Editing Euthanasia (section)

== History ==
[[File:David - The Death of Socrates.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|''[[The Death of Socrates]]'', by [[Jacques-Louis David]] (1787), depicting Socrates preparing to drink [[Conium|hemlock]], following his conviction for corrupting the youth of [[Athens]]]]
Euthanasia was practiced in [[Ancient Greece]] and [[Ancient Rome|Rome]]: for example, [[Conium|hemlock]] was employed as a means of hastening death on the island of [[Kea (island)|Kea]], a technique also employed in [[Massalia]]. Euthanasia, in the sense of the deliberate hastening of a person's death, was supported by [[Socrates]], [[Plato]] and [[Seneca the Elder]] in the ancient world, although [[Hippocrates]] appears to have [[Hippocratic Oath|spoken against the practice]], writing "I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give advice that may cause his death" (noting there is some debate in the literature about whether or not this was intended to encompass euthanasia).<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Mystakidou | first1 = Kyriaki | last2 = Parpa | first2 = Efi | last3 = Tsilika | first3 = Eleni | last4 = Katsouda | first4 = Emanuela | last5 = Vlahos | first5 = Lambros | year = 2005 | title = The Evolution of Euthanasia and Its Perceptions in Greek Culture and Civilization | journal = Perspectives in Biology and Medicine | volume = 48 | issue = 1 | pages = 97–98 | doi = 10.1353/pbm.2005.0013 | pmid = 15681882 | s2cid = 44600176 }}</ref><ref name="stolberg">{{cite journal | last = Stolberg | first = Michael | s2cid = 6150428 | year = 2007 | title = Active Euthanasia in Pre-ModernSociety, 1500–1800: Learned Debates and Popular Practices | journal = Social History of Medicine | volume = 20 | pages = 206–07 | issue = 2 | doi = 10.1093/shm/hkm034 | pmid = 18605325 }}</ref><ref name="Gesundheit2006p623"/>

=== Early modern period ===
The term ''euthanasia'', in the earlier sense of supporting someone as they died, was used for the first time by [[Francis Bacon]]. In his work, ''Euthanasia medica'', he chose this ancient Greek word and, in doing so, distinguished between ''euthanasia interior'', the preparation of the soul for death, and ''euthanasia exterior'', which was intended to make the end of life easier and painless, in exceptional circumstances by shortening life. That the ancient meaning of an easy death came to the fore again in the [[early modern period]] can be seen from its definition in the 18th century [[Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon Aller Wissenschafften und Künste|''Zedlers Universallexikon'']]:

<blockquote>Euthanasia: a very gentle and quiet death, which happens without painful convulsions. The word comes from ευ, ''bene'', well, and θανατος, ''mors'', death.<ref>''Zedlers Universallexikon'', Vol. 08, p. 1150, published 1732–54.</ref></blockquote>

The concept of euthanasia in the sense of alleviating the process of death goes back to the medical historian [[Karl Friedrich Heinrich Marx]], who drew on Bacon's philosophical ideas. According to Marx, a doctor had a moral duty to ease the suffering of death through encouragement, support and mitigation using medication. Such an "alleviation of death" reflected the contemporary ''[[zeitgeist]]'', but was brought into the medical canon of responsibility for the first time by Marx. Marx also stressed the distinction of the theological care of the soul of sick people from the physical care and medical treatment by doctors.<ref>{{NDB|16|327|328|Marx, Karl, Mediziner|Markwart Michler|116814357}}</ref><ref>Helge Dvorak: ''Biographisches Lexikon der Deutschen Burschenschaft.'' Vol. I, Sub-vol. 4, Heidelberg, 2000, pp. 40–41.</ref>

Euthanasia in its modern sense has always been strongly opposed in the [[Judeo-Christian]] tradition. [[Thomas Aquinas]] opposed both and argued that the practice of euthanasia contradicted our natural human instincts of survival,<ref>[http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000130 "Historical Timeline: History of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide,"] {{webarchive|url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120705164631/http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000130 |date=5 July 2012 }} Euthanasia – ProCon.org. Last updated on: 23 July 2013. Retrieved 4 May 2014.</ref> as did Francois Ranchin (1565–1641), a French physician and professor of medicine, and Michael Boudewijns (1601–1681), a physician and teacher.<ref name="stolberg"/>{{rp|208}}<ref name="Gesundheit2006p623">{{cite journal | last1 = Gesundheit | first1 = Benjamin | last2 = Steinberg | first2 = Avraham | last3 = Glick | first3 = Shimon | last4 = Or | first4 = Reuven | last5 = Jotkovitz | first5 = Alan | year = 2006 | title=  Euthanasia: An Overview and the Jewish Perspective | journal = [[Cancer Investigation]] | volume = 24 | doi = 10.1080/07357900600894898 | pmid = 16982468 | issue = 6 | pages = 621–9 | s2cid = 8906449 }}</ref> Other voices argued for euthanasia, such as [[John Donne]] in 1624,<ref>{{cite journal | last = Mannes | first = Marya | year = 1975 | title = Euthanasia vs. the Right to Life | journal = Baylor Law Review | volume = 27 | page = 69 }}</ref> and euthanasia continued to be practised. In 1678, the publication of Caspar Questel's ''De pulvinari morientibus non-subtrahend'', ("''On the pillow of which the dying should not be deprived''"), initiated debate on the topic. Questel described various customs which were employed at the time to hasten the death of the dying, (including the sudden removal of a pillow, which was believed to accelerate death), and argued against their use, as doing so was "against the laws of God and Nature".<ref name="stolberg"/>{{rp|209–211}} This view was shared by others who followed, including Philipp Jakob Spener, Veit Riedlin and [[Johann Georg Krünitz]].<ref name="stolberg"/>{{rp|211}} Despite opposition, euthanasia continued to be practised, involving techniques such as bleeding, suffocation, and removing people from their beds to be placed on the cold ground.<ref name="stolberg"/>{{rp|211–214}}

Suicide and euthanasia became more accepted during the [[Age of Enlightenment]].<ref name="Gesundheit2006p623" /> [[Thomas More]] wrote of euthanasia in ''[[Utopia (More book)|Utopia]]'', although it is not clear if More was intending to endorse the practice.<ref name="stolberg"/>{{rp|208–209}} Other cultures have taken different approaches: for example, in Japan suicide has not traditionally been viewed as a sin, as it is used in cases of honor, and accordingly, the perceptions of euthanasia are different from those in other parts of the world.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Otani | first = Izumi | year = 2010 | title = "Good Manner of Dying" as a Normative Concept: "Autocide", "Granny Dumping" and Discussions on Euthanasia/Death with Dignity in Japan | journal = International Journal of Japanese Sociology | volume = 19 | issue = 1 | doi = 10.1111/j.1475-6781.2010.01136.x | pages = 49–63 }}</ref>

===Beginnings of the contemporary euthanasia debate===
In the mid-1800s, the use of [[morphine]] to treat "the pains of death" emerged, with [[John Collins Warren (surgeon, born 1778)|John Warren]] recommending its use in 1848. A similar use of [[chloroform]] was revealed by Joseph Bullar in 1866. However, in neither case was it recommended that the use should be to hasten death. In 1870 Samuel Williams, a schoolteacher, initiated the contemporary euthanasia debate through a speech given at the Birmingham Speculative Club in England, which was subsequently published in a one-off publication entitled ''Essays of the Birmingham Speculative Club'', the collected works of a number of members of an amateur philosophical society.<ref name="Emanuel1994"/>{{rp|794}} Williams' proposal was to use chloroform to deliberately hasten the death of terminally ill patients:

{{blockquote|That in all cases of hopeless and painful illness, it should be the recognized duty of the medical attendant, whenever so desired by the patient, to administer chloroform or such other anaesthetic as may by-and-bye supersede chloroform – so as to destroy consciousness at once, and put the sufferer to a quick and painless death; all needful precautions being adopted to prevent any possible abuse of such duty; and means being taken to establish, beyond the possibility of doubt or question, that the remedy was applied at the express wish of the patient.|Samuel Williams (1872) | ''Euthanasia'' Williams and Northgate: London.<ref name="Emanuel1994"/>{{rp|794}} }}

The essay was favourably reviewed in ''[[Saturday Review (London)|The Saturday Review]]'', but an editorial against the essay appeared in ''[[The Spectator]]''.<ref name="Kemp">{{Cite book |publisher = Manchester University Press |isbn = 978-0-7190-6124-0 |title = Merciful Release |author = Nick Kemp |date = 7 September 2002 |id = 0719061245|ol = 10531689M }}</ref> From there it proved to be influential, and other writers came out in support of such views: Lionel Tollemache wrote in favour of euthanasia, as did [[Annie Besant]], the essayist and reformer who later became involved with the [[National Secular Society]], considering it a duty to society to "die voluntarily and painlessly" when one reaches the point of becoming a 'burden'.<ref name="Kemp" /><ref name="Dowbiggin2007">{{cite book|author=Ian Dowbiggin|title=A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God, and Medicine|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CNigO7gMGkUC&pg=PA62|date=March 2007|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|isbn=978-0-7425-3111-6|pages=51, 62–64}}</ref> ''Popular Science'' analyzed the issue in May 1873, assessing both sides of the argument.<ref>{{Cite journal | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=-B8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA90 | title = Popular Science | last1 = Corporation | first1 = Bonnier | date = May 1873}}</ref> Kemp notes that at the time, medical doctors did not participate in the discussion; it was "essentially a philosophical enterprise&nbsp;... tied inextricably to a number of objections to the Christian doctrine of the sanctity of human life".<ref name="Kemp" />

=== Early euthanasia movement in the United States ===
{{Main|Euthanasia in the United States}}

[[Image:Felix-Adler-Hine.jpeg|thumb|right|upright|[[Felix Adler (professor)|Felix Adler]], {{Circa|1913}}, the first prominent American to argue for permitting suicide in cases of chronic illness]]
The rise of the euthanasia movement in the United States coincided with the so-called [[Gilded Age]], a time of social and technological change that encompassed an "individualistic conservatism that praised laissez-faire economics, [[scientific method]], and [[rationalism]]", along with major [[Depression (economics)|depressions]], industrialisation and conflict between corporations and labour unions.<ref name="Emanuel1994"/>{{rp|794}} It was also the period in which the modern hospital system was developed, which has been seen as a factor in the emergence of the euthanasia debate.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Pappas | first = Demetra | year = 1996 | title = Recent historical perspectives regarding medical euthanasia and physician assisted suicide | journal = British Medical Bulletin | volume = 52 | pages = 386–87 | issue = 2 | doi = 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a011554 | pmid=8759237| doi-access = free }}</ref>

[[Robert G. Ingersoll|Robert Ingersoll]] argued for euthanasia, stating in 1894 that where someone is suffering from a terminal illness, such as terminal cancer, they should have a right to end their pain through suicide. [[Felix Adler (professor)|Felix Adler]] offered a similar approach, although, unlike Ingersoll, Adler did not reject religion. In fact, he argued from an [[Ethical movement|Ethical Culture]] framework. In 1891, Adler argued that those suffering from overwhelming pain should have the right to commit suicide, and, furthermore, that it should be permissible for a doctor to assist – thus making Adler the first "prominent American" to argue for suicide in cases where people were suffering from chronic illness.<ref name="Dowbiggin">{{cite book | last = Dowbiggin | first = Ian | author-link = Ian Dowbiggin | year = 2003 | title = A merciful end: the euthanasia movement in modern America | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] | isbn = 978-0-19-515443-6 | pages = [https://archive.org/details/mercifulendeutha00dowb_0/page/10 10–13] | url = https://archive.org/details/mercifulendeutha00dowb_0/page/10 }}</ref> Both Ingersoll and Adler argued for voluntary euthanasia of adults suffering from terminal ailments.<ref name="Dowbiggin"/> Dowbiggin argues that by breaking down prior moral objections to euthanasia and suicide, Ingersoll and Adler enabled others to stretch the definition of euthanasia.<ref name="Dowbiggin2003p13">{{cite book | last = Dowbiggin | first = Ian | author-link = Ian Dowbiggin | year = 2003 | title = A merciful end: the euthanasia movement in modern America | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] | isbn = 978-0-19-515443-6 | page = [https://archive.org/details/mercifulendeutha00dowb_0/page/13 13] | url = https://archive.org/details/mercifulendeutha00dowb_0/page/13 }}</ref>

The first attempt to legalise euthanasia took place in the United States, when [[Henry Thomas Hunt|Henry Hunt]] introduced legislation into the [[Ohio General Assembly|General Assembly]] of [[Ohio]] in 1906.<ref name="Appel2004">{{cite journal | last = Appel | first = Jacob | author-link = Jacob M. Appel | year = 2004 | title = A Duty to Kill? A Duty to Die? Rethinking the Euthanasia Controversy of 1906 | journal = Bulletin of the History of Medicine | volume = 78 | issue = 3 | pages = 610–34 | doi = 10.1353/bhm.2004.0106 | pmid=15356372| s2cid = 24991992 }}</ref>{{rp|614}} Hunt did so at the behest of [[Anna Sophina Hall]], a wealthy heiress who was a major figure in the euthanasia movement during the early 20th century in the United States. Hall had watched her mother die after an extended battle with [[liver cancer]], and had dedicated herself to ensuring that others would not have to endure the same suffering. Towards this end she engaged in an extensive letter writing campaign, recruited [[Lurana W. Sheldon|Lurana Sheldon]] and [[Maud Ballington Booth]], and organised a debate on euthanasia at the annual meeting of the [[American Humane Association]] in 1905 – described by [[Jacob M. Appel|Jacob Appel]] as the first significant public debate on the topic in the 20th century.<ref name="Appel2004"/>{{rp|614–616}}

Hunt's bill called for the administration of an [[anesthetic]] to bring about a patient's death, so long as the person is of lawful age and sound mind, and was suffering from a fatal injury, an irrevocable illness, or great physical pain. It also required that the case be heard by a physician, required informed consent in front of three witnesses, and required the attendance of three physicians who had to agree that the patient's recovery was impossible. A motion to reject the bill outright was voted down, but the bill failed to pass, 79 to 23.<ref name="Emanuel1994">{{cite journal | last = Emanuel | first = Ezekiel | author-link = Ezekiel Emanuel | year = 1994 | title = The history of euthanasia debates in the United States and Britain | journal = Annals of Internal Medicine | volume = 121 | page = 796 | issue = 10 | doi = 10.7326/0003-4819-121-10-199411150-00010 | pmid = 7944057 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.732.724 | s2cid = 20754659 }}</ref>{{rp|796}}<ref name="Appel2004"/>{{rp|618–619}}

Along with the Ohio euthanasia proposal, in 1906 Assemblyman Ross Gregory introduced a proposal to permit euthanasia to the [[Iowa General Assembly|Iowa legislature]]. However, the Iowa legislation was broader in scope than that offered in Ohio. It allowed for the death of any person of at least ten years of age who suffered from an ailment that would prove fatal and cause extreme pain, should they be of sound mind and express a desire to artificially hasten their death. In addition, it allowed for infants to be euthanised if they were sufficiently deformed, and permitted guardians to request euthanasia on behalf of their wards. The proposed legislation also imposed penalties on physicians who refused to perform euthanasia when requested: a 6–12-month prison term and a fine of between $200 and $1,000. The proposal proved to be controversial.<ref name="Appel2004"/>{{rp|619–621}} It engendered considerable debate and failed to pass, having been withdrawn from consideration after being passed to the Committee on Public Health.<ref name="Appel2004"/>{{rp|623}}

After 1906 the euthanasia debate reduced in intensity, resurfacing periodically, but not returning to the same level of debate until the 1930s in the United Kingdom.<ref name="Emanuel1994"/>{{rp|796}}

Euthanasia opponent [[Ian Dowbiggin]] argues that the early membership of the [[Euthanasia Society of America]] (ESA) reflected how many perceived euthanasia at the time, often seeing it as a eugenics matter rather than an issue concerning individual rights.<ref name="Dowbiggin"/> Dowbiggin argues that not every eugenist joined the ESA "solely for eugenic reasons", but he postulates that there were clear ideological connections between the eugenics and euthanasia movements.<ref name="Dowbiggin"/>

===1930s in Britain===
The [[Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society]] was founded in 1935 by [[Killick Millard|Charles Killick Millard]] (now called Dignity in Dying). The movement campaigned for the legalisation of euthanasia in Great Britain.

In January 1936, [[George V of the United Kingdom|King George V]] was given a fatal dose of morphine and [[cocaine]] to hasten his death. At the time he was suffering from cardio-respiratory failure, and the decision to end his life was made by his physician, [[Bertrand Dawson, 1st Viscount Dawson of Penn|Lord Dawson]].<ref>{{cite journal | last = Ramsay | first = J H R | date = 28 May 2011 | title = A king, a doctor, and a convenient death | journal = [[British Medical Journal]] | volume = 308 | issue = 1445 | pmid = 11644545 | doi = 10.1136/bmj.308.6941.1445 | page = 1445 | pmc = 2540387 }}</ref> Although this event was kept a secret for over 50 years, the death of George V coincided with proposed legislation in the [[House of Lords]] to legalise euthanasia.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Gurney | first = Edward | year = 1972 | title = Is There a Right to Die – A Study of the Law of Euthanasia | journal = Cumberland-Samford Law Review | volume = 3 | page = 237 }}</ref>

=== Nazi Euthanasia Program ===
{{main|Aktion T4|Child euthanasia in Nazi Germany}}
[[File:Alkoven Schloss Hartheim 2005-08-18 3589.jpg|thumb|[[Hartheim Euthanasia Centre]], where over 18,000 people were killed]]
A 24 July 1939 killing of a severely disabled infant in [[Nazi Germany]] was described in a [[BBC]] "Genocide Under the Nazis Timeline" as the first "state-sponsored euthanasia".<ref name="July24"/> Parties that consented to the killing included Hitler's office, the parents, and the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registration of Serious and Congenitally Based Illnesses.<ref name="July24">[https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/nazi_genocide_timeline/index_embed.shtml Genocide Under the Nazis Timeline: 24 July 1939] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110805144040/http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/nazi_genocide_timeline/index_embed.shtml |date=5 August 2011 }} ''[[BBC]]'' Accessed 23 July 2011. Quotation: "The first state-sanctioned euthanasia is carried out, after Hitler receives a petition from a child's parents, asking for the life of their severely disabled infant to be ended. This happens after the case has been considered by Hitler's office and by the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registration of Serious and Congenitally Based Illnesses, whose 'experts' have laid down the basis for the removal of disabled children to special 'paediatric clinics'. Here they can be either starved to death or given lethal injections. At least 5,200 infants will eventually be killed through this programme".</ref> ''[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]]'' noted that the killing of the disabled infant—whose name was [[Gerhard Kretschmar]], born blind, with missing limbs, subject to convulsions, and reportedly "an idiot"— provided "the rationale for a secret Nazi decree that led to 'mercy killings' of almost 300,000 mentally and physically handicapped people".<ref name="casek1">{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1443967/Named-the-baby-boy-who-was-Nazis-first-euthanasia-victim.html|title=Named: the baby boy who was Nazis' first euthanasia victim|author=Irene Zoech|website=Telegraph.co.uk|access-date=4 July 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170908201139/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1443967/Named-the-baby-boy-who-was-Nazis-first-euthanasia-victim.html|archive-date=8 September 2017|date=11 October 2003}}</ref> While Kretchmar's killing received parental consent, most of the 5,000 to 8,000 children killed afterwards were forcibly taken from their parents.<ref name="July24"/><ref name="casek1"/>

The "euthanasia campaign" of mass murder gathered momentum on 14 January 1940 when the "handicapped" were killed with gas vans and at killing centres, eventually leading to the deaths of 70,000 adult Germans.<ref name=January14>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/nazi_genocide_timeline/index_embed.shtml Genocide Under the Nazis Timeline: 14 January 1940] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110805144040/http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/nazi_genocide_timeline/index_embed.shtml |date=5 August 2011 }} ''[[BBC]]'' Accessed 23 July 2011. Quotation: "The 'euthanasia campaign' gathers momentum in Germany, as six special killing centres and gas vans, under an organisation code-named T4, are used in the murder of 'handicapped' adults. Over 70,000 Germans will eventually be killed in this act of mass murder – it is the first time poison bas will be used for such a purpose".</ref> was a campaign of [[Homicide#By state actors|mass murder]] by [[involuntary euthanasia]] in [[Nazi Germany]]. Its code name [[Aktion T4]] is derived from {{lang|de|[[Tiergartenstraße]]}}&nbsp;4, a street address of the Chancellery department which recruited and paid personnel associated with the program.<ref name="casek1" /> Professor [[Robert Jay Lifton]], author of ''The Nazi Doctors'' and a leading authority on the T4 program, contrasts this program with what he considers to be a genuine euthanasia. He explains that the Nazi version of "euthanasia" was based on the work of [[Adolf Jost]], who published ''The Right to Death'' (Das Recht auf den Tod) in 1895. Lifton writes:

<blockquote>Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the ''individual's'' 'right to die' or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state's right to kill.&nbsp;... Ultimately the argument was biological: 'The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.' The state must own death—must kill—in order to keep the social organism alive and healthy.<ref>Basic Books 1986, 46</ref></blockquote>

In modern terms, the use of "euthanasia" in the context of Aktion T4 is seen to be a [[wikt:euphemism|euphemism]] to disguise a program of [[genocide]], in which people were killed on the grounds of "disabilities, religious beliefs, and discordant individual values".<ref name="Michalsen2006">{{cite journal |vauthors=Michalsen A, Reinhart K |title="Euthanasia": A confusing term, abused under the Nazi regime and misused in present end-of-life debate |journal=Intensive Care Med |volume=32 |issue=9 |pages=1304–10 |date=September 2006 |pmid=16826394 |doi=10.1007/s00134-006-0256-9|s2cid=21032497 }}</ref> Compared to the discussions of euthanasia that emerged post-war, the Nazi program may have been worded in terms that appear similar to the modern use of "euthanasia", but there was no "mercy" and the patients were not necessarily terminally ill.<ref name="Michalsen2006" /> Despite these differences, historian and euthanasia opponent [[Ian Dowbiggin]] writes that "the origins of Nazi euthanasia, like those of the American euthanasia movement, predate the Third Reich and were intertwined with the history of eugenics and Social Darwinism, and with efforts to discredit traditional morality and ethics."<ref name="Dowbiggin"/>{{rp|65}}

=== 1949 New York State Petition for Euthanasia and Catholic opposition ===
On 6 January 1949, the Euthanasia Society of America presented to the [[New York State Legislature]] a petition to legalize euthanasia, signed by 379 leading Protestant and Jewish ministers, the largest group of religious leaders ever to have taken this stance. A similar petition had been sent to the New York Legislature in 1947, signed by approximately 1,000 New York physicians. [[Roman Catholic]] religious leaders criticized the petition, saying that such a bill would "legalize a suicide-murder pact" and a "rationalization of the fifth commandment of God, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill.{{'"}}<ref name="Mercy Killing">[[The Moncton Transcript]]. "Ministers Ask Mercy Killing." 6 January 1949.</ref> The Right Reverend Robert E. McCormick stated that:
{{Blockquote|The ultimate object of the Euthanasia Society is based on the Totalitarian principle that the state is supreme and that the individual does not have the right to live if his continuance in life is a burden or hindrance to the state. The Nazis followed this principle and compulsory Euthanasia was practiced as a part of their program during the recent war. We American citizens of New York State must ask ourselves this question: "Are we going to finish Hitler's job?"<ref name="Mercy Killing"/>}}
The petition brought tensions between the American Euthanasia Society and the Catholic Church to a head that contributed to a climate of anti-Catholic sentiment generally, regarding issues such as birth control, eugenics, and population control. However, the petition did not result in any legal changes.<ref name="Dowbiggin"/>