I think most physicians interpret it that way, yes.
ETA: My mother practiced in the UK, where doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath, but there’s a similar provision in the Medical Council’s oath-thing.
The part in the original oath would be “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel,” though few doctors take that oath nowadays.
Many people on this thread are obfuscating, intentionally or not, the differences between euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and withholding futile care. Doctors are not obligated to keep people alive in excruciating pain without any hope of cure, and in fact most would see that as unethical. They regularly withhold futile treatment, and provide terminally ill patients with sufficient opiates to alleviate their pain even if it might hasten the patients’ death, although studies show that opiates don’t cause as much respiratory depression in terminally ill patients as we used to think.
When terminally ill patients with zero quality of life are being kept alive by extreme measures, this is often due to the family’s insistence. If the family (or power of attorney) consents, there is no legal reason to provide futile care.
I realize that futile care is not given in most cases.
I also saw an uncle die of cancer who, despite being doped to the gills with pain medication was still in considerable pain. His wife pleaded with the doctors to provide more medication and they told her they could not give any more without killing him. (I was in the hospital witnessing all this)
Mind you, when I say “deathbed” here I mean it. Short of divine intervention it was abundantly obvious to everyone, doctors included, this was the end for him. It was just going to be a matter of hours (from a couple of hours to a day or so).
Note that due to his level of pain and level of pain killers the man was largely unconscious and when conscious he was delirious.
At the very end there he lasted about 12 hours in massive pain that, frankly, was entirely unnecessary except doctors are prohibited from helping him along.
I think those differences are simply not so clear as we would wish. I’ve heard (unresolved, to the participants) debates about exactly how much assistance a physician can provide before the act becomes euthanasia.
IANAC, but isn’t the sin of murder potentially redeemable? Maybe I’m wrong, but ISTR there aren’t many irreversibly mortal sins, except for suicide (which is only a problem since you’re no longer around to receive atonement.)
And speaking of mortal sins…
Umm, kanicbird – I think that’s a violation of Exodus 20:1. To be safe, you should probably sacrifice a live rooster. 
Indeed, and I think this important so we all know what we’re talking about. To me, when we talk about euthanasia of pets and then see if we want to do that to people, we are saying that we are making the decision FOR the patient, WITHOUT the patient’s consent. That’s VERY different from physician assisted suicide, which is obviously done WITH the patient’s consent.
We’ve done some threads on this around here in the past and, IIRC, the Catholic church no longer views suicide as an unforgivable sin.
Maybe I’ll start a pit thread. I think its stupid to pretend that I can’t buy a dog if you make adopting one that fucking difficult. It almost seems like they’'d rather euthanize a dog than take a chance on a family that wants to adopt an older dog.
You probably should start a new thread rather than hijack this one.
The short answer is the adoption agency cares about the welfare of the animal and want to try their best to ensure the animal gets a good home. Having people just plop $200 and walk out with the dog does not work well in the end. Older dogs are all different where some do well with a family (read young children are present), some do well with other pets and others don’t. In the end it is a good policy for both the dog and the would-be owner.