You are on page 1of 7

Mercy Killing ang Euthanasia Euthanasia (from Greek: -'eu "good," thanatos"- death") - It is the easiest way to end

the life of an individual or an animal who is terminally ill or suffering from a chronically painful condition. The way to give him a dignified exit is through a painless or a minimally painful way. That can be done by a drug overdose, a lethal injection, or the withdrawal of medical support. What is the difference between euthanasia and mercy killing? There is no difference, "Euthanasia" is just the Greek word of mercy killing!

Different forms of euthanasia: Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed. Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent. Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary. Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide." Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection. Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water. What Euthanasia is NOT: There is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or not done. medical actions that labeled "passive euthanasia" are no form of euthanasia, since the intention to take life is lacking. o acts include: not commencing treatment that would not provide a benefit to the patient withdrawing treatment that has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or is unwanted, and the giving of high doses of pain-killers that may endanger life, when they have been shown to be necessary Reasons for Euthanasia

1. 2. 3.

Unbearable pain Right to commit suicide People should not be forced to stay alive

1. Unbearable pain as the reason for euthanasia - Probably the major argument in favor of euthanasia is that the person involved is in great pain. Nearly all pain can be eliminated and - in those rare cases where it can't be eliminated - it can still be reduced significantly if proper treatment is provided. It is a national and international scandal that so many people do not get adequate pain control. But killing is not the answer to that scandal. Solutions: a. b. to mandate better education of health care professionals on these crucial issues to expand access to health care, and to inform patients about their rights as consumers. Everyone whether it be a person with a life-threatening illness or a chronic condition - has the right to pain relief. The doctor should be one who will control the pain, not one who will kill the patient 2. Demanding a "right to commit suicide" - Probably the second most common point pro-euthanasia people - euthanasia is not about the right to die. It's about the right to kill. Euthanasia is not about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, is about changing the law and public policy so that doctors, relatives and others can directly and intentionally end another person's life. People do have the power to commit suicide. - suicide v.s. euthanasia SUICIDE( inc. attempted suicide) not criminalized Tragic, an individual act EUTHANASIA not a private act letting one person facilitate the death of another

3. Should people be forced to stay alive? No. And neither the law nor medical ethics requires that "everything be done" to keep a person alive. Insistence, against the patient's wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary to law and practice. It would also be cruel and inhumane. There comes a time when continued attempts to cure are not compassionate, wise, or medically sound. That's where hospice, including in-home hospice care, can be of such help. That is the time when all efforts should be placed on making the patient's remaining time comfortable. Then, all interventions should be directed to alleviating pain and other symptoms as well as to the provision of emotional and spiritual support for both the patient and the patient's loved ones. Morality of the act

Not all killing is murder in a strict legal sense Euthanasia comes quite close as there is premeditation, intent, and action. Most often it is a person terminally ill or in great pain or suffering some other seriously debilitating and irreversible condition which makes death look preferrable. The problem is that we live in community, and are inherently relational beings.Our life is a gift given from a source quite apart from us.Life is a trust.Suicide, 'assisted suicide,' euthanasia, and homicide all have in common an action taken to end a human life.Motives and methods do not change the outcome.That we do it because we care;that we do it 'gently' does not alter the fact that a life ends unnaturally.

So on the point of morality,major part of common people are thinking that everyone's life has quality,no matter what their social status is.Life is a gift from God and only God can take it from us.If you allow exceptions to the principle that human life is scared, you weaken the principle itself.Only a minor part of population is able to expend any amount they can to stave off death,even when there is no hope for recovery.But major part of people are not able to maintain treatment with huge cost.There are those - and their number is growing - who opt to receive neither treatment nor hastening death.They choose to allow nature to take its own course.They are just given medication only to ease their visible suffering, but that's not enough to prevent respiratory failure.They have chosen wisdom over knowledge.Theirs is truly death with dignity.Coz they enjoy each and every moment of life till his/her last breath. SUMMARY OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON EUTHANASIA First point: Killing an innocent is a crime against the 5th commandment Thou shall not kill. This commandment forbids the killing of the innocent, not the killing of the guilty, which can be sometimes ordered by the state for the common good. This is clear in the Old testament where Moses also gave laws to kill the guilty, and in the doctrine of the

Church (the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas for example). Euthanasia is a crime against the same commandment as abortion. Second point: About suffering and use of sedatives We must know that heroism is possible and we have examples of priests, religious, sisters, lay persons who refused sedatives and analgesics and offered their sufferings. Most of the time, the sufferings can also be an obstacle to spiritual life and can lead to despair and even rebellion against God. Refusing the sedative may be presumptuous. Sedatives are obviously permitted. Let us quote Pope Pius XII: The growth in love of God and abandonment to His will does not come from the sufferings themselves which are accepted, but from the intention in the will supported by gracethe suppression of pain removes any tension in body and mind, renders prayer easy, and makes possible a more generous gift of self (Feb. 24,1957). There may be a problem with the action of the sedative on the conscience of the sick. We must remember that our earthly life has its meaning in the eternal life. Also, when the sedatives are going to suppress the conscience of the sick, we must let the sick prepare himself to eternal life by the reception of the sacraments of penance, the Holy Eucharist, extreme unction, and also urge him to accomplish his last duties, such as his last will and testament. Obviously it is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious reason (Sept.9, 1958). Third point: About ordinary and extraordinary means. a. Everybody has the duty to employ what is necessary to the conservation of his own life and health, to avoid what is harmful to them, and to use what can restore the health. Let us quote St. Thomas Aquinas (commentary on the 2 epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, lect. II, n. 77): A man has the obligation to sustain his body, otherwise he would be a killer of himself; by precept therefore, he is bound to nourish his body and likewise we are bound to all the other items without which the body cannot live. b. Everybody has the duty to conserve his own life and health by ordinary means. This principle is just a consequence of the precedent. The ordinary means are the means that are commonly used by men to preserve their own life, and which can be procured by ordinary diligence.
nd

What are these ordinary means today? -blood transfusion; -intravenous feeding; -ordinary surgery, etc. c. If there are no sufficient remedies, it is permitted, with the patients consent, to have recourse to the means provided by the most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the experimental stage and are not without certain risk (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , May 5, 1980). These means, provided by the most advanced medical techniques, are called extraordinary means. What are the characteristics of an extraordinary means? They depend on: the common estimation the price of the surgery the danger of death the personal repulsion for this means the pains of the surgery the proportion of this means and the hope of success the length of the treatment. Sometimes there is an obligation employing the extraordinary means: when the life or the health of the sick is necessary to the common good of a family or the society. When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstance the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.

It is also permitted , with the patients consent, to interrupt these means, where the results fall short of expectations. But for such a decision to be made, account will have to be made of the reasonable wishes of the patient and the patients family, as also of the advise of the doctors who are specially competent on the matter (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

AGING, SUFFERING, AND DEATH IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH Aging, suffering and death are the natural consequences of our corruptible nature. Our body is indeed made up of millions and billions of cells. But when there is such composition, there is the possibility of disintegration and destruction coming from the wear and tear of the cells. The difference between us and animals is that we have a spiritual soul which can survive the destruction of the body. Our body, just as the other bodies of creation, is corruptible. The consequence of Adam and eves of rebellion against God has caused us to lose the sanctifying grace and the special gifts. God cast out Adam and Eve and placed before the Paradise of pleasure cherubim, and a flaming sword, running every way to keep the way of the tree of life (Gen 3:24) lest Adam take of the tree of life and eat and live forever (Gen 3:22). Then aging , suffering and death entered the world. They must be now considered punishment for sin. By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death. (Romans 5:12) But since the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Savior of the world, aging, suffering and death, united to the sufferings and death of Our Lord during his Passion. With sufferings and death, we are co-redeemers with Our Lord, we save the world with Him; they prepare us for eternal life, forcing to turn ones back on the world; they can become a period of spiritual ascent by our union with Our Lord crucified. THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church and let them pray over him, anointing him with the oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sin, they shall be forgiven him (James 5: 14-15).

The catechism of St. Pius X teaches that extreme unction is a sacrament instituted by Our Lord for the spiritual as well as the temporal comfort of the sick in danger of death. This sacrament is invalid if given to persons who are only old but are not in danger of death, as alas it is practiced today in many places. This sacrament, as the Catechism of St. Pius X says: increases sanctifying grace; remits venial sins, and also mortal sins which the sick person, if contrite, is unable to confess; takes away weakness and sloth which remain even after pardon has been obtained; gives strength to bear the illness patiently, to withstand; aids in restoring us to health of body if it is for the good of the soul. The decision to give this sacrament or not belongs to the priest. But the family, the doctor, the nurse, have the duty to call a priest as soon as the sick is in danger of death even doubtfully. It can help in the recovery of the sick person, and above all help him serbear and offer his sufferings to gain merits and to prepare him for death. Must we tell the sick that he is going to die? Answer: Yes, if we do not, the sick cannot prepare himself for death. The doctor has the duty to inform the sick about his health and not to hide the reality. It is a question of justice (there is a contract) and a question of charity (we must love our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God). Obviously, prudence and wisdom are required to announce to a sick person that he is going to die. In some cases it is better to wait some time in order that the sick is in a better moral condition to receive such news. Butto postpone by reluctance (without reason) the preparation of a sick to his passage to eternity could easily be a serious sin (Pope Pius XII, May 21, 1952).