A DISCUSSION PAPER ON HUMAN LIFE AND BIOETHICS ISSUES:

EUTHANASIA

Submitted to:
Asst. Prof. Christopher A. Burgos

Submitted by:
Kiara Marie M. Fleischer
Dominic G. Fernandez

CHS 3 (Ethics of the Christian Faith)

Section D

May 14, 2020

I. SOCIAL ISSUE: EUTHANASIA
1.1.Introduction
As of today, there is a rise in the number of chronic illnesses in the Philippines and these
illnesses are the leading cause of death in the country. In 2013, Filipino mortality was markedly
caused by diseases of the heart, followed by diseases of the vascular system, and pneumonia.
Meanwhile, Ischemic Heart Disease, stroke, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
are among the leading causes of death worldwide. According to the statistics report of
(Republic of the Philippines: Department of Health, 2013), malignant neoplasms or cancer,
comprised 53,601 which is 10.1% of disease-related deaths in the Philippines. Globally, lung
cancer, as well as, trachea and bronchus cancer had caused 1.6 million deaths. Human
Immunodeficiency Virus or AIDS led to 1.5 million deaths in 2012 according to the (World
Health Organization, 2018). Most of these terminal conditions mentioned above are one of the
main conditions which are prevailing in the country. People with these conditions experience
excruciating pain and discomfort to the point that, in some conditions, they pass out. In most
cases, treatment would be quite expensive and sometimes, the treatment may not be able to
completely treat the pain they are feeling. These serious conditions are deemed, for others, as
untreatable specifically on cancer in late stages.

One of the most debatable topics in society, even as of today, would be on the use of Euthanasia
as an End-of-Life Care instead of palliative care. It is a contemporary and complex
ethical/social issue which is surrounded by different opinions of other people and/or medical
practitioners.

1.2.Objectives
The topic on Euthanasia, as we have stated, is complex since this term has been associated
with murder. This term, Euthanasia, is against God’s will for Christians. God’s people believe
that killing is a great feat to commit and is considered as a very grave sin. We believe we
cannot kill ourselves or get other people to do it, as it is believed that free will given to God
would be misused. To kill ourselves and to let other people kill another, is like denying God
and his teachings of Life.

In this paper and in view of our approach on Euthanasia, the readers shall be able:
a. To have a better understanding on the term and concept of Euthanasia.

1
 b. To analyze the pros and cons of the use of Euthanasia.
c. To explain what our philosophical standpoint is on the said topic.
d. To identify what legal/state norms/policies/laws are involved with the use of
Euthanasia in the Philippines.
e. To discuss the different biblical-theological discussions on Euthanasia.

1.3.Definition of terms
 Advanced Healthcare Directive is a legal document signed by the declarer which pertains to
treatment preferences and designation of surrogate decision-maker in the event that the person
should be unable to make decisions on their own behalf
 Attending physician is the physician assigned to the patient and who has primary responsibility
for the treatment and care of the patient.
 End-of-Life Care refers to the care given at the end of one’s life after one has stopped treatment
to cure or control their disease, and this may include palliative care, supportive care, and
hospice care.
 Euthanasia a deliberate action that is taken by a physician or another party that knowingly
results in the ending of a person‘s life or suffering
 Life-sustaining treatment is any medical or surgical intervention that uses mechanical or other
artificial means, to sustain, restore, or replace a vital function, which when applied to a
qualified patient, would prolong the process of dying.
 Palliative Care is specialized medical care for patients with a life threatening illness, which
includes early identification and assessment of physical, psychological, and spiritual problems.
 Terminal condition means an irreversible and incurable condition caused by injury, disease,
or illness that within medical judgement, will cause death within a reasonable period of time
in accordance with accepted medical standards.

1.4.Description of the social issue

According to (Brazier, 2018), Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate action that is taken by the
attending physician or another party that knowingly results in the ending of a person’s life or
suffering. This step usually happens under most circumstances to end the persistent suffering
that individuals experience because of a terminal illness, genetic disorder, or from a traumatic

2
 event. This term on Euthanasia as defined by (LEXICO, n.d.), was derived from the Greek
word, εὐθανασία, which means "good death": εὖ, eu; "well" or "good" – θάνατος, Thanatos;
"death". Euthanasia or colloquially known as “mercy-killing” is defined the practice of
intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.
Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or
involuntary and active or passive. To define each of one them, let us start with. Voluntary
euthanasia. It is considered, sometimes, as “assisted suicide”. This way is conducted with the
consent of the patient. On the other hand, Non-voluntary euthanasia is conducted where the
consent of the patient is unavailable specifically for patients in comas, infants, and patients
who have dementia. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted against the will of the patient. This
is where patients can express a wish to die but don’t which equates to murder. Furthermore,
these three classifications can be further categorized into the active and passive kinds. Passive
euthanasia usually involves the withdrawal of treatments needed for life support; while, active
euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances in order to terminate a life

1.5. Review of Related Literature

1.5.1. Description of a particular case as a focus of study
Mary Ann Laurel has been charged with “parricide” for the murder of her former
husband, Mario Laurel, after allegedly directing her son, Patrick Laurel, to turn off Mario’s
life support system when he was in a coma at the Capitol Medical Center on September 2,
2007, causing his immediate death…
The deposition I conducted of Mary Ann Laurel on August 22, 2008 was in
connection with the civil lawsuit she filed in Santa Clara County on March 24, 2008
alleging that her ex-in laws — the brother and three sisters of Mario Laurel — had defamed
her by accusing her of murdering their brother…
According to the affidavit of Isabelita Laurel-Rand, she returned to the hospital
room of Mario on September 2, 2007 despite Mary Ann’s ban. While in the hospital room,
she witnessed a nurse hand a piece of paper to Mary Ann, which she then handed over to
Patrick who read the paper and who then asked her, “What shall I write as reason?” Mary
Ann replied, “To prevent prolonging the agony,” which Patrick then dutifully wrote on
the paper.

3
 After Patrick signed the “Waiver of Diagnostic Procedures and/or Medical
Treatment'' hospital form, the nurse asked Isabelita and Bianca to sign as witnesses, which
they did. According to Isabelita’s affidavit, she saw the nurse return to her nurse’s station
and then saw Patrick walk to the life support system attached to Mario. At the machine,
Patrick hesitated and queried “But Mom, isn’t this murder?” Bianca also voiced out,
“Isn’t it that there are some people, after 10 years come out of their coma?”
In her affidavit, Isabelita recalled what happened next: “Mary Ann sternly retorted,
‘Just do it’ to Patrick and ignored Bianca’s remark. Thereupon, Patrick switched off the
machine, its lights went off, and then the monitor went flat — Mario was gone.”
The Resolution explained: “In this legal jurisdiction, it is not for any person to
decide when a man or a woman is ‘ripe’ for the taking or killing while he or she is in a
coma. Euthanasia in the Philippines as in the instant case is still murder… A good motive
is not incompatible with an unlawful intent. One may be convicted of a crime whether his
motive appears to be good or bad or even though no motive is proven. A good motive does
not prevent an act from being a crime. (Rodis, 2015)”

This case of Mary Ann Laurel and former husband, Mario Laurel, is clarified in the resolution
stated in the article above. Whether the motive involved her other lover, Joseph Timbal, or the 1.7
million dollars’ worth of insurance policies, or simply just to “prevent the prolonging of
agony,” making the decision to disconnect Mario from life support is still considered murder. Mary
Ann ignoring the comments of Mario’s siblings and demanding for the life support system to be
unplugged most likely suggests that she had reason to make that decision and her act was judged
as immoral and criminal, which resulted in imprisonment. We do not support the idea that one
should have full control over another person’s life, regardless of what situation is presented.

II. MORAL STANDPOINT

2.1.Pros and Cons of Euthanasia
PROS:
a. It is an end to suffering or last resort for a patient in a vegetative state or debilitating or
chronic condition or when there is no other option. A patient can decide to stop his or her

4
 end-of-life care or their loved one can stop their care. If and only if, the patient’s condition
is untreatable, debilitating, and painful for him/her to live on (Miller, n.d.).
b. It eliminates financial burden for the family and loved ones in the care of the patient.
Caring for someone who is terminally ill can be very expensive. Buying their medications,
for example, they cost a fortune. Some drugs/medication aren’t curative in use but are for
prolonging life or regulating their condition so that it does not become worse for that
someone. By opting for euthanasia to end that person’s life, the family will and loved ones
of that someone will not have a hard time anymore for providing/finding funds for the care
of that someone.
c. Freedom of personal choice/autonomy. According to (BBC, n.d.), the right to life includes
the right to die (BBC, n.d.).

CONS:
a. Legalizing and normalizing euthanasia in medical institutions would be legalizing
murder. In the Philippine law, Euthanasia is still considered to be an act of murder.
b. Legalizing and allowing people the right to choose to die infringes upon the ethical
principle – autonomy and the freedom of other patients’ lives. It reinforces the belief that
because of their terminal or vegetative state, they are nothing but burdens upon their friends
and families.
c. Terminally ill patients may feel obligated to end their lives. Most of them are then forced
into thinking that relieving their friends and family of such burden, by choosing to die, is
the right thing to do. It promotes the thinking that they are useless, and nothing but a
challenge for the people taking care of them. This is a dangerous and immoral thing to
perpetuate.
d. Passing on the suffering to their loved ones. The family of patients will be the ones who
will suffer. In some cases, their families will tend to blame themselves for the loss of that
person for many reasons.
e. Contradicts physician’s role of being a healer. Allowing euthanasia doesn’t mean that the
patient is allowed to die on his or her own accord, it means that the health care practitioner
or attending physician is allowed to cause death of the patient which is unjust. Therefore,
the patient is inherently vulnerable because of his or her position within the medical
hierarchy (Ko, 2010).

5
 f. It violates Section 1 of the Patient’s Bill of Rights (Tungpalan, 1981), which outlines that
no patient shall experience discrimination in terms of health and treatment and they have
the right to considerate and respectful care.
g. It eliminates palliative care. There is a difference between palliative and end-of-life care.
Palliative care involves controlling symptoms that either have an insidious onset and
progression or a rapid onset and progression, and holistic care of the patient. End of life
care is focused on maintaining quality of life while offering services for legal matters
(Krau, 2016).
h. It desecrates the Ethics of Medicine. In context on the use of euthanasia, medical ethics
should have the insight to evolve accordingly and to promote true universal values in death
and dying. If some practices are universally considered as consensual one’s - such as
withholding or withdrawing futile treatments, the living will or even palliative sedation-
euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are ethically disruptive, even from the medical
ethics point of view. Only by letting physicians abide to their conscience will medical
ethics be allowed to remain universally unquestioned (Doerflinger, 2017).
i. It contradicts with the Teachings of the Church. The Church, specifically Roman Catholic
and Christian, regard euthanasia as morally wrong. The Church has absolutely taught their
followers the absolute and unchanging value of one of the 10 commandments, “You shall
not kill.”

2.2.Philosophical Standpoint
 Epicureanism or Hedonism asserts that life is governed by two principles which are pain
and pleasure. Epicurus defines pleasure as absence of pain from the body and trouble from
the soul. He believed pleasure was the only good that should be sought by people. Through
this lens, we can conclude that Euthanasia would be supported as it would put an end to
the pain or displeasure a patient may feel.
 Kantianism (Kant’s Ethics of Duty) is concerned with good acts of duty. In this case, this
philosophical standpoint will apply to the attending doctor, as he or she would have to act
in accordance with hospital rules and his or her physician’s license.
 Existentialism is based on the doctrine that existence takes precedence over essence. Man
is a free being who is responsible for his or her own actions. In this case, the philosophical

6
 standpoint will apply to the patient/person with the terminal condition. He/she is an
autonomous person who is able to decide independently for his/her sake. Additionally, this
would apply to the attending physician as he/she would also have a decision to perform or
deny the procedure.
 Deontology, otherwise known as the “duty-oriented” theory is the normative ethical theory
that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong
under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. As future health
care practitioners, it is our responsibility to promote the health of all patients and encourage
them throughout the entirety of the healing process and treatment. Although the patient
may be considering euthanasia as the best option in the long run to avoid worsening their
condition or other future complications, the act of killing a patient should be seen to be
unethical by the allied healthcare practitioners, even if the patient has volunteered for this
procedure. It is also the duty of the health care team to educate the patient about the other
options and their condition and must be persistent in their education to ensure that the
patient has listened and fully understands that death is not the only option for them. To
accept euthanasia is signifying that some lives are worth less than others. This violates
number 1 on the Patient’s Bill of Rights (Tungpalan, 1981), which outlines that no patient
shall experience discrimination in terms of health and treatment and they have the right to
considerate and respectful care. As future health care practitioners, it is also our duty to
ensure that the Patient’s Bill of Rights is not being violated by ourselves or our colleagues.

2.3.Legal/State norms/policies/laws
 Art. 253, Revised Penal Code. Giving Assistance to Suicide. — Any person who shall assist
another to commit suicide shall suffer the penalty of prison; if such person lends 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 arrest in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed (Official Gazette, 1930).
 Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Order: medical order which instructs healthcare providers not to
do cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if patient stops breathing or the heart stops beating.
 Senate Bill No. 1887 or the Natural Death Act. an act recognizing the fundamental right of
adult persons to decide their own health care, including the decision to have life-sustaining

7
 treatment withheld or withdrawn in instances of a terminal condition or permanent unconscious
condition.
 Natural Death Act, Section 10: Mercy Killing or Physician-Assisted Suicide Not
Authorized. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy
killing or physician-assisted suicide, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or
omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying (Santiago, 2005).
 Natural Death Act, Section 11: Discharge So That Patient May Die At Home. If a
qualified patient capable of malting health care decisions indicates that he or she wishes to
die at home, the patient shall be discharged as soon as reasonably possible. The health care
provider or facility has an obligation to explain the medical risks of an immediate discharge
to the qualified patient. If the provider or facility complies with the obligation to explain
the medical risks of an immediate discharge to a qualified patient, there shall be no civil or
criminal liability for claims arising from such discharge (Santiago, 2005).
 The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines Article 2 Declaration of Principles and State
Policies Section 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people’s organizations to
enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and
collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means (Official Gazette, n.d.).

III. BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION

 Biblical View
 “You shall not murder” (Ex 20:13). The 6th Commandment also states “Thou shall not
kill.” Euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide, which breaks this 6th Commandment,
directly obeying God’s orders. Sin is a rebellion against God’s rule. As creations of God,
we should respect and protect our sacred bodies.
 The 1st ethical demand is Demand of Love, and this includes loving your neighbor as
yourself (Mt 23:29). Euthanasia conflicts with this demand as love can be perceived as
preserving life or relieving one from suffering. In this case, the attending physician, patient,
and patient’s family are all neighbors.

8
  “A person’s days are determined; you have decreed the number of his months and set limits
he cannot exceed” (Job 14:15). This focuses mainly on autonomy as it rejects dependence
on God and asserts a desire to be infinite (Wurster, 2018).

 Church View
 General
− Most Christians are against Euthanasia. The arguments are usually based on the beliefs
that life is given by the Supreme Being known as God, and that human beings are made
in God's image. Some churches also emphasize the importance of not interfering with
the natural process of death (United Church of God, n.d.).
− First argument would be that life is given by God. Part of life’s processes would be birth
and death. God created them so we should respect it. Therefore, no human being should
have the authority to take their own life or the life of others even if that person wishes
to die.
− Second argument is that human beings are valuable because they are made in God’s
image. Knowing that we are made in God’s image affects not only our understanding
of our Creator and our relationship with Him. It also sets the stage for understanding
and defending the sanctity of all human life. To propose euthanasia for a person is to
judge that the current situation that he or she is in is not worthwhile.
− Third argument would be that the process of dying is spiritually important and should
not be disrupted. In general, the church of God thinks that it is wrong to interfere with
the process of dying, as this would interrupt the process of the spirit moving towards
God.
− All in all, according to (Beyond Today, 2018), If you are a believer who has repented,
been baptized, received the Holy Spirit and are considering proactively ending your
life with the assistance of a physician, the action of taking your own life (either by
yourself or with assistance) is not the godly solution to a chronic health condition. With
today’s medical help, a person with a life-threatening disease can live out his or her last
days without undue pain, and die in relative peace—letting the body naturally cease to
live without actually causing death. God promises He works all things for good for
those who love Him (Romans 8:28). He promises that one day, suffering and trials will

9
 cease (Revelation 21:4). Until that time, in the broken world we live in now, God brings
about good even from the suffering that believers experience. He allows it and uses it
to build their faith. Our trials may be physical affliction, emotional pain, intellectual
doubt or daily temptation. His desire is that we persevere and endure to the very end.
In all this God shapes us in ways that may be painful at the time but develop His
holiness in us. His goal is to bring us to completeness so we might be declared to be
His children and have a place in His eternal family (BBC, n.d.).

 Specific
− In most religious denominations in the Philippines, the use of euthanasia is
unacceptable since it violates the teachings of God and is considered to be a sin.
− The Roman Catholic Church regards euthanasia as morally wrong. It has always taught
the absolute and unchanging value of the commandment "You shall not kill". Violating
this commandment means you have made a mortal sin which can lead to eternal
damnation. Life is given by God, some Catholic churches emphasize the importance of
not interfering with the natural process of death.
− Protestants are mostly opposed to euthanasia, because they view life as a gift from God
that should not be taken away (Life Matters Media, 2015).
− For the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church), they oppose
euthanasia. They believe that taking one’s life or the life of another violates God’s
commandments and His plan for each person. “While acknowledging the suffering
experienced by many, we firmly believe in the sanctity of human life and in its role in
God’s plan,” says Lyman Kirkland, a spokesman in the church’s public affairs
department. However, the church teaches that when someone is dying, it is acceptable
to forgo excessive or extraordinary therapies. “The church does not believe that
allowing a person to die from natural causes” – removing a patient from artificial life
support, for example – “falls within the definition of euthanasia,” Kirkland says, adding
that “families should not feel obligated to extend life by unreasonable means.”
− Islamic teachings oppose the use of euthanasia. According to a professor of Near
Eastern studies from Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. - Mr. David Stephen Powers,
Muslims believe that life is sacred and comes from Allah; therefore it is a sin to take

10
 life. While Islamic thinkers oppose hastening death, they also generally believe that the
terminally ill need not employ extraordinary means and technologies to delay dying.
“We are basically talking about the difference between a conscious decision to end life,
which is wrong, and life ending by itself,” Shabana says, adding that the line between
the two is not always clearly defined. All in all, human beings should not interfere in
the process of life.
− Life has value in itself and the value does not depend on the extent to which it brings
pleasure and well-being, unlike the beliefs of Hedonism. Suffering and pain should not
be a reason for ending life (Pew Research Center, 2013).

IV. GROUP/INDIVIDUAL STANDPOINT OF THE ISSUE

We surmise that we are against euthanasia in the basis that it also conflicts with a persons’ or
patient’s autonomy/self-determination. It violates this principle and therefore contradicts the claim
of euthanasia proponents who say we all have the “right to die”. It is understandable, though tragic,
that some patients in immeasurable suffering – such as those suffering from a terminal, painful,
debilitating illnesses – may come to decide that death is preferable to life. However, authorizing
health care practitioners to promote euthanasia would ultimately cause more harm than good.
Campaigning to end certain people’s lives does not end suffering – it passes it on to their significant
others or loved ones, who now have the fear that they are the next people in line to be seen as
having worthless lives (if ever the condition is passed on to them). Societies that authorize suicide
as a ‘choice’ for some people soon end up placing pressure on them to ‘do the right thing’ and kill
themselves. Seeing suicide as a solution for some illnesses can only undermine the willingness of
doctors and society to learn how to show real compassion and address patients’ pain and other
problems (Doerflinger, 2017).

To reiterate, considering all possible perspectives of this issue and weighing the moral,
philosophical, legal, and Christian aspects, we reject the act of Euthanasia, or Physician assisted
suicide. As citizens of the Philippines, we are aware that euthanasia is deemed illegal in the
country. It is even contradicted by religious communities. As Roman Catholics, we are taught to
follow the teachings of the Lord and obey the 10 commandments, which include loving God, thy
neighbors, and refrain from killing others. Additionally, we were taught that God is the Creator
(Genesis 1) and that we should value and protect all of His Creations. Euthanasia is a violation of

11
 the law of God, since life is sacred and given by God, He should be the one to decide when life
ends. We strongly support the view of the church and believe that killing is still killing, regardless
of the motive. As future registered nurses, we were also taught to follow our duty, Kantianism,
and care for our patients to the best of our abilities. Although it may end suffering and give the
patient a sense of autonomy and control over their life, it contradicts the teachings of the Lord and
what we view as morally right. We do not believe that others should have full control of our last
seconds of life. Therefore, we disapprove of the act of euthanasia.

V. CONCLUSION
Euthanasia is a very controversial issue which involves an attending physician or another
party deciding on the patient life and continuity of care. Spiritually, it is immoral due to the
fact that it opposes God’s will and Christian beliefs about life and death. Secularly, it is moral
and justified because it grants mercy upon those suffering in a life-threatening disease or
remaining in a vegetative state, but immoral in the sense that one has complete control over
another’s life. From a philosophical standpoint, Hedonism supports euthanasia as an end of
suffering, while Kantianism and Existentialism refer to the duty of physician or other health
care members and preservation of life. There are also laws in the Philippines that prohibit
euthanasia, such as Article 253, Revised Penal Code, and the Natural Death Act.

In conclusion, we disapprove of the act of euthanasia. In the context of Christian Ethics,

it goes against the norms, standards, laws, and teachings of God – it terminates normative
discipline. Most religious denominations, oppose euthanasia in all circumstances. We all
regard life as sacred, whether in the religious or secular sense.

12
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
BBC. (n.d.). Ethics Guide: Pro-euthanasia arguments. Retrieved from BBC.com Web site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml

Brazier, Y. (2018, December 17). What are euthanasia and assisted suicide? Retrieved from
Medical News Today Web site: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951

Doerflinger, R. (2017, January 30). Legalization Con. Retrieved from ProCon.org Web site:
https://euthanasia.procon.org/top-10-pro-con-arguments/

Ko, J. (2010, March). LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES OF

COMPETENCE, AUTONOMY, AND BENEFICENCE. Retrieved from BC Medical
Journal Web site : https://www.bcmj.org/mds-be/legalization-euthanasia-violates-
principles-competence-autonomy-and-beneficence

Krau, S. D. (2016, June 30). The Difference Between Palliative Care and End of Life Care: More
than Semantics. Retrieved from Nursing.theclinics.com Web site:
https://www.nursing.theclinics.com/article/S0029-6465(16)30027-5/pdf

LEXICO. (n.d.). Definition: Euthanasia. Retrieved from LEXICO Powered by Oxford:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/euthanasia

Life Matters Media. (2015, March 15). Protestantism And End Of Life Care. Retrieved from
Lifemattersmedia.org Web site: https://www.lifemattersmedia.org/2015/03/protestantism-
end-life-care/

Miller, K. (n.d.). 18 Advantages and Disadvantages of Euthanasia. Retrieved from Future of

Working: The Leadership and Career Blog Web site: https://futureofworking.com/6-
advantages-and-disadvantages-of-euthanasia/

Official Gazette. (1930, December 8). Act No. 3815: AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE
AND OTHER PENAL LAWS. Retrieved from Officialgazette.gov.ph Web site:
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1930/12/08/act-no-3815-s-1930/

Official Gazette. (n.d.). Philippine Constitutions: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES – ARTICLE XIII. Retrieved from Official Gazette
Web site: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-

13
 republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-
article-xiii/

Pew Research Center. (2013, November 21). Polling and Analysis: Religious Groups’ Views on
End-of-Life Issues. Retrieved from Pew Research Center Web site:
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/11/21/religious-groups-views-on-end-of-life-issues/

Republic of the Philippines: Department of Health. (2013, December 9). Department of Health:
LEADING CAUSES OF MORTALITY. Retrieved from doh.gov.ph. Web site:
https://www.doh.gov.ph/Statistics/Leading-Causes-of-Mortality

Rodis, R. (2015, July 15). Americas: Was it mercy killing? Retrieved from Global Nation
Inquirer.Net Web site: https://globalnation.inquirer.net/126052/was-it-mercy-killing

Santiago, M. D. (2005, May 18). Senate Bill No. 2008. Retrieved from senate.gov.ph Web site:
https://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/34342743!.pdf

Tungpalan. (1981). Patient's Bill or Rights. Retrieved from Department of Health Web site:
http://samch.doh.gov.ph/index.php/patients-and-visitors-corner/patients-rights

United Church of God. (n.d.). What Is the Christian Perspective on Euthanasia or Assisted
Suicide? Retrieved from United Church of God: Beyond Today Web site:
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/bible-questions-and-answers/what-is-the-christian-
perspective-on-euthanasia-or-assisted-suicide

World Health Organization. (2018, May 24). Newsroom: The Top 10 Causes of Death. Retrieved
from World Health Organization Web site: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death

Wurster, M. (2018, July 27). Article: What does the Bible teach about euthanasia and physician
assisted suicide? Retrieved from The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the
Southern Baptist Convention Web site: https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/what-
does-the-bible-teach-about-euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide

14