anyone, but care.

24
 GENERAL CONCLUSION
“Euthanasia” is becoming more and more vehemently discussed issue in the
contemporary world. Since it is connected with human life issue, we have to take it
very seriously. Every person has the right to live with dignity until his or her death.
Nobody even doctors also do not have any right to exploit the life. Every life is a
gift of God and everybody has the right to respect and live the life until God’s call.
Through this chapter, I was trying to reveal that “Euthanasia” is an immoral act. I
think I have succeeded in that matter.
The first chapter was about the various definitions, types, history, and approaches
of “Euthanasia”. “Euthanasia” is known as mercy killing also. I was mainly
concentrating of the book named as “Euthanasia”; An Appraisal of the Controversy
over Life and Death written by Saju Chackalackal,to write this chapter. He has
given detailed view about “Euthanasia” in his book. I understood that “Euthanasia”
is not a recent phenomenon. It was practiced well in ancient Greek and roman
antiquity. There are many types of “Euthanasia”. They are passive, active and
assisted suicide. Almost all religions never accept any types of “Euthanasia”.
The second chapter was about the arguments for and against “Euthanasia”. Here,
I tried to add many arguments on the basis of autonomy of the person, right to die,
compassion and mercy towards dying, dying with dignity and quality of life. I
understood that there are people who strictly argue for the legalization of
“Euthanasia”. There are many debates related to “Euthanasia” today. “Euthanasia”
is only a mean to escape from pain and sufferings. It is against the catholic
doctrines. Even some of the catholic countries also accepted “Euthanasia” as legal.
For example, Netherland, Canada, England, Wales, Belgium, Luxembourg,
America, Austria etc.
The third chapter was my personal analysis about the “Euthanasia”. I could read
many books about “Euthanasia” for writing this thesis. There were books that
support and oppose “Euthanasia”. When I happened to read the books, I realized
that “Euthanasia” is the most dangerous threat in the modern world. There are many
abuses based on “Euthanasia” in the present world. Even doctors are becoming the
killers for the huge amount of money as reward. People are abandoning the values
of life for the need of pleasurable life. Patients are compulsorily accepting the death

25
with the assistance of doctor. All these chapters are proving that “Euthanasia” is a
sin. Taking one’s life for any reason is a crime. Because, life is sacred and
everybody should respect the life. Modern technological growth provides sufficient
means to end the life. But we should realize that there are equipments for sustaining
life.
This scientific paper really helped me to think deeply about the value of my life.
I have obligation to protect not only my life but also the life of others. As a
conclusion, we cannot agree “Euthanasia”. Because, it violates the human rights
especially the right to live. Everybody has the equal rights. Nobody should violate
any rights of the individual. I think the term “Euthanasia” is not a happy death. It is
a bad death. It is the rejection of value and importance of one’s life with
“Euthanasia” no one’s life is being saved, life is denied.

26
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Books
ASHLEY, B. M., O. ROURKE and D. REVIN, Ethics of Health Care; Introduction
Textbook, George town University press, Washington, 2002.
BARGALOW, E., Moral Philosophy; Theory and Issues, Wards worth Publishing
Company, California, 1994.

BEAUCHAMP, T. L., Intending Death: The Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1983.

CHACKALACKAL, S, Euthanasia; An Appraisal of the Controversy over Life and Death,

Dharmaram Publications, Bangalore, 2000.

FLYNN, E. P., Issues in Medical Ethics, Sheed and Ward, Kansas city, 1997.

GOMEZ, F. B., Promoting Justice Love Life, UST Publishing House, Manila, 1998.

GOULD, J., and L. CRAIGMYLE eds., Your Death Warrant? The Implication of
Euthanasia, Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1971.

GRCIC, J., Moral Choices: Ethical Theories and Problems, West Publishing
Company, New York, 1989.

GRISES, G and J. M. BOYLE, Life and Death with Liberty and Justice, Notre Dame
press, London, 1979.

GULA, R. M., Euthanasia; Moral and Pastoral Perspectives, Paulist Press, Mahvah,
1994.

KOLUTHARA, V., Rightful Autnomy of Religious Institutions, Dharmaram publications,

Bangalore, 1994.

KOOP, C.E., ed., The Right to Live; The Right to Die, Tyndale house publishers,
Wheaton, 1984.

MAESTRI, W. F., Choose Life and not Death, Alba House, New York, 1986.

27
MANNING, M., Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide; Killing or Caring? Paulist
Press, New York, 1998.

MAY, W. E., Catholic Bio Ethics and the Gift of Human Life, 2nd ed., Our Sunday
Visitor, Huntington, 2008.

MCNEILL, D. P., D. MORRISON and H. J. NOUWEN, Compassion, A Reflection on the

Christian Life, Garden City, New York, 1966.

N. M. HARRIS, The Euthanasia Debate, J R Army Med Corps, Bangalore, 1994.

RAMSEY, P., The Patient as Person, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1970.

The Holy Qur'an, The Presidency of Islamic Researches, IFTA.

WILDES SJ, K., and A. MITTCHEL, Choosing Life: A Dialogue on Evangelium Vitae,
George Town University Press, Washington, 1997.

2. Articles
DHANRAJ, S., “Ethically Wrong” in Indian Currents, March, 2011.
DOERFINGER, R. M., “Assisted suicide: The Moral Equation” in Linacre Quarterly,
vol. 60, no. 4, November, 1993.

GROLIAR, ed., “Euthanasia” in Encyclopaedia of Knowledge, vol. 7 Dnbury,

Conneticut, 1993.

HORAN, D. J., “Right to Die Legislation: Current Legal Status” in The New
Technologies of Birth Death, Pope John Center, Missouri, 1980.

HUNTER, R. J., “Quality of life” in Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling,

Theological Publication, Bangalore, 2007.

MACQUARRIE, J., “Quality of life” in Dictionary of Christian Ethics, West Minster

Press, Philadelphia, 1967.

POST, S. G., ed., “Right to die” in Encyclopedia of Bio Ethics, 3rd edition, vol. 4,
Macmillan Reference, USA, 2004, 2385-2396.

28
3. Church Encyclicals
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Theological Publications in India, 1995.
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia, Vatican City,
May, 1980.

PAUL II, J., Evangelium Vitae, Vatican City, 25 March, 1995.

4. Digital Source
“Euthanasia” and Suicide – The Hindu View, in:
www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/”Euthanasia”/hindu.shtml, September 16, 2016.

29