Having seen the film, that is where I disagree. The priest, for one, is not shown as being wrong or as holding Eastwood back. The euthanasia is not presented as being the right thing to do. Yes, Eastwood makes the decision to go through with it, defying the priest, but the priest is not viewed as wrong in the film, and Eastwood's character isn't considered redeemed by the act, nor is he as having made the right choice. It's the decision he made, and the audience can decide whether he was wrong if they wish to. I think he was wrong. I'm morally against euthanasia. But I don't think this film takes any sort of stance in favor of euthanasia, but instead presents it as part of the story.
Anyway, that's my take on the film.
But salvation is not his to give or take. As human beings, we either believe that all things, suffering included, are given to us by God for a reason, or else we're adrift on our own on planet earth.
Read "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis.
I knew a woman whose husband had Huntington's Chorea, diagnosed after they had children. After she nursed her husband night and day for years until he died, she then nursed her three children night and day for 20 more years until they, too, died from the hereditary disease.
She did not ever once think of killing them, even though they became completely vegetative. She did not think of killing herself.
She knew, every second of every day, that one day they would all be together again -- whole, strong and happy in Paradise.
Would that Eastwood had even a tiny bit of that faith.
Isn't it against the law to kill a person like that?