Religion Unplugged believes in a diversity of well-reasoned and well-researched opinions. This piece reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent those of Religion Unplugged, its staff and contributors.

(OPINION) By count of the Death with Dignity organization — which devised Oregon’s pioneering 1997 law under which 1,905 lives have been ended as of Jan. 22 — 10 states plus the District of Columbia have legalized euthanasia. And assignment editor’s note: 14 more states are currently debating such proposals.

To begin, writers dealing with this perennial and newly current issue should be aware of the verbal politics surrounding what’s variously known as “euthanasia” (from the Greek word meaning “good death”), “the right to die,” “death on demand,” “assisted suicide,” “physician-assisted suicide” or “mercy killing.” The activists who use the “pro-choice” label dislike any blunt mention of “suicide” or “killing” and urge instead that we use “physician-assisted death,” “aid in dying” or “death with dignity.”

Coverage by some media outlets, to be blunt, replaces nonpartisanship with cheerleading.

Britain’s The Economist had this mid-November cover headline: “The welcome spread of the right to die.” However, to its credit, the news magazine’s editorial and international survey did summarize problems and opposing arguments.

A Nov. 16 New York Times roundup on U.S. action — ”For Terminal Patients, the Barrier to Aid in Dying Can Be a State Line” — reported that in addition to states newly legislating death by choice, states that already permit it are weighing further liberalization, such as ending in-state residency requirements, shortening or waiving waiting periods, dropping the mandate that only physicians handle cases, requiring one request be filed rather than two or more and implementing other steps to streamline the process.

Reporters can find nonreligious arguments in favor of death by choice from Death With Dignity, cited above. It also recommends procedures to avoid abuse of this right. On the con side, pleas and cautions can be obtained from various disability rights organizations.

On that score, psychiatrist-turned-journalist Charles Krauthammer, a nonpracticing Jew, spent much of his adult life paralyzed from the waist down. In a 1997 Washington Post column, he critiqued the evolving euthanasia regime in the Netherlands because, in practice, patients were being put to death without full, well-considered consent, and the majority of cases did not involve the unremitting pain that is the chief argument made by proponents.

Turning to religion, the Unitarian Universalist Association stands out for its pro-euthanasia ardor. As early as 1988, it advocated full self-determination because human life’s “inherent dignity” may be “compromised when life is extended beyond the will or ability of a person to sustain that dignity … (if) there is no reasonable expectation of recovery from extreme physical or mental disability.”

The opposite stance, of course, is classically articulated by the Roman Catholic Church, as in papally-endorsed declarations from the Vatican’s doctrinal office in 1980 and 2020. At its core, the church teaches that all human life is “a sacred and inviolable gift” and that it is sinful “to take the place of God in deciding the moment of death.”

But there are shadings in these documents that some in the news media miss.

The Vatican also states that “one cannot think of physical life as something to preserve at all costs.” For instance, in a speech the month before he died in 1958, former Pope Pius XII taught that with the patient’s consent, “it is permissible to use narcotics in moderation, which will alleviate his suffering, but also lead to a faster death” because such death “is not directly wanted.” This is what’s known in moral theology as secondary effect.

Nor, in the Vatican’s view, are patients and doctors required to apply “extraordinary and-or disproportionate means” that “provide only a precarious or painful extension of life.” Their suspension is licit and must be distinguished from direct euthanasia or suicide. Writers will want to carefully examine these church pronouncements.

A related story theme: If government-authorized death by poison operates effectively in Oregon and elsewhere, why have other states been unable to find a humane method for legal execution?

Richard Ostling is a former religion reporter for The Associated Press and former correspondent for TIME Magazine. This piece first appeared at Get Religion.