
Euthanasia has been a highly controversial topic among theologians, philosophers, scientists, doctors, and preachers for centuries. The processes’ ethical and moral values seem to clash and contradict each other, while some view it as acceptable and necessary others view it as blasphemous, murderous and somewhat barbaric. I believe the process is debatable, it has both good and bad applications and its power has been abused in the past. But before I can talk about its moral and ethical dilemma, there needs to be some background information.

Euthanasia comes from the Greek words, Eu (good) and Thanatosis (death) and it means "Good Death, "Gentle and Easy Death" (A General History of Euthanasia).  In Sparta, many children that were sickly, or physically and mentally impaired were left out of the house at night and exposed to the elements which eventually lead to their death.  (A General History of Euthanasia). In Early history euthanasia was used only in times when someone was terminally ill or suffering immeasurable pain. The process was made illegal in the United States in 1828 but as years went on some sates now legalize the process of euthanasia. The process was encouraged by Adolf Hitler and used in concentration camps to “exterminate” the mentally or physically ill from Germany during the height of WWII. The most recent legalization of the euthanasia was when The Netherlands legalized it in the year 2000 (A General History of Euthanasia). However, only a limited number of countries either have legalized it or outlawed it, the majority have not reached a decision yet.

Euthanasia is viewed as murder by some individuals, others disagree. Pablo Requena wrote an article in the World Medical Journal about euthanasia, and this is what he had to say about it, “Throughout the centuries, the moral principle “doctors must not kill” has been passed on from generation to generation as a basic pillar of the doctor’s vocation” (Requena).  Another individual take the same stance on euthanasia. John Keown wrote in the same World Medical Journal and discussed euthanasia. He said, “Not only is killing unethical; it is unnecessary” (Keown). That statement is true, if a doctor was to euthanize someone just because they asked and had no medical reasoning behind their wish, then morally it could be viewed as morally wrong. However, someone was terminally ill, and was suffering immeasurable pain as the illness ran its course then the doctor administering the lethal injection did was morally justified in the fact that he relived this patients’ pain.  In a case report in psychiatry, observed by, Anne Pamela Frances Wand, Carmelle Peisah, Brian Draper, Carolyn Jones, and Henry Brodaty, they came up with this conclusion, 

“Accordingly, requests for euthanasia in the terminally ill have been considered “cries for help” from patients who are suffering or family members who have difficulty coping with the illness” (Anne Pamela Frances Wand)

It remains unclear if euthanasia is truly murder or reliving someone’s pain.

There is still the issue of religion and how euthanasia either interferes with someone’s beliefs or not. On May 5th in the year 1980 the Catholic Church condemned euthanasia and “assisted suicide” with the declaration issued by, The sacred congregation for the doctrine of faith (Catholic church teaching).  While some religions like the catholic belief have condemned euthanasia other religions like the Shinto of the Japanese have had a different viewpoint on it. Japan has always had a different viewpoint and honor in self-sacrifice.  Whether it was the ritual of the Seppuku in which Japanese samurai would disembowel and kill themselves honorably (Britannica), or by the infamous kamikaze pilots of WWII. Noritoshi Tanida did a case study in Japan where he took 388 religious groups-143 Shinto, 157 Buddhist, 58 Christian, and 30 others. The participants in the study were asked several questions regarding euthanasia and participated in various scenarios with a simulated “dying patient” (Tanida).  The first simulated case involves an elderly individual whom is bed-ridden he is prone to catch pneumonia and he has caught it again. The patient tells the doctor not to use antibiotics and he wishes to die peacefully, the doctor accepts his wish and lets him die by neglecting treatment (Tanida). The second case involves a patient with end stage cancer and is suffering terrible pain. She has been told her death is close but wants to die a peaceful painless death and the doctor grants her wish and the doctor administers a lethal but painless mixture of potassium chloride (Tanida).  When the religious groups were asked to respond to case one (which was an inactive form of euthanasia where the doctor neglects treatment) was accepted by over 70% of the individuals (Tanida). However, when asked to respond to case two (which is the active form of euthanasia where the doctor administers a painless lethal dose) it was only approved by 20% of the individuals (Tanida). Not surprisingly though, the Shinto favored both techniques, and Christians were least supportive of both techniques. The rest of the religious groups were divided a bit more evenly in terms of accepting active over passive or vise versa. While this case study shows the conflict of beliefs about a procedure to say that euthanasia interferes with all religious beliefs is false.

On October 21st of this year an episode of “Black Mirror” titled, San Junipero aired on television. The episode takes place in the far future and it is about two elderly women who are close to death due to different illnesses. Technology allows them to render themselves unconscious for a brief period and while unconscious they are connected to a wireless “server” called San Junipero. While unconscious their brain is downloaded, and transferred to this server and while the individual is “connected” their younger selves live in this beautiful exotic island also called San Junipero. The two women have never met “in the real world” only in this simulation. The two eventually fall in love and in their adventures in the island the viewer learns than one of the women named Yorkie is a dying quadriplegic and she is getting married so she can be euthanized and permanently live in the San Junipero computer simulation. Yorkie’s new lover, Kelly, sets out to find Yorkie in the real world. When she finds her in this futuristic hospital that is capable of euthanizing and transporting someone to San Junipero, Kelly takes the spot of Yorkie’s fiancée, Greg. After the wedding ceremony Yorkie is euthanized and so is Kelly and the two live forever in San Junipero (Donnelly). After the episode aired there was a lot of controversy not just for the LGBTQ theme that is present but for the assisted suicide as well. Many viewers thought it was wrong for Yorkie to be euthanized while others argue that sense she was a quadriplegic for most of her life she didn’t get to live it and deserves this second life in San Junipero. There is no right answer and the episode makes it very clear that the discretion is up to the viewer.

As new methods in medicine, technology, and science grow so do the controversies and ethical dilemmas. It is natural for humans to have a differing opinion on a certain topic especially one a sensitive as euthanasia. There is no clear answer as to whether it is right or wrong, but regardless respect must be given to those with different beliefs, because that is the only way for humanity to continue to grow and develop.
