19th century battlefield euthanasia

I'm reading a compilation of short stories by Ambrose Bierce. Best known, probably, for his Devil's Dictionary-- an excellent and unique work, by the way-- his short stories are well-crafted and usually somewhere between interesting and exciting to read.

In this anthology, the first half (or so) are ghost stories of one kind or another. The next batch are war stories, including his two most famous: "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" and "Chickamauga".

Today, I read "Coup de Grace" about a friend who encounters his dying friend on the aftermath of a Civil War battlefield. The story has one other key character and a twist for an ending. But the thing I want to focus on: Finding his friend mortally wounded and in great pain, he decides to put him "out of his misery".

This, of course, is euthanasia-- a topic of some import these days. But it occurred to me, more vividly than ever before, that euthanasia is quite context-specific. In the modern context, I had recognized the vital difference between choosing euthanasia for oneself and having it chosen for you! (These categories are commonly conflated.)

In Bierce's day, before incredible advances in medicine and transportation, often it was quite clear that someone would not live in such circumstances. Today, we take it for granted that virtually any condition can receive medical intervention-- just short of what would once have been seen as miraculous or utterly fantastic. In such cases, euthanasia today is quite a bit more troubling. But if your friend was clearly going to die and was in agonizing, unmitigated pain-- without the possibility of any medical attention-- couldn't that be the most loving thing to do?