There is a difference between this death and the so-called mercy killing. There might be a man who is suffering from great pains and could die in 6 months or even a month. In this case, it is impermissible to kill him even if he or his family asks us to. We do not have an authority over a man's life, and the man himself is not authorized to end his life, for medicine can discover after an hour or a day…. something that can ease his pains or save his life.

Therefore, mercy killing is meaningless in such a case. It might be merciful at one particular moment, so if judged by the entire life. It could even be the opposite of mercy.

As for the end of life, and the cessation of treatment in fatal illnesses, we say that this means to leave the sick person to die without saving him, which contradicts the theory of respecting human life. You have to leave life to defend itself or terminate itself. And you do not have the right to end a human life, whether you were the doctor or the patient.

The point I'd like to make concerning mercy killing from the point of view of medical ethics is that: In the Islamic ethical theory, and probably in Christianity as well, Religion not only protects man from others but also from himself. As it is impressible to kill someone else, it is impermissible to kill yourself. The principle is the same: To respect life in both cases. We are not talking here about dead people or even plants; we are talking about life. It is impermissible to kill a human being because it is impermissible to kill life.

Therefore, there is no difference between the life of the other and my own life.

I do not own this life, which is a gift from Allah that He has entrusted me with. Not only do I not have the permission to end my life , but also to cause myself any harm, physical or otherwise. This is what we explained in our Fatwa of prohibiting smoking that may cause cancer, even if after several years.

Morals can not be divided. It is not only what you practice with others but also with yourself… Thus, when you do not treat a person of a fatal illness, you are killing him in a negative way. And there is no difference between negative killing and positive killing. You have to preserve the life of the others as you preserve yours.

I cannot understand how could killing be merciful. Death is by its physical nature cruel, because it takes your life and turns you into a thing. It confiscates yours life and your existence. Therefore, you do not have the right to kill yourself, because suicide is a sin:

Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves:4:29

It is impermissible for the patient to ask his doctor for a shot to end his life, just as it is impermissible for the doctor to respond to his plea, for he has no authority over his patient’s life.

Then, when those who talk about mercy killing justify it by the physical pains of the patient. If we legalize this we should also legalize it for those who have psychological pains and believe that death to them is better then life.

We also have to legalize for a girl who experiences an emotional shock or for the businessman who might be bankrupt.. etc. When we accept the principle we cannot confine it to one circle. A man who has physical pains is much the same as the one who spiritual or psychological pains. Moreover, psychological pains might inflict greater suffering than physical pains. Can we then legalize what ends the life of man?

On the other hand, why do we prejudge the potentials of medicine? Is it not possible that just one hour after a person's death, it will discover a treatment for the illness that caused his death, since all medical discoveries, before they were put in practice, were much needed by many fatally sick people. Let us leave life to defend itself.

If we live pain, we can resort to the spiritual values that would support us and ease our pains.