Before considering the relationship of euthanasia to personhood, it is important to consider what I mean by euthanasia.

I am using the following definition of euthanasia:

Euthanasia involves a person (or persons) actively ending the life of another person, for what are considered compassionate reasons, with consent of (or by request of) the person or a person who is the appropriate decision maker for the person whose life is being ended.

Euthanasia involves the taking of a life for what are considered compassionate reasons.   We can euthanize animals like dogs and cats, but when discussing euthanasia, I will be referring to the taking of a human life for what is considered compassionate reasons.

Is is important to differentiate between humans and non-humans.  I differentiate human beings from all other sentient beings or animals that are on the earth. Humans are different, in that they have souls.  Some may challenge this, either not believing people have souls or by believing that animals have souls as well.  Those who do, have a different belief about life or a different faith position than I have.  I accept reality as revealed by God the creator of all life.  As God reveals to us in His recorded word, God created mankind different than the animals.  Unlike the animals, God first created man from the dust of the ground and then God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.  As a living soul, man, unlike animals, has also been given by God moral responsibility to do what is right according to God’s standard.

Some choose to believe that mankind are basically the same as animals.  Some believe that animals, too, have souls.  These people often become vegetarians and lament humans use of animals, particularly for food.  But where do they draw the line?  Do worms have souls?  Do one-celled animals have souls?  What about the cells of plants?  How do you decide?  On what basis does one know which beings have souls?  Where do these souls come from?  What determines when it is right for a souled-being to kill another, as is so common in the animal world?  The position that animals have souls as humans do, like my position, is a faith position.  It is believed.  It cannot be proven.  It can only be believed.  Simply believing this does not mean this belief can consistently be applied to real life.  My position has the backing of the Bible, the book that is the oldest, the most widespread, and translated into the most languages, that has continued to speak, in spite of several revolutions that have tried to destroy it.  Those who believe it find that what it teaches consistently explains reality.

Others choose to believe that mankind and animals are alike, in that they are simply physical chemical phenomena, that have evolved over millions of years from a soup of chemicals, with the fittest surviving and gaining some kind of superiority over the weak.  If this is the case, why is it wrong for the strong to kill and take advantage of the weak?  If this is true, then there is no soul or part of mankind that continues to exist when the body dies.  If, when we die, we are gone, what difference does it make if one person shoots a lot of other people?  Will not the fittest life-form survive and continue on to the next generation anyway?  Those who hold this view of life believe that science proves what they believe.  The next time you hear that science proves it, I challenge you to ask for and seek out the actual scientific experiments that provide the proof.  We often hear that science proves.  We rarely see any science that provides real proof.  This position, too, is a faith position.  Like my position, no one can go back and see for sure what happened.  There is no place that the knowledge of this belief is consistently outlined.

When I discuss euthanasia, I come from the position mankind have both elements, body and soul, created by God, as He reveals to us in His word, the Bible, and mankind has a God-given moral responsibility to live according to God’s standard.  To live otherwise, has grave consequences, as God outlines to mankind in His word.  To live according to God’s standards is good.  So, when discussing euthanasia, it is euthanasia of mankind (human kind) I am referring to.

Euthanasia of humans, or the taking of another persons life for what is said to be compassionate reasons, can be further subdivided according to consent  as follows, (BEING REVISED)

1.  The taking of the life of another person who is able and does consent.  This clearly falls in the definition of euthanasia I am using

2. The taking of the life of another person who is able to consent to having their life taken, but does not consent. This is clearly murder and falls outside the scope of what I will call euthanasia.

3. The taking of the life of another person who is not able to consent to having their life taken.  This group can be further subdivided.

A.  When the person who is unable to give consent, gave a consent at a time in their life when they were still able to.

i.  This could be done with consent of the appropriate substitute decision maker,

ii.  or in spite of the lack of consent or disagreement of the appropriate substitute decision maker.

B.  When the person who unable to give consent did not give consent at a time in their live when they were still able to.

i. This could be done with consent of the substitute decision maker,

ii. or in spite of lack of consent from the substitute decision maker, which would again clearly be murder.

In conclusion the definition I am using is as follows.

Euthanasia involves a person (or persons) actively ending the life of another person, for what are considered compassionate reasons, with consent of (or by request of) the person or a person who is the appropriate decision maker for the person whose life is being ended.

Note:  defining the euthanasia of children is further complicated by the determination of ability of consent, that is for another posting.