In the movie Saving Private Ryan, after the Americans are able to scale the cliffs, they begin to assult the machine gun bunkers with grenades and flame throwers. Some of the German soldiers, on fire from the flame throwers, jump out of the forward slits and in front of some of the Americans still on Omaha beach. Their NCO (or officer) tells them to hold them fire, "Let them burn." (A paraphrase.) Might it be that they would not be allowed to shoot them in order to euthanize them? One cannot take away the life of those who are innocent, even for a "good end" such as to relieve them from further pain and suffering. But what of enemy soldiers? If it is lawful to take their lives in defense of a community, then might it not also be lawful to euthanize them in order to prevent them from suffering even further?
However, it seems that one is permitted to kill enemy soldiers, not in order to take their lives, but in order to neutralize them. If they have been neutralized, i.e. incapacitated, by being set on fire, or rendered ineffective as a threat (and thus ready to be taken prisoner) then to kill them would be wrong, and considered a war crime. How then can euthanasia be acceptable in this case, if the act itself is wrong, regardless of its further purpose? It would seem that the prohibition against euthanasize is absolute, applicable even to enemy soldiers during war.
Of course, one can ask if the use of flame throwers and other weapons which seriously maim or injure and cause great suffering go against Christian charity.
