The Nazi program of inflicting
euthanasia on the severely mentally ill in the twentieth century can be
distinguished from cases in which suffering people with incurable diseases desire
to die voluntarily sooner rather than later. In cases in which such people are
mentally ill, the question is more complex, especially if the cause of the
suffering is mental. In 2026, the Roman Catholic Church castigated a court
ruling allowing the euthanasia of a mentally-ill person whose suffering stemmed
in part from severe bodily pain and an incurable diagnosis other than that of
the mental illness. Ironically, the Church discounted the element of compassion
in putting someone out of one’s misery that would only get worse, and instead
focused on “the culture of death” even though Jesus is silent on that issue, as
well as homosexuality and abortion, in the Gospels. This is a case, I contend, of
religion overstepping onto another domains—ethics and medicine in particular—while
shirking its native fauna.
On March 27, 2026, 25-year-old
Noelia Castillo died by euthanasia in the E.U. city of Barcelona. A court had sided
with her decision to end her life voluntarily “because she suffered from a
serious and incurable condition, with severe and chronic suffering.”[1]
By this description, I assume that the condition was not that of mental illness
even though the latter played a role in how she came to have the condition of
such physical pain. So even though Noelia had “struggled with psychiatric
illness since she was a teenager, and tried taking her life twice,” the second
time (after she had been sexually assaulted) leaving her unable to use her
legs, the severe and chronic suffering can be distinguished from her psychiatric
suffering.[2]
So even though her judgment may have been clouded by her psychiatric illness,
the court could use a reasonable-person basis to assess whether the suffering
from the non-psychiatric condition was enough to justify euthanasia. To be sure,
if the incurable aspect refers to not being able to use her legs rather than a
mortal illness, the court’s ruling could be criticized because future advances in
medical science could potentially relieve her suffering and even restore the
use of her legs, especially given her young age and the advances that would be
possible in her lifetime. On the other hand, the combination of psychiatric and
physical pain and suffering could be sufficient to justify Noelia’s early death
out of sheer compassion. In this respect, the Church’s reaction can be criticized
by drawing on the salient of compassion associated with Jesus in the Gospels.
Luis Arguello, president of
the Spanish Bishops’ Conference, said, “A doctor cannot act as the executioner
for a death sentence, however legal, empowering or compassionate it may appear.”[3]
The hyperbolic language of executioner and death sentence aside, the
bishop’s claim that the compassion motivating euthanasia is merely apparent
rather than actual can be countered by the fact that compassion does apply to
relieving especially severe, unrelenting physical pain that is expected to
continue for the rest of a person’s life. That advances in medical science
could mean that the continuance-assumption can be questioned does not nullify my
claim that compassion to relieve suffering, whether one’s own or that of
another person, is authentic rather than merely apparent.
Also problematic, the
organization Christian Lawyers put out the following statement: “If
deliberately caused death is the solution to problems, then anything goes.”[4]
It does not follow, however, that if euthanasia is the solution to some but not
any problem, then anything goes ethically. In other words, euthanasia,
which follows prescribed guidelines, does not imply nor lead to ethical
relativism. The latter holds that if a cultural norm exists in a society, then
that is enough to validate the norm ethically.
The reference to relativism,
moreover, exemplifies the tendency of religion to overreach into another
domain, in this case ethics. At the very least, relating euthanasia to
relativism requires some study of ethical theory, which is an academic field distinct
from theology. Nor does theology include societal analysis (which in turn is
distinct from the field of ethics because norms are not ethical principles). So
in making the claim, “we have all failed as a society,” regarding the euthanasia
case, Bishop Perez was overreaching from the domain of religion and thus can be
reckoned as a dilatant.[5]
2 Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
