Natural Law, as associated with St.

Thomas Aquinas, is an absolutist

and deontological theory or that which is based on duty which contains rules
that must be followed, rather than judging of value which relies on Aquinas’
basic understanding that humans inherently try to do good and to avoid evil
in order to obtain fulfilment and happiness in life. He said, in Summa
Theologica, "Whatever man desires, he desires it under the aspect of good."
Fulfilling our purpose is the only ‘good’ for humans. On the other hand,
Euthanasia is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of
hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for
reasons of mercy. The word euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for
"good death" and originally referred to intentional mercy killing. It may either
be active or passive where active euthanasia involves painlessly putting
individuals to death for merciful reasons, as when a doctor administers a
lethal dose of medication to a patient while passive euthanasia is when the
third party allows the patient to die by either (1) not intervening with a
treatment at all, or (2) discontinuing a treatment when the situation is futile.
Another distinction is between voluntary and non voluntary
euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when a competent adult requests or
gives informed consent to a particular death-causing action. Often, though,
people do not have the mental competence to make these decisions, such as
when they are unconscious, delirious, or demented, thus, an act of
euthanasia would be non voluntary when the decision is made by a third
party, and not the person himself who is to die. Here lies the question then
of; to what extent then do believers of Natural Law support
euthanasia?

According to Natural Law, we must only do good actions, never evil

actions, even if bad acts lead to good outcomes. A follower of natural law
would never allow euthanasia as even if it is done with the best intentions, it
is still a bad act as the exterior act (what is actually done) is wrong, despite
the intention (interior act) is good, i.e. relieving pain since the act of actively
or passively assisting someone’s suicide is wrong. Both the interior and
exterior action is of equal importance in this regard. Natural law explicitly
states that for an action to be right there must both be good intention and
the act itself must be right. On another note, the doctrine of double effect
refers to situations where there is an intended outcome and another
significant but unintentional outcome. According to Natural Law, it is our
intentions that are important, not the consequences of our actions. Double
effect would not allow anyone to perform an action where an unintended
outcome had devastating effects. The unintended effect has to be
proportionate. Thus, what is needed to be done, when there is a double
effect, is to see whether the secondary effect’s consequences outweigh the
benefits of performing the act. This means that Natural Law becomes like
Utilitarianism where the useful is the good and that the determining
consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences.
Hence, followers of Natural Law may accept passive euthanasia but not
active euthanasia based on this doctrine. Therefore, if we accept that death
can sometimes be a by-product of another action and that it is proportionate
to its effects, then euthanasia may be acceptable.

Subsequently, a follower who took every aspect of natural law

completely would at all time be against euthanasia as it contradicts the Five
Primary Precepts which are the following: preservation of the human life,
reproduction, nurture and education of the young, living peacefully in society
and to worship God. The Primary Precepts describe the purpose of human
life. A good person is one who fulfils their purpose. If something is contrary to
our God-given purpose, it is wrong. As rational beings, these purposes are
peculiar to us. These are buttressed by the principle that God made us with a
specific purpose. The primary precepts are all deontological or that which
hold that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action
itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the
consequences of the action. As such, it has no room for leeway, thus, should
be followed rigidly. Among the five, the primary precept that euthanasia
explicitly disregards is the “preservation of human life.” Despite that this is
the only primary precept that euthanasia contradicts; the remaining four
primary precepts are likewise challenged for the reason that if a person
ceases to exist, then these purposes cannot be fulfilled. In contrast, the
Secondary Precepts are teleological or that which exhibits or relates to
design or purpose especially in nature. Humans are then to use their reason
to establish rules that will fulfil the requirements of the primary precepts.
Thus, it can change on special and rare occasions such that Aquinas himself
went against the primary precept of reproduction for the reason that he was
a monk. Following the line of reasoning that the primary precept of
“preservation of human life” would result to the secondary precept of “no
euthanasia”, the latter is dependent on our own judgments and may differ
depending on a given situation, and is open to logical reasoning. According
to the secondary precepts, euthanasia may not always be wrong and may, in
special and rare occasions, be acceptable.

In Plato’s Gorgias, to suffer a wrongdoing, or injustice, is better than

inflicting it. It goes to the extent that it is more honourable to suffer, than to
be the cause of injustice. The unjust man is more miserable than the one
who is suffering injustice. In the case of euthanasia, it can be clearly inferred
that to perform an action that would directly cause a patient’s death causes
injustice to no more than life itself. It akin to committing a wrongdoing
against life, for life also has the obligation of preserving the same. Moreover,
allowing other people to directly assist in determining the mortal fate of
someone else, and allowing them to directly inflict death upon another would
be an injustice against allowing life to run its natural course. However,
allowing the person’s destiny to be accomplished naturally, or in other
words, letting death run its natural course, may be permitted. It can be
carried out when there comes a point where there is not much left to do for a
person on the brink of death or for someone who has been stuck in a coma
with a very poor chance of recovery. Following Plato’s philosophy, it is more
honourable to suffer and die naturally, than directly inflicting death. Thus,
Plato would accept the already implemented form of "euthanasia" involving
the idea of cutting off things required for a patient to survive like life support
and such, as this allows a natural fate to be achieved.

For many years there has been a debate whether or not euthanasia
should be legalized. Based on the foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion
and will argue that euthanasia should be permissible in limited
circumstances, that is, in passive euthanasia. Euthanasia had been accepted
by various groups or societies throughout history. However, as Christianity
developed and grew, euthanasia became morally wrong and ethically
abhorrent and is viewed as a violation of God's gift of life. Also, with medical
advances making the extending of lives of dying or comatose patients
possible, euthanasia is applied to a lack of action to prevent death.

A growing number of nations of the world including Canada,

Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, United States and many more
are of a view that if a person’s life ending suffering becomes so unbearable,
he should have a right to have a peaceful death assisted by a doctor. Death
with dignity is becoming a global movement for the reason of humane
consideration. In certain medical circumstances, it is not wrong but merciful
since the person himself or his family members should be given a choice
whether said person should not to die in a struggle filled with pain, but to
have a peaceful and dignified death.

Sparing pain is the most compelling reason why people support

orchestrated death. However, these are useless in some cases of euthanasia.
Indeed, believers of the natural law will strongly hold that the lives of the
individuals in a vegetative state is still a life and therefore valuable and
should be promoted. Meanwhile, to spare the patient from pain, financial
considerations and concern for the family should not hold any waters unless
such desire was made known prior to the condition of the person. Therefore,
in cases of non voluntary euthanasia where a patient is unconscious and is
on an irreversible coma and it is hard to see whether the life has quality at
all, the person in such a state has no personhood left. Thus, the best way to
honour the dignity of the person who once existed is to stop keeping his
body alive with machines.

Conversely, in cases of voluntary euthanasia, this paper is of the

position that the principle of Personal Liberty where everyone should be free
to make decisions about their own lives- and their own deaths- should be
taken into consideration. No one should be forced to suffer such a cruel
death. When all else fails; medical treatment, pain management, comfort
care, hospice care are no longer able to relieve extreme suffering, they
should be allowed to die painlessly and with compassion. Also, to avoid the
regrettable end of some people who even though are not suicidal, and loves
life, would even be forced to end their own life prematurely in the early
stages of their diseases because of the fear that if they waited too long, they
would be trapped in their bodies, trapped in an unbearable dying process
and no longer physically capable of ending their own lives. Moreover,
allowing euthanasia is respecting the fundamental rights of critically-ill adults
making choices based on his values and beliefs which are right for them.
They must be allowed to decide how much suffering to endure and how to
when to end them especially when it is so grievous and there is no chance of
recovery or acceptable cure.

Indeed, suffering is a part of the human condition and a part of life’s

experience. As well, if a person in a state of sedation, they still biologically
exist and can still live their life until its natural conclusion. Yet, does that
mean that they should suffer pointless pain just because it is a part of life’s
experience? Do people want to live in a state where they cannot progress,
see, and converse, have difficulty in breathing, and endure the distress that
all they once were only to gradually deteriorate and slowly die? If that is the
case, why are people not limited to just sleeping, eating, and reproducing?
Why are they then given the ability to reason? There is more to life than just
existing in such a state. Human beings must be free as possible and
redundant restraints on their rights and liberty must be dejected.