Freedom from pain and suffering, freedom from frailty and handicaps -- this is good. Everyone naturally wants this freedom; no one wants hardship. Yet, in euthanasia, freedom is just a disguise hiding an ugly truth; it is a will o' the wisp, calling itself freedom and, when grasped, disappearing.
True freedom is something else entirely. We are free to choose to die or help someone die; that is free will. The thought process of choosing death is not against human laws; and the laws for or against acting on that choice, about helping someone die, are still being debated and formulated. That is political freedom. Free will and political freedom, well used, will produce authentic freedom for society as a whole. Using them well means ordering one's choices to a transcendent truth or goodness.
To what transcendent goodness does euthanasia order itself? Some say it is my life and my body; I should be allowed to do with it whatever I will, including ending my own life. Freedom to do what I want as long as it does not affect anyone else? Such freedom transcends nothing and, instead, enslaves one to one's passions and feelings, limiting the person's humanity by excluding the intellect, the thinking, moral part of our humanity. We are more than just our passions, feelings, wants. Instead of helping one to rise above pain or old age or handicaps, euthanasia allows feelings, rather than intellect, to control one's future. True freedom gives one true human dignity. "Man achieves such dignity when he frees himself from all subservience to his feelings, and in a free choice of the good, pursues his own end by effectively and assiduously marshalling the appropriate means" (Veritatis splendor [VS], n. 42, quoting Gaudium et spes [GS], n. 17). True freedom rises above the pain and seeks dignity and meaning, not escape.
Just as "freedom to do as I want" is deceptive, so is "as long as it does not affect anyone else." Life is not lived in a vacuum. The nature of humanity is such that one is always crossing the paths of others. Humanity has a communitarian aspect. The choices one makes, even if they do not directly affect someone else, will indirectly affect everyone else. Each choice we make affects and defines who we are as individuals. Your "I" comes into contact with other "I"'s and that contact affects others; it changes them. Their "I" now includes the interaction between you and them. Therefore everything you do and choose affects everyone else because it affects you. True freedom is choosing to becoming the best person you can be; it is not freedom from laws or from nature. "For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged" (VS, n. 54, quoting GS, n. 16).
Another angle from which to view this deception is the "fundamental option," when correctly understood, meaning the orientation of one's inner core either for or against the good (and ultimately for or against God), not in a particular situation but overall, in one's interior moral self. When choosing euthanasia, people would like to believe that the love of God in their inner core does not cease; their fundamental option is always and still for God. They do not reject God in the act of euthanasia; they reject only the pain or handicap or effects of old age. But every action we do affects us as individuals. Our actions shape our personality, our humanity, who we are. "The morality of human acts is not deduced only from one's intention, orientation or fundamental option ... [but also from] whether or not the deliberate choice of a specific kind of behavior is in conformity with the dignity and integral vocation of the human person" (VS, n. 67). What does euthanasia say about a person? It says that that person rejects life. God has given us life, so through euthanasia we are rejecting a gift from God and subsequently rejecting the giver, God. "Freedom is not only the choice for one or another particular action: it is also, within that choice, a 'decision about oneself and a setting of one's own life for or against the Good, for or against the Truth, and ultimately for or against God" (VS, n. 65). One cannot separate the choices one makes from the orientation of one's inner core. Deliberately choosing euthanasia is also deliberately rejecting God's will and law.
Some would say that euthanasia is justified because it is choosing the lesser of two evils. It is natural to want to do good and avoid evil. Pain, old age, and handicaps are considered evils. Nevertheless, we still cannot say that we are doing a good thing by euthanizing a person. Most people will agree that these evils do not take away a person's innocence. The elderly, suffering, or handicapped person is still innocent, and, in euthanasia, we would be killing an innocent person, that is, committing murder. In addition, this does not solve the problem -- it is the suffering that is unwanted, not the person. Some would still say that euthanasia is good because we choose the lesser evil. But is one really making a choice between two evils, or is it more like choosing between an undesirable though natural condition and a moral evil? "The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator" (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], n. 2261).
Pain caused by illness is undesirable, but it is not moral evil. The act of causing someone pain is moral evil, but not the pain itself. Pain is a part of life. Does everyone who gets a headache choose death to get rid of it? Of course not. They choose a nap or an aspirin. Granted, as pain (especially serious pain and suffering) increases, quality of life decreases, but life does not degenerate into a moral evil or even into an amoral or pre-moral evil. Pain is an experience whereas moral evil is a choice against the good -- an act, not an experience. Evil is the lack of something that is good. Life is always a good. When the quality of life declines it is not life itself that is lacking. Being in pain does not mean that you are lacking life but that you are lacking health. The evil appertaining to life, the lack of something good, is death, not pain.
Being old, even very elderly, is not evil. Growing old is the natural course of life just as is growing up. Shall we euthanize people as soon as they reach their thirtieth birthday (remember the movie "Logan's Run")? Of course not. Everyone expects to have a complete cycle of life: birth, growth, maturity, old age, death. Think of a child, a young person, a parent, killed in an accident. We view that death as a tragedy; they died too soon. Why is it too soon? Because we view the whole aging process as natural, as good. The proper course of events is to die a natural death in old age. The old are feeble: their quality of life declines. Is that the fault of the old person, leading us to take their life? Or is it the fault of our culture which more and more devalues old age and inflates the value of youth? In considering euthanasia it is argued that once one's quality of life declines one should be allowed to choose death. What about providing the elderly with the things that improve the quality of life, such as support, friendship, interesting activities? Would anyone choose death then?
The handicapped are another group of people for whom we are told euthanasia will be of use. We cannot necessarily use the excuse of poor quality of life with the handicapped, and our society does much to enhance their quality of life, with special teaching, funds, even wheelchair-accessible sidewalks and buildings. Yet some would consider euthanizing handicapped people. They are a financial drain: they do not contribute to society: it is painful to be handicapped. President Franklin Roosevelt was handicapped, yet he overcame that to make his mark not only in society, but also in history. He is neither alone nor exceptional (think of Helen Keller or Ray Charles).
Some people are too old, some are handicapped. Where do we draw the line? How do we decide that you should be euthanized but not your neighbor? Who is to decide that a person seventy-five years old is too old but someone sixty-five years old is not? That Down's Syndrome is okay but cerebral palsy is not? Every human being has imperfections of varying degrees and severities. That is why we have doctors and dentists and even medical insurance. These imperfections are overcome every day. We naturally expect them: we naturally believe we can overcome them: and we do overcome them. The choice we make here is not between death and a handicap or old age. Yet, euthanasia makes a choice in quality of life, saying this quality deserves continuance and this does not.
There is deception in this choice. Death does not improve life or the quality of life: it ends life completely and irrevocably. Euthanasia is not making a choice between suffering, handicaps, and age, or death. The choice is between life and death, between a lower quality of life and the killing of an innocent person, between a good that is always good no matter the circumstances and an evil that is evil no matter what the circumstances.
So there is a reason not to choose euthanasia: it is morally evil. Is there a reason to live when living means pain, frailty, and handicaps? The reason is that we are created in the image of God, in the image of Goodness, Truth, Love. The reason is the sacredness of human life "because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator" (CCC, n. 2258). And in the final analysis, suffering has meaning. It brings one closer to God by allowing one to join Christ on the cross, suffering for the sake of God's beloved adopted children, us (Col. 1:24). What an honor it is to share in Christ's life by sharing in his suffering, in his mission of salvation.