Introduction

In recent times, the question of the morality or immorality of euthanasia has kept on

generating heated and controversial debates among scholars, moralists, ethicists, theologians,

psychologists, educationists, anthropologists, politicians, physicians, patients as well as the

common man in the street are interested in it. This pervading interest simply arises out of the

fact that euthanasia involves the question of life, and life is something that is a common

denominator to all men. Is it morally right for a physician to assist euthanasia? Seems to be

the question that occupies this discourse this question is so controversial to the point that

many doctors and moral theologians today find themselves in a quandary.

With regard to the foregoing, some people are of the opinion that individuals have the

right and freedom to ask for euthanasia if they wish to, whereas others do not see any reason

why a moral agent should ask for such, and so, it is, for them, immoral to make such a

request. Nevertheless, it is due to the failure of men to reach a moral compromise on this

issue that today we find dehumanisation in our world. The advance in the science of

biotechnology has reduced the dignity of man, thus giving rise to what Pope John Paul II

called the culture of death. This is for the reason that when man loses his moral

consciousness, he becomes less valuable, threatened and poisoned, thus, giving rise to

cloning, euthanasia, eugenics, abortion. This essay is intended to reinvigorate this moral

consciousness in man and put him in focus towards attaining a moral scientific order.

The crux of this essay, therefore, is to examine and justify and examine the moral

implications of euthanasia. In fact, the plethora of ideas in this paper abounds within the

ethical, social and religious circle. Given this therefore, this essay shall make an exposition of

the problem at hand, viewing the various arguments against euthanasia to see if really, on any

grounds, we are morally justified in legalising euthanasia. This shall then be followed by the

evaluation and concluding reflection of the essay.

1
CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS

Euthanasia has been conceived in different ways. As such, different scholars and thinkers

have offered different definitions to explain what euthanasia could be understood to be. This

stems from the fact that different schools of thoughts have their coinage for the term. Thus,

there is no unanimous agreement on a single definition of the term.

Etymologically, euthanasia which is also called “mercy killing” is gotten from two

Greek words eu which means well or good and thanatos meaning death. Literally, the term is

used to refer to “a good death.”According to Kluge Eike-Henner, euthanasia is “the act of

ending the life of a person from compassionate motives, when he is already terminally ill or

when his or her suffering has become unbearable.” 1 In a similar fashion, Heifetz and Mangel

defined it as “the wilful putting to death of an individual with the intent to prevent suffering-

‘mercy killing.”2 Here, euthanasia is distinguished from suicide by the necessary participation

of a third party, typically either by a physician or family member.3

For Joseph Fletcher, euthanasia can be described in a wider sense as “a theory that in

certain circumstances, when owing to disease, senility or the like, a person’s life has

permanently ceased to be either agreeable or useful, the sufferer should be painlessly killed,

either by himself or by another.”4 Correspondingly, David Roy conceives euthanasia as “the

deliberate, rapid and painless termination of life of a person afflicted with incurable and

progressive disease.”5 Moreover, Euthanasia, for the Euthanasia Society of England, is “the

administration of a drug deliberately and specifically to accelerate death and suffering.” 6 In

1
Kluge Eike-Henner, Reading in Biomedical Ethics: A Canadian Focus (Ontario: Prentice Hall, 19p3), p. 285.
2
M. Heifetz & C. Mangel, The Right to Die (New York: G. P. Putman’s Sons, 1975), p. 99.
3
Cf. Gale Encyclopaedia of US History: Euthanasia.
http://www. answers.com/topic/euthanasia.
4
Joyce H. Rose “Euthanasia” in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1912), p. 598.
5
David Roy et al, Bioethics in Canada (Ontario: Prentice-Hall, 1994), p. 410.
6
Robert Twycross, Decisions about Dying and Death: Decision Making in Medicine, the Practice of its Ethics
(London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd, 1979), p. 101.

2
the same vein, Henrickson and Martin posit that euthanasia means “inducing the painless

death of a person for reasons assumed to be merciful.”7

From the foregoing, it can deduced that euthanasia is carried out at the person’s

request but there are times when they may be too ill and the decision is made by relatives,

medics or in some instances, the courts. Euthanasia can be carried out by taking actions

which include giving a lethal dose of drugs or injection, by suffocation using a nylon bag or

withdrawal of feeding or drugs.

Another definition of euthanasia is that given by the Sacred Congregation for the

Doctrine of the Faith which says that “euthanasia is understood to be an action or an omission

which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be

eliminated.”8 In this case, euthanasia’s terms of reference are to be found in the intention of

the will and in the methods used.9 From this definition, some acts of omission are lethal

because they are adopted precisely as a means to bring about someone’s death. However,

according to J. Onimhawo, it should be noted that euthanasia is today not only limited to

incurable diseases but also the mentally handicapped, the defective new-born babies and

other incompetents.10

TYPES AND FORMS OF EUTHANASIA

There are different types of euthanasia, these are: active euthanasia, passive

euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia.

VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

This is a case in which a clearly competent patient makes a voluntary and enduring request to

be helped to die. Voluntary euthanasia concerns itself with the express wish of a mentally

7
www.angelfire.com/ai/jefspage
8
Vatican Congregation for Doctrine of Faith, in The Moral Responsibility in Prolonging Life Decision, Donald G.
McCarthy and Albert S. Moraezewski, eds, 1980.
9
Cf. www.euthanasia.com/vatican.html (Declaration on Euthanasia).
10
Cf. John Onimhawo, “Euthanasia: A Philosophical-Theological Appraisal” (PhD Dissertation presented in
University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 1991), p. 9.

3
competent person to die through the assistance of others. For Ekennia, it is the “killing of a

person, or assisting the suffering person to kill himself/herself.11

Hence, the main thrust of voluntary Euthanasia is that the patient specifically requests that

his/her life be ended. And the request must come from someone who is either subject to

intolerable pain or disability; or who is suffering from an illness which is seen as being

terminal. This decision to die may be made either before, during or after the development of

such an illness in question. But in which ever way, the issue remains that it must not come

from any kind of coercion or pressure at all. It must be voluntary. Voluntary Euthanasia can

be summarized thus: “The person wants to die and says so. This includes cases of:

 asking for help with dying

 refusing burdensome medical treatment

 asking for medical treatment to be stopped, or life support machines to be switched

off

 refusing to eat

 simply deciding to die”12

INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

Involuntary euthanasia occurs when, any person, especially, a medical personnel, kills a

suffering patient who would have been able to give or withhold consent, to his or her death,

but who did not give any consent either because no one consulted him/her, or when asked,

he/she refused to give consent because he/she wanted to live. Mahan explains it thus: “when

an individual who is competent to give or withhold consent is killed or allowed to die, either

contrary to his expressed will or when his consent has not been sought“ 13. For B.A.

Robinson: “This term is used by some to describe the killing of a person who has not

11
Ekennia, 2003, p.162. Ekennia, 2003, p.162.
12
www.bbc.co.uk/print//religion/ ethics/euthanasia.
13
Mc Mahan, J., 2002, p.457.

4
explicitly requested aid in dying”14 It could said to be ending the life of able patients without

their permission or against their will.

ACTIVE EUTHANASIA

This has to do with causing the death of someone using a direct action. It involves the lethal

dose of drugs or lethal injection on a person with the sole aim of terminating the person’s life.

It is viewed as the direct killing of a person who is suffering from severe pain in order to save

him/her from this pain- this may happen with or without the person’s consent.

PASSIVE EUTHANASIA

This is the hastening of the death of a person by altering some form of support and letting

nature take its course. Put simply, “it is an allowance of nature to run its course.” 15 In other

words, passive euthanasia is when nothing is done to prevent the death of a person. “It is the

purposeful removal of the life sustaining or prolonging treatment with the aim of ending life.”

This type of euthanasia can be carried out by: removing life support equipment, stopping

medical procedures (discontinuing medication), stopping food and water, or removing

feeding tubes, not resuscitating.

THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF EUTHANASIA

Sanctity of Life; Life is an equivocal word that cannot be really simplified into one singular

meaning, it is universal but yet means much more.

What is life? The above question remains abstract and cumbersome for many people, even

for renowned scholars in various field of study. No definition had been proven to be absolute,

because they are different context in which it is being viewed.

Theologically, the aforementioned question is often linked and seen as “ what is the meaning

of life” or “what is the purpose of life”. In the words of Karl Rahner, Life is the active

14
Robinson,B.A., (www.religioustolerance.org/euth)
15
Mel Thompson, Ethics (Chicago: contemporary Books, 2003), p. 71.

5
participation of man in the life of God, in such a way that the earthly life is a reflection of the

heavenly life. It crucial to know that life is an experience rather than an abstract principle of

vitality which may be distinguished by the body. 16

Life is sacred in all its circumstances and it is the ability to exercise one’s power to the

fullest, the old testament views man who is full of life as a being whose nature is holistic, this

simply means that man is made up of body, soul and spirit in a unified way. The soul is the

conscious aspect of man and as such, it is sacred because God alone is the Lord of life from

its beginning to its end, it involves the creative action of God.17

This is viewed as a philosophical analysis of concepts surrounding life, death, and

nature. There have been three main philosophical approaches to the problem of defining life

that remains relevant today: Aristotle views life as animation, a fundamental, irreducible

property of nature; Descartes posit human life as a mechanism; and Kant's view of life as

organization, to which we need to add Darwin's concept of variation and evolution through

natural selection.18 In addition we may add the idea of defining life as an emergent property

of particular kinds of complex systems.19

Pope St JohnPaulII in his encyclical titled Evangelium Vitae gives a reaffirmation of the

value of human life and its inviolability, and appeal to mankind, to respect, protect, love and

serve every human life.The Pope set to accomplish two objectives. (a) Affirming that there

are threats to human life in this present age. (b) Calling on the masses to rather sustain what

he calls: a Culture of Life, an effort to bring the love of Christ to the weak and helpless.

16
Rahner Karl, “Encyclopedia of Theology- Sacramentum Mundi”, Published by Herder KG Freiburg Germany.
P 846.
17
Dominum Vitae, Intro 5.
18
Hans Jonas, The Phenomenon of Life: Toward a Philosophical Biology, (Northwestern University Press 1966,
2001), p.1.
19
Masahiro Morioka, “The Concept of Life in Contemporary World,”The Review of Life Studies Vol.2 (April
2012):23-62.

6
The Pope however, concludes his analysis of the Christian meaning of life by pointing to the

image of the Cross: By His death, Jesus sheds light on the meaning of the life and death of

every human being. He said that, before Christ died, he prayed to the Father, asking

forgiveness for His persecutors; to the criminal who asks Him to remember Him in His

Kingdom, He replied: “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” Hence for

him, today, too, by looking upon the one who was pierced, every person whose life is

threatened encounters the sure hope of finding freedom and redemption. 20

Argument From Family/Societal Ties; Proponents of euthanasia argue that when the life of

the suffering sick becomes a burden to the family or society, that such a person’s life could be

terminated.

But on the contrary, the Catholic Church argues that no man is an island. We are part of our

families and our societies. Hence, any decision we take necessarily affects our family and

society at large. So when the suffering sick patient opts to die, he harms those all around him.

There is a bond a tie, and unity of love, that exists among each person and his family, and the

society at large. Hence, the patient must always consider this tie. To this the catechism says

that, it likewise offends love of neighbour because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with

family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. 21

(no.2218).

Moreover, we must know that we owe a responsibility to our family, children, relatives, and

society at large. By a suffering sick patient terminating his life on account of suffering

(especially when such a sickness is not terminal), he defies his duties, obligations and

responsibilities to his family, and all those around him.

20
Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae, Encyclical Letter March 25, 1995. p. 50.
21

7
Argument from Natural Law

St. Thomas Aquinas is the chief proponent of this natural law argument and according to this

argument, it is natural for human beings to prolong their lives, to protect theirselves from

death, like all other animals in the animal kingdom. Euthanasia contradicts the preservation

of life which for man is a natural goal. The catechism of the Catholic Church says: “it

contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life”.

(no.2281).

Man is naturally imbued with the instrument to preserve his life. Owing to his reason, he

takes care of his feeding, shelter, clothing, and wards off enemies. To agree to Euthanasia

then would mean to set man against his own nature. It is a denial of man’s natural right to

preserve life. Natural law does not give man right to kill himself, or another, but always

propels him to live by reason.

Euthanasia violates this natural goal, and it is hence morally wrong.

St Thomas in buttressing his point, He said:

... everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything

naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can.

Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature... Hence, suicide is always a mortal

sin, as being contrary to the natural law.22

Argument From The Value Of Suffering

The main thrust of the proponents of euthanasia is to end excessive suffering, and ensuring a

dignified death to the suffering sick person. But on the contrary, the Catholic Church sees

suffering as a confirmation of human dignity. Thus, John Paul II in one of his Apostolic

Letters: SalvificiDolorisexplained the Christian meaning of human suffering, and teaches that

it brings out the great dignity of man, as well as his spiritual and moral maturity. The

Catholic Church argues that suffering has a very important role to play in human life.
22
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II 64.pg 5

8
Hence, she criticized the contemporary society by noting that disdain for suffering is a

reflection of the perverse conception of values, in which people in modern industrialized

societies care only about the healthy, the beautiful, and the autonomous, and where

dependence is seen as a liability, a burden on others. For the church, spiritual values should

be placed over temporal values. She maintains that, all providers of healthcare services ought

to accept the reality of suffering as part and parcel of the human condition. Suffering is

certainly part of the mystery of man. And all those who suffer have been called once and for

all to become sharers in Christ’s sufferings, just as all have been called to complete with their

own suffering what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. At one and the same time Christ has

taught man to do good by his suffering and to do good to those who suffer. In this double

aspect he has completely revealed the meaning of suffering.

However, a suffering or dying patient must not be abandoned, but should be surrounded by

loving human and Christian presence, to prevent him/her from slipping into depression and

anguish. The society ought to change its attitude towards the dying and gravely ill. Whatever

approach or decision we take about them should be inspired by the respect for life and the

dignity of the human person.Hence, to legalize euthanasia, the church maintains is immoral.

CONCLUSION

I will love to conclude with the question, Does suffering glorify a person? Is suffering, sharing

in Jesus Christ’s passion, and a way of the preparation for meeting God? Are you merely a

steward of your life, which is a gift from God, which only he may take away? Is human life

intrinsically valuable? Can one recover on a terminal illness on account of miracles? If your

answer to these questions is yes, then you should not be involved in any form of euthanasia.

9
10