The author begins with a statement on the difficulties concerning the approach to euthanasia within the context of a medical, social, psychological, legal, but also an existential dilemma. That which Bacon had once called euthanasia did not imply a voluntary application of some sort of artificial method which might accelerate or momentarily induce the biological processes of death. At the beginning of the 20th century it was understood that euthanasia meant a very concrete action leading to a decisive termination of a patient’s life. The rapid progress of medicine and technology are intensifying the dilemma between passive, indirect or active, willing or unwilling euthanasia. However, in most recent times the request for euthanasia is viewed within the context of the consumer culture and easy living. The author links this phenomenon with the postmodern system of neo-liberal economy and technocratic organization through which both the emptiness of meaning in man, and the culture of Oblivion have come to be manifested. The question of euthanasia is also linked with a purely economic parameter. Orthodox theology does not see the fact of life as a fortuitous “accident” in nature. Among all living beings only personal hypostases, these being human beings, are called to freely realize their lives as a fact of a mutual personal communion and the personal communion with the uncreated God. Christian notion of “soft dying” (εὐ θνήσκειν) is to be understood very differently in relation to the so called humanistic “euthanasia”. The Church opposes that sort of euthanasia which directly terminates life when there are still means to preserve it. She sees it as a sort of a suicide or homicide, depending on each case. However, she prays and cares that the ending to man’s life should be “painless, blameless, peaceful…” In its “prayer for the dying” the Orthodox Church, beyond all juridical and moralistic criteria, prays for death to occur as soon as possible because of her own sorrow at witnessing the suffering of an ailing person. The author feels that the issue of euthanasia can not be solved by its “imposition” or “prohibition”. He advocates a philanthropic position which takes into consideration the terminally ill person and supports him/her to the very end in all dimensions of his/her biologic