Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

NIH Publishes Paper On Euthanasia: Murder Or Not? – Do They Have YOU In Mind?

Written by:

Published on: November 6, 2022

It’s interesting how wicked men will take that which is clear, “Thou shalt not murder,” and twist in their own minds the justification that they are simply engaging in a “mercy killing,” rather than pre-meditated murder.  Yet, the National Institutes for Health has published a paper that argues for euthanasia, calling it a “comparative approach” to try and justify the unjustifiable.

According to the paper published in October 2014 by Božidar BANOVIĆ* and Veljko TURANJANIN via :

Euthanasia is one of the most intriguing ethical, medical and law issues that marked whole XX century and beginning of the XXI century, sharply dividing scientific and unscientific public to its supporters and opponents. It also appears as one of the points where all three major religions (Catholic, Orthodox, and Islamic) have the same view. They are strongly against legalizing mercy killing, emphasizing the holiness of life as a primary criterion by which the countries should start in their considerations. Studying criminal justice systems in the world, the authors concluded that the issue of deprivation of life from compassion is solved on three ways. On the first place, we have countries where euthanasia is murder like any other murder from the criminal codes. Second, the most numerous are states where euthanasia is murder committed under privilege circumstances. On the third place, in the Western Europe we have countries where euthanasia is a legal medical procedure, under requirements prescribed by the law. In this paper, authors have made a brief comparison of the solutions that exist in some Islamic countries, where euthanasia is a murder, with Western countries, where it represents completely decriminalized medical procedure.

“Euthanasia, i.e. mercy killing is both historical and contemporary problem of medicine, law, ethics and religion, which is reflected in the multitude of interwoven concepts and different legislative solutions of that question all over the world,” the authors write.  “The debate over legalizing euthanasia is like earthquake, sharply divides the scientific and unscientific public on its supporters and opponents, and although through literature pervades the opinion that this topic has been exhausted. In the maelstrom of issues that this topic opens, legislators all around the world try to find a practical solution, in order to resolve adequately the question of euthanasia. The line that separates admissible from impermissible merciful deprivation of life through the centuries has consistently been moved: in the direction of legalization of euthanasia and towards the complete ban of euthanasia.”

The authors cover Islamic countries, the Netherlands and Belgium approaches to euthanasia.  They spend much time writing about it when the Creator has been clear in a single sentence, “Thou shalt not murder.”  Knowingly taking anyone’s life, including your own, is murder, period.

Yet, they struggle against their own conscience and it’s clear they are doing that in the section titled “Euthanasia as murder.”  They even state, “…it should be noted that the sharp equalization of these two types of murders is not desirable, because there are different reasons that lead to negative consequences.”

So, as long as there are no “negative consequences,” ie. someone doesn’t go to jail or to death themselves and the patient wants to die, it’s ok, right?  Wrong.

While you can read how legislatures, which is what the paper is appealing towards, in various countries are dealing with euthanasia, they do come to a final conclusion.  Here it is:

Deprivation of life from compassion throughout the history of humanity appears as a question that engrosses the attention of lawyers, doctors, sociologists around the worlds. In certain stages of development of civilization it represented a permitted form of depriving another person’s life, while in the other stages was strictly prohibited. Today’s legislators basically occupying three positions, so, they prohibit euthanasia and equate it with ordinary or privilege murder, or allow it under the assumption of meeting of prescribed requirements. Bypassing the countries that privilege euthanasia as less serious murder, in this paper we have dealt with some legislations that this phenomenon strictly prohibit, and those that deprivation of life out of compassion treat as a permitted medical procedure. In Islamic countries, such as Iran, Turkey and part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, euthanasia is an ordinary murder, punishable by serious criminal sanctions. At the opposite pole are the Western European countries, more specifically, the Benelux countries (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg), in which deprivation of life from the grace does not constitute a crime, if it was carried out in accordance with the clearly defined legal rules and medical procedure. In this way, we show how a life situation may be in different legal areas regulated in completely different way. Exactly this lack of harmony in the legislative solution in some European and American countries has led to the some adverse events, such as death tourism, as a phenomenon where inhabitants of one country, where euthanasia is prohibited, travel to another state where it is allowed, and where physicians can perform euthanasia. In order to avoid this, it is necessary to achieve a certain degree of harmonization of legislations, or to set appropriate limit in the legislations that legalized euthanasia. However, how it is possible to achieve, time will show.

The obvious question that should come up given the actions of governments around the world during CONvid-1984 is, what is government says you have the non-proven to exist SARS-CoV-2 and believes you are a threat to society and wants to euthanize you against your will “for the greater good”?  Oh Tim, that would never happen.  Right, keep believing that. This is the slippery slope that is a reality seeing that democide was the biggest killer of men in the 20th century.

You can see that these people writing the paper, which Dr. Anthony Fauci and others obviously support, are pushing towards a legalization of that which the Creator condemns.  And people still think man is basically good.  Think again!

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like on Facebook and Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media

Newsletter SignupStay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!

Stay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!