To kill or not to kill

Yes, I am guilty of using the serious headlining faux pas of the ‘Hamlet Reference’. However, it may be apt, given the subject matter of this post. (I do deserve tomatoes thrown my way for lazy title creativity, yes.)

The BBC has posted a summary of where many European nations stand on the issue of euthanasia. For clarity, euthanasia is defined by Oxford as “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or in an irreversible coma.” Though, as we all clearly know, it isn’t as clean-cut as it seems. Take, for instance, the different types of euthanasia (as outlined in the article).

Active euthanasia: taking deliberate action, such as an injection, to end a patient’s life. 
Passive euthanasia: withdrawing medical treatment with the aim of ending a life.
Assisted suicide: providing the means, e.g. medicine, to allow a patient to end his or her own life.

Some interesting facts presented by the article (if, perchance, you find you can’t be bothered to read the entire thing):

• The Netherlands is the first country to legalize euthanasia (2002), though it has been tolerated since the 1970s.
• Belgium legalized euthanasia shortly afterwards, despite the strong opposition by the medical profession and the Catholic church.
• Italy does not condone the act, but allows a patient’s right to refuse care. Italians have long been divided over this issue.
• A recent survey conducted among Swedish doctors suggested that 84% of them would never consider helping a patient die, even if the patient asked for it and it was legal.
• Assisted suicide can be done even by non-doctors in Switzerland.
• Euthanasia has long been a serious taboo in Germany mainly because of the Nazi genocide of men, women and children believed to be handicapped or mentally ill.
• In the U.K., the removal of life support is not illegal.
• Poland has strongly condemned euthanasia.

I suppose it all comes down to two questions: “At what point does a life become worthless?” and “Do we as human beings have the right to take other people’s–or our own–lives away?” So many other questions then open up, many religious in nature–the issue of the soul, God/Allah/Yahweh’s will, our power as mere mortals, heaven and hell, &c&c. It all depends on what you believe in. And in many places, Church and State aren’t separated at all; they work together, with religious viewpoints influencing bylaws and legislations. Although, in a deeply moral issue such as this, should the Church and State be completely independent of each other? Where do we draw the line between what’s ‘morally right’ and what isn’t?