Euthanasia (from Greek: εὐθανασία;
"good death": εὖ, eu; "well" or "good"
+ θάνατος, thanatos; "death") is the
practice of intentionally ending a life to
relieve pain and suffering.Different countries
have different euthanasia laws.
The British House of Lords Select Committee
on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a
deliberate intervention undertaken with the
express intention of ending a life, to relieve
intractable suffering".
In the Netherlands and Belgium, euthanasia
is understood as "termination of life by a
doctor at the request of a patient".
The Dutch law however, does not use the term
'euthanasia' but includes the concept under
the broader definition of "assisted suicide
and termination of life on request".Euthanasia
is categorized in different ways, which include
voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary:
Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries.
Non-voluntary euthanasia (patient's consent
unavailable) is illegal in all countries.
Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent
or against the patient's will) is also illegal
in all countries and is usually considered
murder.As of 2006 euthanasia had become the
most active area of research in bioethics.
In some countries divisive public controversy
occurs over the moral, ethical, and legal
issues associated with euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia (known as "pulling the
plug") is legal under some circumstances in
many countries.
Active euthanasia, however, is legal or de
facto legal in only a handful of countries
(for example: Belgium, Canada and Switzerland),
which limit it to specific circumstances and
require the approval of counselors and doctors
or other specialists.
In some countries - such as Nigeria, Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan - support for active euthanasia
is almost non-existent.
== 
Definition ==
Like other terms borrowed from history, "euthanasia"
has had different meanings depending on usage.
The first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia"
belongs to the historian Suetonius, who described
how the Emperor Augustus, "dying quickly and
without suffering in the arms of his wife,
Livia, experienced the 'euthanasia' he had
wished for."
The word "euthanasia" was first used in a
medical context by Francis Bacon in the 17th
century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy
death, during which it was a "physician's
responsibility to alleviate the 'physical
sufferings' of the body."
Bacon referred to an "outward euthanasia"—the
term "outward" he used to distinguish from
a spiritual concept—the euthanasia "which
regards the preparation of the soul."In current
usage, euthanasia has been defined as the
"painless inducement of a quick death".
However, it is argued that this approach fails
to properly define euthanasia, as it leaves
open a number of possible actions which would
meet the requirements of the definition, but
would not be seen as euthanasia.
In particular, these include situations where
a person kills another, painlessly, but for
no reason beyond that of personal gain; or
accidental deaths that are quick and painless,
but not intentional.Another approach incorporates
the notion of suffering into the definition.
The definition offered by the Oxford English
Dictionary incorporates suffering as a necessary
condition, with "the painless killing of a
patient suffering from an incurable and painful
disease or in an irreversible coma", This
approach is included in Marvin Khol and Paul
Kurtz's definition of it as "a mode or act
of inducing or permitting death painlessly
as a relief from suffering".
Counterexamples can be given: such definitions
may encompass killing a person suffering from
an incurable disease for personal gain (such
as to claim an inheritance), and commentators
such as Tom Beauchamp and Arnold Davidson
have argued that doing so would constitute
"murder simpliciter" rather than euthanasia.The
third element incorporated into many definitions
is that of intentionality – the death must
be intended, rather than being accidental,
and the intent of the action must be a "merciful
death".
Michael Wreen argued that "the principal thing
that distinguishes euthanasia from intentional
killing simpliciter is the agent's motive:
it must be a good motive insofar as the good
of the person killed is concerned."
Likewise, James Field argued that euthanasia
entails a sense of compassion towards the
patient, in contrast to the diverse non-compassionate
motives of serial killers who work in health
care professions.
Similarly, Heather Draper speaks to the importance
of motive, arguing that "the motive forms
a crucial part of arguments for euthanasia,
because it must be in the best interests of
the person on the receiving end."
Definitions such as that offered by the House
of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics
take this path, where euthanasia is defined
as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with
the express intention of ending a life, to
relieve intractable suffering."
Beauchamp and Davidson also highlight Baruch
Brody's "an act of euthanasia is one in which
one person ... (A) kills another person (B)
for the benefit of the second person, who
actually does benefit from being killed".Draper
argued that any definition of euthanasia must
incorporate four elements: an agent and a
subject; an intention; a causal proximity,
such that the actions of the agent lead to
the outcome; and an outcome.
Based on this, she offered a definition incorporating
those elements, stating that euthanasia "must
be defined as death that results from the
intention of one person to kill another person,
using the most gentle and painless means possible,
that is motivated solely by the best interests
of the person who dies."
Prior to Draper, Beauchamp and Davidson had
also offered a definition that includes these
elements.
Their definition specifically discounts fetuses
to distinguish between abortions and euthanasia:
In summary, we have argued ... that the death
of a human being, A, is an instance of euthanasia
if and only if (1) A's death is intended by
at least one other human being, B, where B
is either the cause of death or a causally
relevant feature of the event resulting in
death (whether by action or by omission);
(2) there is either sufficient current evidence
for B to believe that A is acutely suffering
or irreversibly comatose, or there is sufficient
current evidence related to A's present condition
such that one or more known causal laws supports
B's belief that A will be in a condition of
acute suffering or irreversible comatoseness;
(3) (a) B's primary reason for intending A's
death is cessation of A's (actual or predicted
future) suffering or irreversible comatoseness,
where B does not intend A's death for a different
primary reason, though there may be other
relevant reasons, and (b) there is sufficient
current evidence for either A or B that causal
means to A's death will not produce any more
suffering than would be produced for A if
B were not to intervene; (4) the causal means
to the event of A's death are chosen by A
or B to be as painless as possible, unless
either A or B has an overriding reason for
a more painful causal means, where the reason
for choosing the latter causal means does
not conflict with the evidence in 3b; (5)
A is a nonfetal organism.
Wreen, in part responding to Beauchamp and
Davidson, offered a six-part definition:
Person A committed an act of euthanasia if
and only if (1) A killed B or let her die;
(2) A intended to kill B; (3) the intention
specified in (2) was at least partial cause
of the action specified in (1); (4) the causal
journey from the intention specified in (2)
to the action specified in (1) is more or
less in accordance with A's plan of action;
(5) A's killing of B is a voluntary action;
(6) the motive for the action specified in
(1), the motive standing behind the intention
specified in (2), is the good of the person
killed.
Wreen also considered a seventh requirement:
"(7) The good specified in (6) is, or at least
includes, the avoidance of evil", although
as Wreen noted in the paper, he was not convinced
that the restriction was required.In discussing
his definition, Wreen noted the difficulty
of justifying euthanasia when faced with the
notion of the subject's "right to life".
In response, Wreen argued that euthanasia
has to be voluntary, and that "involuntary
euthanasia is, as such, a great wrong".
Other commentators incorporate consent more
directly into their definitions.
For example, in a discussion of euthanasia
presented in 2003 by the European Association
of Palliative Care (EPAC) Ethics Task Force,
the authors offered: "Medicalized killing
of a person without the person's consent,
whether nonvoluntary (where the person is
unable to consent) or involuntary (against
the person's will) is not euthanasia: it is
murder.
Hence, euthanasia can be voluntary only."
Although the EPAC Ethics Task Force argued
that both non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia
could not be included in the definition of
euthanasia, there is discussion in the literature
about excluding one but not the other.
== Classification of euthanasia ==
Euthanasia may be classified into three types,
according to whether a person gives informed
consent: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary.There
is a debate within the medical and bioethics
literature about whether or not the non-voluntary
(and by extension, involuntary) killing of
patients can be regarded as euthanasia, irrespective
of intent or the patient's circumstances.
In the definitions offered by Beauchamp and
Davidson and, later, by Wreen, consent on
the part of the patient was not considered
as one of their criteria, although it may
have been required to justify euthanasia.
However, others see consent as essential.
=== Voluntary euthanasia ===
Voluntary euthanasia is conducted with the
consent of the patient.
Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium,
Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Passive voluntary euthanasia is legal throughout
the US per Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department
of Health.
When the patient brings about his or her own
death with the assistance of a physician,
the term assisted suicide is often used instead.
Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and
the U.S. states of California, Oregon, Washington,
Montana and Vermont.
=== Non-voluntary euthanasia ===
Non-voluntary euthanasia is conducted when
the consent of the patient is unavailable.
Examples include child euthanasia, which is
illegal worldwide but decriminalised under
certain specific circumstances in the Netherlands
under the Groningen Protocol.
=== Involuntary euthanasia ===
Involuntary euthanasia is conducted against
the will of the patient.
=== Passive and active euthanasia ===
Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary types
can be further divided into passive or active
variants.
Passive euthanasia entails the withholding
treatment necessary for the continuance of
life.
Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal
substances or forces (such as administering
a lethal injection), and is the more controversial.
While some authors consider these terms to
be misleading and unhelpful, they are nonetheless
commonly used.
In some cases, such as the administration
of increasingly necessary, but toxic doses
of painkillers, there is a debate whether
or not to regard the practice as active or
passive.
== History ==
Euthanasia was practiced in Ancient Greece
and Rome: for example, hemlock was employed
as a means of hastening death on the island
of Kea, a technique also employed in Marseilles.
Euthanasia, in the sense of the deliberate
hastening of a person's death, was supported
by Socrates, Plato and Seneca the Elder in
the ancient world, although Hippocrates appears
to have spoken against the practice, writing
"I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please
someone, nor give advice that may cause his
death" (noting there is some debate in the
literature about whether or not this was intended
to encompass euthanasia).
=== Early modern period ===
The term euthanasia in the earlier sense of
supporting someone as they died, was used
for the first time by Francis Bacon.
In his work, Euthanasia medica, he chose this
ancient Greek word and, in doing so, distinguished
between euthanasia interior, the preparation
of the soul for death, and euthanasia exterior,
which was intended to make the end of life
easier and painless, in exceptional circumstances
by shortening life.
That the ancient meaning of an easy death
came to the fore again in the early modern
period can be seen from its definition in
the 18th century Zedlers Universallexikon:
Euthanasia: a very gentle and quiet death,
which happens without painful convulsions.
The word comes from ευ, bene, well, and
θανατος, mors, death.
The concept of euthanasia in the sense of
alleviating the process of death goes back
to the medical historian, Karl Friedrich Heinrich
Marx, who drew on Bacon's philosophical ideas.
According to Marx, a doctor had a moral duty
to ease the suffering of death through encouragement,
support and mitigation using medication.
Such an "alleviation of death" reflected the
contemporary zeitgeist, but was brought into
the medical canon of responsibility for the
first time by Marx.
Marx also stressed the distinction between
the theological care of the soul of sick people
from the physical care and medical treatment
by doctors.Euthanasia in its modern sense
has always been strongly opposed in the Judeo-Christian
tradition.
Thomas Aquinas opposed both and argued that
the practice of euthanasia contradicted our
natural human instincts of survival, as did
Francois Ranchin (1565–1641), a French physician
and professor of medicine, and Michael Boudewijns
(1601–1681), a physician and teacher.
Other voices argued for euthanasia, such as
John Donne in 1624, and euthanasia continued
to be practised.
In 1678, the publication of Caspar Questel's
De pulvinari morientibus non-subtrahend, ("On
the pillow of which the dying should not be
deprived"), initiated debate on the topic.
Questel described various customs which were
employed at the time to hasten the death of
the dying, (including the sudden removal of
a pillow, which was believed to accelerate
death), and argued against their use, as doing
so was "against the laws of God and Nature".
This view was shared by others who followed,
including Philipp Jakob Spener, Veit Riedlin
and Johann Georg Krünitz.
Despite opposition, euthanasia continued to
be practised, involving techniques such as
bleeding, suffocation, and removing people
from their beds to be placed on the cold ground.Suicide
and euthanasia became more accepted during
the Age of Enlightenment.
Thomas More wrote of euthanasia in Utopia,
although it is not clear if More was intending
to endorse the practice.
Other cultures have taken different approaches:
for example, in Japan suicide has not traditionally
been viewed as a sin, as it is used in cases
of honor, and accordingly, the perceptions
of euthanasia are different from those in
other parts of the world.
=== Beginnings of the contemporary euthanasia
debate ===
In the mid-1800s, the use of morphine to treat
"the pains of death" emerged, with John Warren
recommending its use in 1848.
A similar use of chloroform was revealed by
Joseph Bullar in 1866.
However, in neither case was it recommended
that the use should be to hasten death.
In 1870 Samuel Williams, a schoolteacher,
initiated the contemporary euthanasia debate
through a speech given at the Birmingham Speculative
Club in England, which was subsequently published
in a one-off publication entitled Essays of
the Birmingham Speculative Club, the collected
works of a number of members of an amateur
philosophical society.
Williams' proposal was to use chloroform to
deliberately hasten the death of terminally
ill patients:
That in all cases of hopeless and painful
illness, it should be the recognized duty
of the medical attendant, whenever so desired
by the patient, to administer chloroform or
such other anaesthetic as may by-and-bye supersede
chloroform – so as to destroy consciousness
at once, and put the sufferer to a quick and
painless death; all needful precautions being
adopted to prevent any possible abuse of such
duty; and means being taken to establish,
beyond the possibility of doubt or question,
that the remedy was applied at the express
wish of the patient.
The essay was favourably reviewed in The Saturday
Review, but an editorial against the essay
appeared in The Spectator.
From there it proved to be influential, and
other writers came out in support of such
views: Lionel Tollemache wrote in favour of
euthanasia, as did Annie Besant, the essayist
and reformer who later became involved with
the National Secular Society, considering
it a duty to society to "die voluntarily and
painlessly" when one reaches the point of
becoming a 'burden'.
Popular Science analyzed the issue in May
1873, assessing both sides of the argument.
Kemp notes that at the time, medical doctors
did not participate in the discussion; it
was "essentially a philosophical enterprise
... tied inextricably to a number of objections
to the Christian doctrine of the sanctity
of human life".
=== Early euthanasia movement in the United
States ===
The rise of the euthanasia movement in the
United States coincided with the so-called
Gilded Age, a time of social and technological
change that encompassed an "individualistic
conservatism that praised laissez-faire economics,
scientific method, and rationalism", along
with major depressions, industrialisation
and conflict between corporations and labour
unions.
It was also the period in which the modern
hospital system was developed, which has been
seen as a factor in the emergence of the euthanasia
debate.Robert Ingersoll argued for euthanasia,
stating in 1894 that where someone is suffering
from a terminal illness, such as terminal
cancer, they should have a right to end their
pain through suicide.
Felix Adler offered a similar approach, although,
unlike Ingersoll, Adler did not reject religion.
In fact, he argued from an Ethical Culture
framework.
In 1891, Adler argued that those suffering
from overwhelming pain should have the right
to commit suicide, and, furthermore, that
it should be permissible for a doctor to assist
– thus making Adler the first "prominent
American" to argue for suicide in cases where
people were suffering from chronic illness.
Both Ingersoll and Adler argued for voluntary
euthanasia of adults suffering from terminal
ailments.
Dowbiggin argues that by breaking down prior
moral objections to euthanasia and suicide,
Ingersoll and Adler enabled others to stretch
the definition of euthanasia.The first attempt
to legalise euthanasia took place in the United
States, when Henry Hunt introduced legislation
into the General Assembly of Ohio in 1906.
Hunt did so at the behest of Anna S. Hall,
a wealthy heiress who was a major figure in
the euthanasia movement during the early 20th
century in the United States.
Hall had watched her mother die after an extended
battle with liver cancer, and had dedicated
herself to ensuring that others would not
have to endure the same suffering.
Towards this end she engaged in an extensive
letter writing campaign, recruited Lurana
Sheldon and Maud Ballington Booth, and organised
a debate on euthanasia at the annual meeting
of the American Humane Association in 1905
– described by Jacob Appel as the first
significant public debate on the topic in
the 20th century.Hunt's bill called for the
administration of an anesthetic to bring about
a patient's death, so long as the person is
of lawful age and sound mind, and was suffering
from a fatal injury, an irrevocable illness,
or great physical pain.
It also required that the case be heard by
a physician, required informed consent in
front of three witnesses, and required the
attendance of three physicians who had to
agree that the patient's recovery was impossible.
A motion to reject the bill outright was voted
down, but the bill failed to pass, 79 to 23.Along
with the Ohio euthanasia proposal, in 1906
Assemblyman Ross Gregory introduced a proposal
to permit euthanasia to the Iowa legislature.
However, the Iowa legislation was broader
in scope than that offered in Ohio.
It allowed for the death of any person of
at least ten years of age who suffered from
an ailment that would prove fatal and cause
extreme pain, should they be of sound mind
and express a desire to artificially hasten
their death.
In addition, it allowed for infants to be
euthanised if they were sufficiently deformed,
and permitted guardians to request euthanasia
on behalf of their wards.
The proposed legislation also imposed penalties
on physicians who refused to perform euthanasia
when requested: a 6–12 month prison term
and a fine of between $200 and $1,000.
The proposal proved to be controversial.
It engendered considerable debate and failed
to pass, having been withdrawn from consideration
after being passed to the Committee on Public
Health.After 1906 the euthanasia debate reduced
in intensity, resurfacing periodically, but
not returning to the same level of debate
until the 1930s in the United Kingdom.Euthanasia
opponent Ian Dowbiggin argues that the early
membership of the Euthanasia Society of America
(ESA) reflected how many perceived euthanasia
at the time, often seeing it as a eugenics
matter rather than an issue concerning individual
rights.
Dowbiggin argues that not every eugenist joined
the ESA "solely for eugenic reasons", but
he postulates that there were clear ideological
connections between the eugenics and euthanasia
movements.
=== 1930s in Britain ===
The Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society
was founded in 1935 by Charles Killick Millard
(now called Dignity in Dying).
The movement campaigned for the legalisation
of euthanasia in Great Britain.
In January 1936, King George V was given a
fatal dose of morphine and cocaine to hasten
his death.
At the time he was suffering from cardio-respiratory
failure, and the decision to end his life
was made by his physician, Lord Dawson.
Although this event was kept a secret for
over 50 years, the death of George V coincided
with proposed legislation in the House of
Lords to legalise euthanasia.
=== Nazi Euthanasia Program ===
A 24 July 1939 killing of a severely disabled
infant in Nazi Germany was described in a
BBC "Genocide Under the Nazis Timeline" as
the first "state-sponsored euthanasia".
Parties that consented to the killing included
Hitler's office, the parents, and the Reich
Committee for the Scientific Registration
of Serious and Congenitally Based Illnesses.
The Telegraph noted that the killing of the
disabled infant—whose name was Gerhard Kretschmar,
born blind, with missing limbs, subject to
convulsions, and reportedly "an idiot"—
provided "the rationale for a secret Nazi
decree that led to 'mercy killings' of almost
300,000 mentally and physically handicapped
people".
While Kretchmar's killing received parental
consent, most of the 5,000 to 8,000 children
killed afterwards were forcibly taken from
their parents.The "euthanasia campaign" of
mass murder gathered momentum on 14 January
1940 when the "handicapped" were killed with
gas vans and killing centres, eventually leading
to the deaths of 70,000 adult Germans.
Professor Robert Jay Lifton, author of The
Nazi Doctors and a leading authority on the
T4 program, contrasts this program with what
he considers to be a genuine euthanasia.
He explains that the Nazi version of "euthanasia"
was based on the work of Adolf Jost, who published
The Right to Death (Das Recht auf den Tod)
in 1895.
Lifton writes:
Jost argued that control over the death of
the individual must ultimately belong to the
social organism, the state.
This concept is in direct opposition to the
Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which
emphasizes the individual's 'right to die'
or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her
own death,' as the ultimate human claim.
In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state's
right to kill.
... Ultimately the argument was biological:
'The rights to death [are] the key to the
fitness of life.'
The state must own death—must kill—in
order to keep the social organism alive and
healthy.
In modern terms, the use of "euthanasia" in
the context of Action T4 is seen to be a euphemism
to disguise a program of genocide, in which
people were killed on the grounds of "disabilities,
religious beliefs, and discordant individual
values".
Compared to the discussions of euthanasia
that emerged post-war, the Nazi program may
have been worded in terms that appear similar
to the modern use of "euthanasia", but there
was no "mercy" and the patients were not necessarily
terminally ill.
Despite these differences, historian and euthanasia
opponent Ian Dowbiggin writes that "the origins
of Nazi euthanasia, like those of the American
euthanasia movement, predate the Third Reich
and were intertwined with the history of eugenics
and Social Darwinism, and with efforts to
discredit traditional morality and ethics."
=== 1949 New York State Petition for Euthanasia
and Catholic opposition ===
On 6 January 1949, the Euthanasia Society
of America presented to the New York State
Legislature a petition to legalize euthanasia,
signed by 379 leading Protestant and Jewish
ministers, the largest group of religious
leaders ever to have taken this stance.
A similar petition had been sent to the New
York Legislature in 1947, signed by approximately
1,000 New York physicians.
Roman Catholic religious leaders criticized
the petition, saying that such a bill would
"legalize a suicide-murder pact" and a "rationalization
of the fifth commandment of God, 'Thou Shalt
Not Kill.'"
The Right Reverend Robert E. McCormick stated
that
The ultimate object of the Euthanasia Society
is based on the Totalitarian principle that
the state is supreme and that the individual
does not have the right to live if his continuance
in life is a burden or hindrance to the state.
The Nazis followed this principle and compulsory
Euthanasia was practiced as a part of their
program during the recent war.
We American citizens of New York State must
ask ourselves this question: "Are we going
to finish Hitler's job?"
The petition brought tensions between the
American Euthanasia Society and the Catholic
Church to a head that contributed to a climate
of anti-Catholic sentiment generally, regarding
issues such as birth control, eugenics, and
population control.
However, the petition did not result in any
legal changes.
== Euthanasia debate ==
Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended
to focus on a number of key concerns.
According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel,
proponents of euthanasia have presented four
main arguments: a) that people have a right
to self-determination, and thus should be
allowed to choose their own fate; b) assisting
a subject to die might be a better choice
than requiring that they continue to suffer;
c) the distinction between passive euthanasia,
which is often permitted, and active euthanasia,
which is not substantive (or that the underlying
principle–the doctrine of double effect–is
unreasonable or unsound); and d) permitting
euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable
consequences.
Pro-euthanasia activists often point to countries
like the Netherlands and Belgium, and states
like Oregon, where euthanasia has been legalized,
to argue that it is mostly unproblematic.
Similarly, Emanuel argues that there are four
major arguments presented by opponents of
euthanasia: a) not all deaths are painful;
b) alternatives, such as cessation of active
treatment, combined with the use of effective
pain relief, are available; c) the distinction
between active and passive euthanasia is morally
significant; and d) legalising euthanasia
will place society on a slippery slope, which
will lead to unacceptable consequences.
In fact, in Oregon, in 2013, pain wasn't one
of the top five reasons people sought euthanasia.
Top reasons were a loss of dignity, and a
fear of burdening others.In the United States
in 2013, 47% nationwide supported doctor-assisted
suicide.
This included 32% of Latinos, 29% of African-Americans,
and almost nobody with disabilities.A 2015
Populus poll in the United Kingdom found broad
public support for assisted dying.
82% of people supported the introduction of
assisted dying laws, including 86% of people
with disabilities.One concern is that euthanasia
might undermine filial responsibility.
In some countries, adult children of impoverished
parents are legally entitled to support payments
under filial responsibility laws.
Thirty out of the fifty United States as well
as France, Germany, Singapore, and Taiwan
have filial responsibility laws.
== Legal status ==
West's Encyclopedia of American Law states
that "a 'mercy killing' or euthanasia is generally
considered to be a criminal homicide" and
is normally used as a synonym of homicide
committed at a request made by the patient.The
judicial sense of the term "homicide" includes
any intervention undertaken with the express
intention of ending a life, even to relieve
intractable suffering.
Not all homicide is unlawful.
Two designations of homicide that carry no
criminal punishment are justifiable and excusable
homicide.
In most countries this is not the status of
euthanasia.
The term "euthanasia" is usually confined
to the active variety; the University of Washington
website states that "euthanasia generally
means that the physician would act directly,
for instance by giving a lethal injection,
to end the patient's life".
Physician-assisted suicide is thus not classified
as euthanasia by the US State of Oregon, where
it is legal under the Oregon Death with Dignity
Act, and despite its name, it is not legally
classified as suicide either.
Unlike physician-assisted suicide, withholding
or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments
with patient consent (voluntary) is almost
unanimously considered, at least in the United
States, to be legal.
The use of pain medication to relieve suffering,
even if it hastens death, has been held as
legal in several court decisions.Some governments
around the world have legalized voluntary
euthanasia but most commonly it is still considered
to be criminal homicide.
In the Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia
has been legalized, it still remains homicide
although it is not prosecuted and not punishable
if the perpetrator (the doctor) meets certain
legal conditions.In a historic judgment, the
Supreme court of India legalized passive euthanasia.
The apex court remarked in the judgment that
the Constitution of India values liberty,
dignity, autonomy, and privacy.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra
delivered a unanimous judgment.
== Health professionals' sentiment ==
A 2010 survey in the United States of more
than 10,000 physicians found that 16.3% of
physicians would consider halting life-sustaining
therapy because the family demanded it, even
if they believed that it was premature.
Approximately 54.5% would not, and the remaining
29.2% responded "it depends".
The study also found that 45.8% of physicians
agreed that physician-assisted suicide should
be allowed in some cases; 40.7% did not, and
the remaining 13.5% felt it depended.In the
United Kingdom, the assisted dying campaign
group Dignity in Dying cites research in which
54% of General Practitioners support or are
neutral towards a law change on assisted dying.
Similarly, a 2017 Doctors.net.uk poll reported
in the British Medical Journal stated that
55% of doctors believe assisted dying, in
defined circumstances, should be legalised
in the UK.One concern among healthcare professionals
is the possibility of being asked to participate
in euthanasia in a situation where they personally
believe it to be wrong.
In a 1996 study of 852 nurses in adult ICUs,
19% admitted to participating in euthanasia.
30% of those who admitted to it also believed
that euthanasia is unethical.
== Religious views ==
=== 
Christianity ===
==== 
Broadly against ====
The Roman Catholic Church condemns euthanasia
and assisted suicide as morally wrong.
It states that, "intentional euthanasia, whatever
its forms or motives, is murder.
It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the
human person and to the respect due to the
living God, his Creator".
Because of this, the practice is unacceptable
within the Church.
The Orthodox Church in America, along with
other Eastern Orthodox Churches, also opposes
euthanasia stating that it must be condemned
as murder stating that, "Euthanasia is the
deliberate cessation to end human life."Many
non-Catholic churches in the United States
take a stance against euthanasia.
Among Protestant denominations, the Episcopal
Church passed a resolution in 1991 opposing
euthanasia and assisted suicide stating that
it is "morally wrong and unacceptable to take
a human life to relieve the suffering caused
by incurable illnesses."
Other Protestant churches which oppose euthanasia
include:
==== Partially in favor of ====
The Church of England accepts passive euthanasia
under some circumstances, but is strongly
against active euthanasia, and has led opposition
against recent attempt to legalise it.
The United Church of Canada accepts passive
euthanasia under some circumstances, but is
in general against active euthanasia, with
growing acceptance now that active euthanasia
has been partly legalised in Canada..
=== Islam ===
Euthanasia is a complex issue in Islamic theology;
however, in general it is considered contrary
to Islamic law and holy texts.
Among interpretations of the Koran and Hadith,
the early termination of life is a crime,
be it by suicide or helping one commit suicide.
The various positions on the cessation of
medical treatment are mixed and considered
a different class of action than direct termination
of life, especially if the patient is suffering.
Suicide and euthanasia are both crimes in
almost all Muslim majority countries.
=== Judaism ===
There is much debate on the topic of euthanasia
in Judaic theology, ethics, and general opinion
(especially in Israel and the United States).
Passive euthanasia was declared legal by Israel's
highest court under certain conditions and
has reached some level of acceptance.
Active euthanasia remains illegal, however
the topic is actively under debate with no
clear consensus through legal, ethical, theological
and spiritual perspectives.
== See also
