Manning, The 1st article below is from a Catholic website called "The Divine Mercy."
The 2nd article is from a Christian Bible based website known as Carm.org.
There is a 3rd section on the current state of Euthenasia in the U.S.https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/
Why 'Mercy Killing' Is Not Merciful
From a series by Dr. Robert Stackpole
"Do not be deceived by the way in which the secular media falsely presents the options. All too often the media portrays the dynamic as a choice between two options. On the one hand is keeping people alive as long as possible, no matter how "far gone" they are or how painful and burdensome their treatment may be. On the other hand is so-called "mercy killing" because euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is so often "dressed up" as a way to be "merciful," and support for it is mounting across North America.
"Increasingly in the United States and in other countries, it is now legal to stop providing food and water to a patient who is terminally ill or in a seemingly irreversible comatose or vegetative state. This is called "passive euthanasia": a serious moral evil that the Church has repeatedly condemned.
"It is one thing to cease painful and expensive medical treatment that has little chance of significantly improving the condition of the patient. The Church has always recognized that there is a point at which such medical intervention becomes pointless and burdensome, and that in such cases a person should be permitted to die a dignified death, with the assistance of appropriate pain-reducing medications and the prayers and loving support of family members, friends, and parish communities. All this is included in what is called "palliative care."
"Food and water, however, do not constitute medical "treatment" of illness. Rather, they are part of basic human care, simple things that all of us need at every stage of our lives. A person's life journey certainly has not reached its "natural end" in God's Providence if that person can still survive with the basic care of adequate food and water. Catholics must be aware of this distinction between "medical treatment" and the "basic care" of those terminally ill and how important it is that we do not seek to hasten the process of dying through a deliberate failure to provide that basic care. To put it simply, we cannot allow patients to die of thirst or starvation.
"Equally alarming is the spread of support for "active euthanasia," also known as physician-assisted suicide. In physician-assisted suicide, the physician acts directly to take a person's life when the patient judges (or, if he or she is mentally incapacitated, their relatives judge) that the patient's life is "no longer worth living." The Catholic Church teaches that there is a profound moral distinction between killing an innocent human being in such a situation (with or without their consent) and letting a person die with a degree of comfort and dignity, through effective palliative care, when that person's life is drawing to its natural end.
"In other words, "mercy killing" is not merciful! It is a deliberate taking of an innocent human life, and it therefore is a violation of the dignity and unalienable rights of those who are gravely ill.
"Even if it is done with the patient's consent, it is still gravely wrong. Just because something "belongs" to you does not mean you have the moral right to destroy it. For example, a man may be a private art collector and own Renoirs and Picassos. Does that mean he has the moral right to destroy them when he feels they no longer bring him happiness? Of course not. Those works of art are of special value to humanity, no matter what the art collector may think of them. In a similar way, the earthly life of each one of us is precious to the one whose "artwork" we are - namely our merciful Father and Creator. He entrusted that earthly life to us, and He has a plan for when it is best to leave it for each one of us.
"Jesus taught us to "Be merciful as your Father is merciful" (Lk 6:36). To be merciful in such a situation is not to take the power of life and death completely away from Him and into our own hands (by either passive or active euthanasia), nor to presume to judge when a person's life is no longer worth living - not even our own. That's His call, not ours. Who are we to say what kind of struggle for deeper surrender to the Holy Spirit is going on in the depths of the human soul of someone who is in a comatose or persistent vegetative state? Who are we to short-circuit that process by letting such people die of thirst or starvation? And who are we to say that all conscious suffering of those terminally ill is pointless, to be avoided at all costs - even by deliberately causing their death? And by the way, bringing a patient's pain down to a tolerable level is part of "basic human care," according to the Church. It is something that every person needs at every stage of the human journey; it is certainly not medical "treatment" for curing illness. Thus, essential pain relief can be pursued with the right pain-relieving drugs, even if heavy doses of such anesthetics might hasten the person's death. This is not euthanasia; it is not deliberately seeking to kill a terminally ill patient. Rather, the intent is to provide basic human care of the patient, even if a foreseen, but unintended, side effect is that their lifespan will be shorter.
"The truth is that the terminally ill are still children of God, infinitely loved by Jesus our Savior who bought them with the price of His own Blood (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23) and worthy of every legitimate form of comfort, companionship, care, pain-relief, prayer, and encouragement that we can provide for them. That is the true path of "mercy" at the end of life's journey.
Again, do not be deceived by the media: The Church's position on this issue is not "keep the person alive for as long as possible, at whatever cost in pain and misery." Rather, the Church's position is: Always provide basic human care for every patient, for each one is a child of God, made in His image. If medical treatment beyond that has little chance of significantly improving the patient's condition and/or would be exceptionally painful and burdensome, then such treatment can legitimately be refused - for the person is approaching life's natural end and, therefore, should be given all essential palliative care for the final stage of their life's journey. That is what mercy looks like: It's mercy-dying, not mercy-killing."https://www.carm.org/about-ethics/what-does-the-bible-say-about-euthanasia/
What does the Bible say about Euthanasia?
"The Bible does not specifically mention euthanasia, but it does address issues closely related to it. Euthanasia is known by different terms such as mercy killing, assisted suicide, etc. It is the act of assisting someone in his or her own death who is terminally ill, suffering, and in great pain. The goal of assisted suicide is to prevent the continuation of pain.
The Bible tells us that we are not to murder (Exodus 20:13). Murder is the unlawful taking of life, and killing is the lawful taking of life. Technically speaking, if a nation said that euthanasia was legal, then on a human level it would not be murder. But as societies often legislate moral issues in contradiction to the Bible, just because a society might say that euthanasia is good does not mean that it is. We are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).
We are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and it is the Lord God who gives us life (Job 33:4) and who has numbered our days (Job 14:5). This means that God is the sovereign Lord who determines the day that we die. Therefore, we are not to usurp God’s authority. Euthanasia plays God, judging whose life is worth living and claiming the right to decide that an innocent person should die.
Euthanasia in the Bible…
In the book of Job, when Job is under great distress and in great pain, his wife says to him “’Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!’ 10 But he said to her, ‘You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?’ In all this Job did not sin with his lips,” (Job 2:9-10). Basically, Job’s wife suggested a form of euthanasia to avoid the pain of his life, but Job refused to do so and in this, he did not sin.
Heb. 9:27, “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.”
The Bible tells us that it is God who appoints people to die. Essentially, euthanasia and assisted suicide attempt to deny God His sovereign right to appoint who dies when. We must be careful not to take into our own hands the right that belongs to God.
There is nothing in the Bible that tells us we must do everything we can to keep someone alive for as long as possible. So, we are not under obligation to prolong the life of someone who is suffering. If someone is terminally ill and in great pain, we should make the person as comfortable as possible during this process of dying. We should not hasten his death. Instead, we should let death take its natural course, but make every effort to comfort those who are suffering.
Finally, like so many things in the world, when a small compromise is made many injustices are eventually allowed. If euthanasia is permitted under the emotional and moral claim that it is best for the individual, what is to prevent the government from eventually stepping in and determining who else needs to be terminated? Might the definition of euthanasia be expanded to include those who are suffering from chronic depression, or just don’t like living — or are not productive in society? We must ask that if the door to killing people in their old age is opened, can it ever be closed again?
Think about it. The beginning of life is now open to destruction in abortion, and the end of life is now being considered for destruction as well. Like a vise that closes from either end, how many of those in the middle will fall prey to the depravity of man’s moral relativism and love affair with sin that always brings death?"
This 3rd section is the current legality of Euthenasia in the United States
Legislation and political movements
In the 1983 case of Barber v. Superior Court, two physicians had honored a family's request to withdraw both respirator and intravenous feeding and hydration tubes from a comatose patient. The physicians were charged with murder, despite the fact that they were doing what the family wanted. The court held that all charges should be dropped because the treatments had all been ineffective and burdensome. Withdrawal of treatment, even if life-ending, is morally and legally permitted and is considered passive euthanasia. Competent patients or their surrogates can decide to withdraw treatments, usually after the treatments are found ineffective, painful, or burdensome.
The California End of Life Option Act from 2016 provides a procedure for assisted suicide of a terminally ill adult. After meeting several requirements, a physician may prescribe the terminally ill adult an "aid-in-dying drug".
From 1 January 2020, Maine becomes the 8th US state to legalize assisted dying. In June 2019, the Maine Legislature by a very close vote passed a bill to legalize assisted dying. The Governor of Maine signed the bill into law within the same month.
In the United States legal and ethical debates about euthanasia became more prominent in the Karen Ann Quinlan case who went into a coma after allegedly mixing tranquilizers with alcohol, surviving biologically for 9 years in a "persistent vegetative state" even after the New Jersey Supreme Court approval to remove her from a respirator. This case caused a widespread public concern about "lives not worth living" and the possibility of at least voluntary euthanasia if it could be ascertained that the patient would not have wanted to live in this condition. In April 2019, New Jersey became the 7th US state to allow assisted dying after the Governor of New Jersey signed the bill into law and went into effect since August 1, 2019.
In 1999, the state of Texas passed the Advance Directives Act. Under the law, in some situations, Texas hospitals and physicians have the right to withdraw life support measures, such as mechanical respiration, from terminally ill patients when such treatment is considered to be both futile and inappropriate. This is sometimes referred to as "passive euthanasia".
In 2005, a six-month-old infant, Sun Hudson, with a uniformly fatal disease thanatophoric dysplasia, was the first patient in which "a United States court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent".
Currently, euthanasia is illegal in Massachusetts. According to Ch. 201D §12 Massachusetts states that "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to constitute, condone, authorize, or approve suicide or mercy killing or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act to end one's own life other than to permit the natural process of dying". Even though euthanasia as well as physician assisted suicide is not legal in Massachusetts, the Supreme court ruled in 1997 to not allow euthanasia or physician assisted suicide, but to give the freedom to the patient to refuse life supporting medical care by making these two laws different from one another. So now although there is no euthanasia in Massachusetts, one is allowed to refuse artificial life support measures.
Oregon voters passed the Death with Dignity Act in 1997.
The Catholic Church has in the past said that God ... (