First, let's cut through the euphemism again to understand clearly what we are talking about. Euthanasia is mercy killing -- killing someone, or letting someone die, who is in deep suffering and will die soon anyway.
This is an issue that comes up most often in a health care context, and it reaches its climax with a doctor deciding how to treat a terminally ill and painfully suffering patient. The doctor attending this patient faces this issue directly, and can face it often. Also facing the issue directly is the patient, and close in on the choice are the patient's family and loved ones, and surrounding these most interested parties we have the community interest in the choice, which is reflected in the ethical statements and laws we craft on this matter.
There are many other circumstances that are closely related morally to the near-death and suffering patient. One is dealing with a Downs Syndrome child who has an intestinal defect that can be corrected with a usually-successful operation -- should the newborn be operated on, not operated on and left to die slowly, or not operated on and killed quickly?
Another circumstance that causes slippery slope moral qualms on this issue is what to do when a person is not in an acute health crisis but is ready to die, none-the-less, and wants help doing so. In this circumstance we have an assisted suicide rather than a mercy killing. Morally, should this be the same as a mercy killing, or treated as something different?
In my thinking, I go one step further. I wonder about the moral similarities between mercy killing, suicide, and volunteering for possible death by becoming a soldier or engaging in other hazardous occupations. I see these as all related because all are activities at which there is some elevated risk of death and the participant is volunteering to participate.
My opinion on this issue is reached by starting with a series of observations about life in general, and from those moving to the specifics on this issue.
o First level: We humans on earth, and other multi cellular animals and plants, are mortal for a good reason. We are mortal because life on earth is a work in progress. Mother Nature has not finished experimenting, and, in fact, will never be finished as long as conditions on earth remain changeable. (Mother Nature is my anthropomorphizing of evolution and natural selection) All living organisms on earth today are high performance adaptations to living on earth. We are so because we are all the successful results of trillions of experiments that have been conducted by Mother Nature (each of our ancestors was an experiment). Our ancestors had to pass a test that is simple to explain, but can be passed in many, many ways. The simple test is: Do you have lots of grandchildren? If you do, you win! If you don't have any... ah well... some other experiment will carry on in your place.
I call this The Grandchild Test.
o The Grandchild Test means death and experimenting are part of our human condition for good reason. We grow, age, and die to allow continued experimenting to see if there are better solutions to this simple-to-say test.
o Second level: One part of the experimenting is on our attitude towards risk-taking. Those of our ancestors who were too willing to take risks died without grandchildren. Likewise, those who were too risk adverse also failed The Grandchild Test. We who are alive today are a successful medium on the issue of risk-taking.
o The happy medium on risk-taking has changed with our evolution. It's expensive to grow a child into an adult. As we have evolved into human from our proto-human ancestors, we have invested a lot more in the growing and child raising process. This means that when the experiment fails, it's expensive!, and for that reason it has paid for us humans to learn remorse for failures as part of our instinctive level of thinking. Remorse is a thinking style that pays because it's an attitude that makes us more risk adverse. Conversely, we also instinctively admire bravery, which makes us willing to take risks to bring home the bacon. Both attitudes are built deeply into human thinking. The challenge for each generation is to find the right mix between them.
o Third level: Murder and suicide are direct consequences of bravery. If you are going to feel bravery is good, you are going to feel killing things is justified in the right circumstances... things including yourself. If you are going to reap the benefits of the bravery thinking style, you are going to have murder and suicide as tightly linked consequences.
o Feeling that murder and suicide are bad is the direct consequence of remorse thinking. As long as it's a damn shame and community threatening to be losing all the investment that has gone into growing a child or an adult, then remorse thinking pays off as well. And remorse thinking says, "Don't waste a human!"
o Fourth level: Euthanasia is the dilemma where bravery and remorse thinking come into conflict. Is it better to allow bravery or remorse to predominate in this situation? My opinion is to support bravery. We live in a prosperous society. We can afford some choices that are expensive, and clearly we already do. I see picking when and how we die as something that the community can afford, something that increases the happiness of the community, and I see no problem with using the people and tools of our civilization to help in that choice.