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 patients 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 Churchs 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 patients
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 ones 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, ones 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.