A Sancticity of Life position would have the non-believer consider that

there are many whose first ideal consideration is God and the dominion that

this potency has. For a person of faith it should not give some feeling of

superiority over one who claims no position in the eternal law to judge the end

condition.

          The natural law exits universally without any dispute. The forces of

nature have created all animate and inanimate objects. If there is an eternal law

above the natural law, the operations of such will not violate the eternal law but

be secondary or participatory to such. The natural law operates on the world

of our experience and would not bind the eternal law. I will use Christian

natural law as the example. To argue such one does not have to believe in the

eternal law to understand the natural law. Ones experience is able to aid in

proofs of events conforming to natural law.

          I will present some primary reasons to demonstrate why euthanasia is

inconsistent with natural law of any sort. Life is a universal of all forms of

animate objects. From every kingdom of beings from single celled entities to

the complex species known as Homo sapiens life necessitates a  means of

sustaining the individual members as well as the collective species. A

bear caught in a humans trap snare does not try to commit suicide or lay

defeated. It will chew its foot off to be free again; not a trophy or food to

another species. Animals in the state of nature without intelligence or reason do

not kill off fallen, diseased, or injured members. It is common to note that herd

animals, as the buffalo, when fallen or injured will have its mate or other

member guard it against wolves until the last instant is exhausted.

These acts demonstrate that animals under direction of natural law attempt to

inbreed collective traits that lead to individual and species survival; not destroy

such.

          These are only basic analogies. What is demonstrated is that a

subculture of suicide or mercy killing is not a feature of any species writ large.

What separates the genus Homo from the other members of life rests insides

our cranium. Our brain is the seat of our cognition and permits humans to

reason deliberately over events of experience and abstraction that no other

animal or machine may. This is moral reason. The choice of euthanasia is the

result of an overactive logical and reasoning process attempting to correct the

inefficiency perceived in permitting nature to run its course when the ends of

death appear conclusive.

          The philosophy for euthanasia is individual choice and is based on moral

conditions. Robert Young (2003) has complied five moral reasons for

euthanasia Advocates of voluntary euthanasia contend that if a person is: ²

(a)    suffering from a terminal illness;

(b)   unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy;

(c)    as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (because the illness has to be treated in ways which lead to her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support);

(d)   has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied); and

(e)    unable without assistance to commit suicide, then there should be legal and medical provision to enable her to be allowed to die or assisted to die.