INTRODUCTION

Euthanasia, according to Merriam Webster, is the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering. It is also widely known as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or irreversible coma, thus, sparing the patient’s agony.

The word euthanasia is derived from the Greek words eu which means “well” or “good” and thanatus which means “death.”

As of 2015, euthanasia is only legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Albania, Colombia, Japan and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico and Montana.

Opinions vary about euthanasia. There are people who believe in it because they think it is better for people to die than to live in pain. But for some, euthanasia is something tantamount to murder or giving assistance to suicide.

LEGALITY OF EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia is illegal in the Philippines. A careful examination of Philippine law on subject will reveal that mercy killing is murder, homicide, parricide or assistance to suicide. Mercy as a motive is not even a mitigating circumstance (Tolentino, 1963).

Giving assistance to suicide under Article 253 of the Revised Penal Code, Art. 253 of The Penal Code of the Philippines (Giving Assistance to Suicide) states that any person who shall assist another to commit suicide shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor; if such person leads his assistance to another to the extent of doing the killing himself, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. However, if the suicide is not consummated, the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed.

Acts punishable as giving assistance to suicide.

1. By assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is consummated or not.2. By lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing

himself.

However, euthanasia is different from suicide because in euthanasia the person killed does not want to die. A doctor who resorts to mercy killing of his patient may be liable for murder.

In 1997, the Philippine Senate considered passing a bill legalizing “passive euthanasia.” The bill met strong opposition from the country's Catholic Church. If legalized, the Philippines would have been the first country to legalize euthanasia. Recently, Senate Bill No. 1887 or the Natural Death Act has been filed by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago and has yet to be discussed.

MORALITY OF EUTHANASIA

In the Philippines, euthanasia is considered immoral. This is so because Filipinos value life greatly as they live by the biblical scriptures. Furthermore, this notion is preceded by the Catholic Church’s opposition to mercy killing. Hence, In order for us to determine whether euthanasia is moral or immoral, we will apply the theory of Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives. This theory is an economic analysis that is human-centered (or anthropocentric) and has a moral foundation.

Clearly, the primary purpose of euthanasia is anchored upon the patient’s health condition. As a matter of fact, it does not only relieve one from suffering further, but it also provides for a well-utilized aids. A person suffering from an incurable disease may eventually become a burden to those who attend to his or her medical needs. He or she might even wish to end that suffering. The question of morality arises when life and death are put in one’s hand. There sets in bias when these are to be chosen upon.

OUR STAND

Given the circumstances of a person suffering from a very painful sickness, does morality still exist in the part of the person who does nothing but sustain the agony?

In our opinion, euthanasia must be given credence. There must be limitation in the administration of euthanasia and must not be easily granted. Those who are terminally sick where death is inevitable should be given the option to relieve them from their suffering since prolonging their life would just pile up the medical cost and emotional suffering of the parties.

The bill of rights, specifically section 1 guarantees that a person should not be deprived of his life, liberty, and property, without due process of the law. Since there is no law that touches on such issue, there can be no validation of the means employed. Also, one’s privacy encompasses that of his right to his own body, and what to do with it. The option to die must also be vested in relevance to our option to live. It does not mean that we adhere to suicide but it should be taken with precaution. There must be a criteria to determine if one should be given the option to be administered with euthanasia. The consent of the dying must be given freely and the person must be sane while giving the consent. Wherefore, we maintain our stance that euthanasia should be legalize, but in certain factors that it may not be abused, but to relieve those who are in great pain.