User:Shannontadams/sandbox

Euthanasia has been a controversial topic due to the strong moral, ethical and religious implications it draws. The topic became a more prominent theme of debate during the twentieth century in society, and each group within the social order have either evolved to change their opinion or maintained their original position. The Roman Catholic perceptions of active euthanasia were one of the strongest opinions that maintained their belief in the immorality of it from the beginning of the century until the end. The concrete position they held towards euthanasia was believed by scholars to stem from their religious doctrines that ardently opposed it. Although there were many groups in various countries that advocated for the legalization of it, scholars have concluded that the church did not waiver during that time, remaining concrete in their fundamental objection. During the twentieth century, scholars found the Roman Catholic Church’s view on opposing active euthanasia maintained for the period and their vocal disagreement was one of the major objections from any religious faith.

Difference Between Passive and Active Euthanasia
First, it is necessary to define and differentiate between the various forms of euthanasia and the attitude of each within the Roman Catholic Church. There is active, passive, as well as physician-assisted suicide. Passive is the removal of medical treatment that would end the individual’s life or not provide the necessary treatment in the first place that would be essential for survival. Active is taking the action of killing someone or physically ending their life with their consent—also categorized as mercy killings, voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Many researchers have agreed that passive euthanasia is the only form the Roman Catholic Church accepted during the twentieth century and all other forms they strongly opposed.

Sacred Texts a Major Influence of 20th Century Roman Catholic Perception of Euthanasia
Scholars have attributed that one of the major reasons for the Roman Catholic Church’s stern opposition toward active euthanasia as having originated from sacred texts condemning the act. Researchers have reviewed and determined the perceptions of the Roman Catholic’s attitude toward euthanasia are among of the most well expressed and documented of the religions. Passive euthanasia was accepted by Roman Catholics because it did not involve the physical action of taking a life, but forgoes “the medical treatment that offers no hope of the benefit to the total well-being of the patient” while it is understood a consequence could be death. The church enforced the distinct difference that is at the heart of their perception of euthanasia which is the allowance of a terminally ill patient to die without killing them. The article Catholic Ethics Perspectives on Euthanasia and the Discontinuation of Aggressive Treatment, the authors have outlined the basic beliefs Catholics held toward euthanasia before and during the twentieth century since their beliefs have remained the same for many years. They stated resorting to euthanasia was “unacceptable, as life is a value in itself and any attempts on the life of innocent humans bear resemblance to the crime of murder.”  The article also stressed the significance of the Ten Commandments in which the fifth (Thou shall not kill) pertains to the debate involving euthanasia and is one of the key documents they defer to when discussing the topic. Derek Humphry and Mary Clement also drew attention to the importance of the sanctity of life doctrine as an important element in the church’s rejection of active and voluntary euthanasia in their book Freedom to Die: People, Politics and the Right to Die Movement. The authors stressed the doctrine stated intentionally taking the life of another human being is morally wrong, no matter the circumstance, and the strength of Catholic’s opposition is reflective from what that sacred article of faith held. In Death Talk by Margaret Somerville, she raised the issue that allowing a patient to request the removal or to refuse life sustaining treatment knowing their life will be the cost, suggested the sanctity of life was not concrete or as important of a societal value as the Roman Catholic Church advocated. Nevertheless, the main objections the church and its members had against euthanasia as a whole was the deliberate action it took against some of their most sacred texts and doctrines.

Impact from the Nazis Euthanasia Program turn to Roman Catholic Perception
In the middle of the twentieth century there was a decrease in the support for active euthanasia that many scholars have attributed as having halted the more modern notions of euthanasia for several years and helped the Roman Catholic Church with their arguments against it. The emergence of the Nazi Euthanasia Program of the 1940s greatly reduced its support and put a standstill on the increase for the following two decades after the Second World War as historian Ian Dowbiggin, one of the major contributors to the history and debate on euthanasia, suggested in his book A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God and Medicine. The devastations of the Nazis’ actions of ‘mercy killings’ did not emerge until several years following the end of the war and when they were made public, people were outrage by their cruelty. Their records were brutal in nature and outraged many, however, Dowbiggin suggested that the Roman Catholic Church gained more support because the euthanasia experiments of the Third Reich were seen as a verification of the dangers that could come from legalizing active euthanasia. The church were not only shocked but saw it as an affirmation of the consequences of such actions if power was given to institute it with authorization. Michael Manning in Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring? emphasized that comparing any modern notions of medicine with that of the 1940s would be detrimental because of the tremendous stigma attached to the behaviour of the Nazis at that time. Ultimately, Humphry and Clement came to the conclusion that the Nazis’ ‘mercy killings’ were not seen as merciful at all, but as cruelty and did not follow the same euthanasia that was being advocated in both America and Britain in the middle of the century because it was all involuntary murder. Similarly, in the preceding years before the war in Britain, the support for euthanasia deteriorated as Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation Society (VELS) meetings were not as frequent and almost lead to the majority of its actions shut down by 1942. Nevertheless, after the war the support and activities increased, and the Euthanasia Society of America (ESA) and the VELS collaborated with one another due to their mutual interest and position on euthanasia. With the outbreak of the Second World War and the atrocities of the Nazi Euthanasia Program made public, the support of euthanasia turned toward the beliefs held by the Roman Catholic Church which pleased them, but it was not long before it began to increase again, placing the church on the defensive once more.

Catholic Church Remained Firm
The Roman Catholic Church experienced opposition during the twentieth century against their intolerance of mercy killings, and many researchers have found they did not waver in their stance even with growing support for it. In America, there was a movement to legalize euthanasia in several states but the church tried desperately to prevent anything from happening. The Roman Catholic Church was one of the major rivals of the ESA and greatly opposed their goal of enacting voluntary euthanasia into a legalized bill for the American public. Between 1930 and 1960, Catholicism grew from a support of 19 to 23 percent nationally, and they often lived in close proximities with one another in larger cities like New York which many scholars believed benefitted the church since it gave them a better chance for political control over those cities. Accordingly, when the ESA promoted a voluntary euthanasia bill to be implemented in the New York legislation it was denied. The bill was proposed in early 1939 specifically towards terminally ill adults and would allow physicians in New York to legally euthanize patients who would not recover and wanted to die. Dowbiggin surmised that “the power of the church at the ballot box ensured that the Catholic position on sensitive social issues tended to become national and state policy.”  Also in England in the twentieth century, there were attempts to legalize euthanasia and one of the greatest opponents to the cause were Roman Catholics. Dowbiggin also wrote on the matter in his article “‘A Prey on Normal People’: C. Killick Millard and the Euthanasia Movement in Great Britain, 1930–55” and summarized that C. Killick Millard, who Dowbiggin believed to be one of the first in Britain at the time to arrange a euthanasia movement, based his belief on the notion that the traditional Christian perception on the issue was outdated for the twentieth century. At the time, “British Catholics variously described euthanasia as ‘pagan,’ ‘communist’ and ‘nazi’” and ardently supported opposition based on the teachings of Pope Pius XI and the Vatican. To end the century off the way it began was the firm standpoint the Roman Catholic Church articulated in the 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia which stated that taking one’s own life was morally wrong and essentially murder, and that an individual did not have the right to take another’s because that in turn effected the love God possessed for the individual harmed. This doctrine the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church expressed, put their firm beliefs of euthanasia into writing and declared it to the world.

Same Beliefs Carried into 21st Century
The opinions conveyed by the Roman Catholic Church at the time continued into the following century. According to Wesley J. Smith in his book Forced Exit: the Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalizing Murder, he stated that legalizing euthanasia would not be the best policy for society and based his opinion solely on the secular reasoning of the issue rather than any religious factors. From his research, the most outspoken individuals against euthanasia were often the ones not influenced by religious motivations because Smith perceived euthanasia “not [as] a religious issue, [but] a vital public-policy issue” and to legalize it would be detrimental to society. However, his method of thinking was not the perceived by everyone. In 1994, Oregon passed Measure 16 which legalized physician-assisted suicide, much to the dismay of the Catholic Church who tried to prevent its passing by promoting a “No on 16” campaign which lead the supporters of the “Yes on 16” into creating a false allegation—according to Smith—that the passing of Measure 16 was supported by rationalists and opposed by religious extremists. There was also a tremendous amount of vocal expression against euthanasia in the 21st century from Pope John Paul II. He believed only God had the ability to end life since God created it in the first place and he gave his opinion for the opposition of active euthanasia readily. The definite position the Roman Catholic Church held toward euthanasia was carried into the next century as many scholars have concluded.