Euthanasia
Killing vs. Letting Die
Physician-Assisted Suicide
Slippery Slope
Texas Law
Euthanasia Around the World
Stories
How to Make Medical Decisions
The Pro-Life View of Suffering
Conclusion
The reason we are against abortion is the same reason we’re against euthanasia: It intentionally ends a human life.
If a person is valuable at the very beginning of her life, her worth doesn’t fade with time, illness, disability, or pain.
People who support euthanasia usually come from a place of compassion. In fact, the word in Greek means “good death” or “easy death.” Proponents say they don’t want sick or elderly people to suffer. However, euthanasia doesn’t get rid of the suffering; it gets rid of the sufferer.
That’s why euthanasia is not just a medical issue—it’s a moral one. How we treat the sick and elderly reflects how we view the Right to Life and human worth.
Killing vs. Letting Die
When thinking about how to care for ill or dying patients, there’s an important difference between killing or letting die.
Being Pro-Life does not mean we’re anti-death.
No one can ignore the limits of human life or the reality that every person will die. But just like we don’t get to decide when our lives begin—when we were given indescribable worth and dignity—we aren’t in control of when our lives end, either.
We must recognize it is morally acceptable at times to allow a patient to naturally pass away.
Letting Die:
- Involves withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, such as ventilators, dialysis, or medications.
- This can be ethical when the patient is actively dying and has voluntarily consented to stop treatment. (Read more below on Ordinary and Proportionate Treatment.)
- Pro-Lifers are not anti-death; we recognize that death is part of the human experience. But there’s a crucial distinction between accepting death and causing death. When stopping treatment, the patient’s voluntary involvement is key (or the involvement of his/her medical decision-maker). Their dignity and values should be respected.
Killing or Causing Death
(sometimes called “active euthanasia”):
- Involves directly and deliberately causing death, such as injecting or prescribing a lethal drug. This includes physician-assisted suicide, where a doctor gives the patient a way to end his/her own life. This also includes “mercy killing,” which is done reportedly for “noble” causes.
- This is always wrong, regardless of whether the patient requests it or it is forced upon someone, because in both cases it directly and intentionally causes death.
What If It Is Voluntary?
Most of the time when you hear experts talk about medical ethics, they say consent is the most important factor. It is a crucial piece, but not the only one. Making life-or-death decisions just based on “consent” is a dangerous trend that has led to many awful practices like abortion, human experimentation, embryo-destroying research, and euthanasia.
With end-of-life care, people do need to consider whether a decision is voluntary or involuntary.
- “Voluntary” means the patient or the person he chooses to be his decision-maker has willingly agreed to remove treatment.
- “Involuntary” means the patient or surrogate has not chosen to remove treatment, and treatment is being removed against his will.
Pro-Life beliefs, however, say that no matter if the decision is voluntary or involuntary, intentionally causing someone’s death is wrong and an attack on their dignity and worth. Similarly, in most situations, letting someone die against their will or without their voluntary consent, is also immoral.
Voluntary
Involuntary
Causing Death
Unethical: Even if a patient is requesting death, it is never permissible to cause the death of another human being. This includes euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
Unethical: If you are causing someone’s death against their will or without their permission, it is immoral, no matter your good intentions to relieve suffering or act compassionately.
Letting Die
Sometimes Ethical: The patient or chosen medical decision-maker (like a spouse or adult child) chooses to remove life-sustaining treatment. This can be ethical (See “How to Make Medical Decisions” section).
Unethical: A doctor or hospital decides to withdraw life-sustaining treatment against a patient’s will, prompting his/her death. This includes the Texas 25-Day Rule.
Physician-Assisted Suicide
In the United States, euthanasia advocates promote what they call “physician-assisted suicide” or “medical aid in dying.” The only difference between euthanasia and these practices is that the patient usually has a higher level of involvement in causing their own death.
In these cases, a physician “assists” by prescribing or administering the lethal pills and the patient himself takes the deadly drug, usually outside of the supervision of the medical professional. Apart from all of the public health dangers and potential for abuse of this practice, this is still causing the death of a human being and is unethical.
Slippery Slope
Euthanasia is expanding across the globe. Countries and states usually start by allowing euthanasia in extreme situations—but over time, courts and lawmakers loosen the rules so more people can end their own lives.
- Blind, deaf, depressed, and anxious people can enter Canada’s Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) program.
- Belgium legalized euthanasia for children of any age in 2014.
- The Netherlands followed suit by lowering the age limit to 12.
This pattern reveals a horrible trend: once euthanasia is legalized for one group, it tends to spread to others.
It’s not just a legal shift, but a cultural one, too. The entire population’s suicide rate increases on average by 6.3% when a country legalizes physician-assisted suicide.
Even when someone is seriously ill, the desire to die often comes from treatable emotional pain, not just physical suffering.
- Many people who feel suicidal later find peace and purpose with the right support and care.
- Of those who attempt suicide but are stopped, less than 4% go on to kill themselves in the next five years; less than 11% will commit suicide over the next 35 years. Physician-assisted suicide is a permanent response to a temporary problem.
We should fight to protect those vulnerable patients and stop the growth of euthanasia. Everyone deserves compassionate care that honors his/her dignity.
Texas Law
Although physician-assisted suicide is not legal in Texas, the state has a lesser-known law called the 25-Day Rule. This policy allows doctors, with the backing of an ethics committee, to take away life-sustaining treatment against the wishes of the patient or family—prompting his/her death. It is removing ordinary medical care with the intent of the patient’s death against their will, even if the treatment is working.
Euthanasia Around the World
North America
- America
- Assisted suicide is legal in Washington D.C, California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Washington.
- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will: Legal in all states, including Texas with the 25-Day Rule
- Canada- Physician-assisted suicide through Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD)
- Mexico- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will
South America
- Argentina- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will
- Chile- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will
- Colombia– Active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide
- Ecuador– Active euthanasia
- Peru– Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will
- In 2022, Peru’s Supreme Court allowed a woman to die from physician-assisted suicide.
Europe
- Austria- Active euthanasia is banned and assisted suicide was legalized in 2022
- Belgium– Active euthanasia has been legal for children of any age since 2014
- Germany- Active euthanasia is banned. In some cases, it is legal to withdraw treatment against the patient’s will
- Luxembourg- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will
- Netherlands- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will
- Portugal- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will
- Spain- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will and assisted suicide are allowed
- Switzerland- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will and assisted suicide are allowed
Asia
- India- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will
- South Korea- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will
- Taiwan- Withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will only in certain cases
- Japan- Active euthanasia and withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will are legal, but specific conditions must be met for each case
- Israel- Active euthanasia only in certain cases
Oceania
- Australia- Active euthanasia and withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will
- New Zealand- Active euthanasia and and withdrawing treatment against the patient’s will
Stories
This Is What “Death with Dignity” Really Looks Like
Eileen is a victim of the tragedy of physician-assisted suicide. Her story does not just reveal...
Statement on Robert Roberson Case
Texas Right to Life is neutral on the death penalty. We are involved in the Robert Roberson case...
Update: Thank you for praying for Baby Wren
Over the last few weeks, we asked you to pray for Baby Wren, a sweet 1-month-old girl in a North...
Urgent: Pray for Baby Wren
Please pray for Baby Wren. Wren is a sweet one-month-old girl in a North Texas hospital after...
How to Make Medical Decisions
When making medical decisions, it helps to think about treatment in two different categories: Ordinary care vs. extraordinary care or proportionate vs. disproportionate.
Ordinary and Proportionate Treatment:
Some medical interventions have clear benefits without excessive burdens or risks. In almost all cases, these types of medical care are morally essential to give to the patient. Here are some examples:
- Food and water—This should only be removed when it is physically impossible to give to the patient or causes significant harm. Food and water should never be withdrawn to speed up a patient’s death.
- Ventilator, dialysis, or other sustenance technologies—These are often used to support failing organs, like helping someone breathe or filter their blood. As long as they offer a reasonable chance of benefit and don’t place an excessive burden on the patient, these treatments are considered ordinary and proportionate care. That means from a Pro-Life perspective since they simply preserve life, they should be embraced until there is a compelling reason for the patient or family to discontinue them.
-
Sometimes these interventions are referred to as “life-sustaining treatment.” Texas law defines “life-sustaining treatment” as “treatment that, based on reasonable medical judgment, sustains the life of a patient and without which the patient will die.” It is the basic, minimum care that a patient needs in order to continue living and is legally different from curative or invasive procedures.
Extraordinary and Disproportionate Treatment:
There is another category of treatments called “extraordinary” or “disproportionate treatment.” These interventions are on very different ethical grounds since they may involve excessive risk, pain, financial cost, or complexity not outweighed by any benefit to the patient.
When deciding whether to undergo (or have a loved one undergo) these medical treatments, we have the freedom to refuse or discontinue them. Doctors may also opt out from providing these treatments personally because the risk to the patient is too great. If that happens, a patient or his decision-maker still should have the right to request that option from another provider. For example:
- A patient with advanced cancer may refuse an experimental treatment if they will have severe side effects and little chance of success.
- A doctor may refuse to authorize dialysis treatments for a patient suffering from kidney failure if the patient’s body is physically unable to tolerate the treatment.
The Pro-Life View of Suffering
Suffering and dying are not always beautiful or dignified like we may have hoped. They’re a result of a fallen world, so they’re difficult and painful. Everyone has had some experience of this themselves or with a loved one, and we can all sympathize with a desire to get rid of suffering. God, however, can (and does) use pain and trials for our good and His glory. The most uplifting and dignified thing we can do is not surrender to the pain, but surrender the pain to God.
Suffering doesn’t change who we are—image-bearers of God—so it should not change our position on the Right to Life. However, we can walk alongside those suffering with compassion and do what we can to reduce their pain.
Biblically, suffering can be seen as an opportunity to grow in our faith with God! James 1:2-4 says:
“Dear brothers and sisters, when troubles of any kind come your way, consider it an opportunity for great joy. For you know that when your faith is tested, your endurance has a chance to grow. So let it grow, for when your endurance is fully developed, you will be perfect and complete, needing nothing.”
For a deeper look into this issue, Read “Real Death, Real Dignity” by David Mills in First Things.
The Pro-Life Alternative/Response
Pain management
Many people who seek euthanasa or physician-assisted suicide are battling depression. Instead of reinforcing their feelings of hopelessness, we need to affirm their worth.
There are many medical options available that don’t involve ending a life but instead offer real support and enhance a person’s well-being. Palliative care, life-affirming hospice care, and counseling and therapy can relieve a person’s suffering and help them find hope, peace, and meaning. Our society advances in science, medicine, and humanity when we commit to finding solutions for suffering, not simply removing the sufferers from our midst.
Medical Power of Attorney
The best way to ensure that your values will be respected and your life protected is by appointing someone you trust to make medical decisions for you if you’re ever unconscious or unable to speak for yourself. In these cases, Texas law automatically names your decision-maker in the following order: your spouse, reasonably available adult children, parents, or nearest living relative. If you want to choose someone else, you should create a Medical Power of Attorney document.
Conclusion
Euthanasia denies the sacred value of Life by treating suffering as a reason to kill, rather than a call to care.
We oppose euthanasia, not because we seek to prolong life at all costs, but because no one has the right to intentionally end a human life, even our own. True compassion means walking with the sufferers—not eliminating them.