A Study of Beliefs about Euthanasia between two religions: Unit 3B, Section 1.

 

However, not all killing can be wrong, if we follow God’s example.  In the Old Testament, we see that God killed the first-born babies in Egypt, including Pharaoh’s son.  This was the tenth and final plague to be cast amongst the Egyptians, to persuade Pharaoh to release Moses’ people.  God also killed the cows and sheep when the locusts and boils broke out, and then the fish died when the water turned to blood.  Therefore looking at God’s actions we can see that not all killing must be wrong.  However, in the examples above, killing was done as a way of releasing the slaves.  So maybe killing can only be justified when God feels it is right and necessary.  

"Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person." This is a quote used by Roman Catholics, demonstrating their absolute morality on killing.  They believe it is completely unacceptable to kill anyone else, because God said that it was wrong to.  Even when Anglicans may be persuaded that euthanasia is the best option for a person, out of love and compassion for a human, Catholics will not be convinced.  They believe that killing of any kind is wrong, no matter what the circumstances.  Also if euthanasia were to be carried out in this country, if the law found out then the person involved in the killing would be jailed for murder.  

This is such the case of Annie Lindsell in 1997.  She went to the High Court in London, to plead her case that her husband could end her life for her.  She has motor neurone disease, and was in great pain.  Her counsel, Lord Lester, had told the court she had only weeks to live, and her greatest fear was the prospect of suffocating or choking to death when breathing and swallowing became difficult. She had asked the court to rule that if this happened, her doctor could intervene and administer diamorphine - without fear of prosecution. The President of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir Stephen Brown, backed the decision to discontinue the action. He said he hoped doctors would feel their attention had been focused on an important part of their practice and the law. Ms Lindsell said the outcome was an important victory for patient autonomy and human rights and she hoped it would mean "brave doctors" would no longer have to fear prosecution from police.  (Source- BBC Online News)

Some Christians do, however, understand the need for care.  Regardless of the situation, Christians believe that we should respect every single human being, and therefore respect their decisions.  In Exodus 20, the Ten Commandments are listed, and when Jesus repeats one in Matthew 22:37-39, “Love your neighbour as yourself, this is the second and greatest commandment.”  He is saying we should love our fellow human being regardless, and take into account their feelings and wishes.  And therefore if someone wants to end their life, we have to respect their decision.  Some may say that this is not an effective way of showing love, that is, to kill them means that you love them.  Of course it isn’t, for if every time people fell in love then there would be an awful lot of murders going on.  I mean that if we truly love someone, regardless of our feelings of anxiety or hurt for when they are gone, we would be able to sympathise with their pain and discomfort in this world. This is why some Christians do believe in the goodness of euthanasia.  This is a situation ethical approach.  

Palliative Care is when we care for someone who is close to death, making his or her last few days alive as comfortable and as happy as possible.  Christians believe this is very important, so as to prepare them for when they reach heaven.   Therefore if someone wants to die, then Christians believe they should be treated with utmost respect and comfort.  Rather than try to persuade someone to re-think about ending his or her life, special Christian homes can try to prepare and relax the patient, ready for death.  Some homes hope that this will change the patient’s mind, that they will be at ease and their faith will keep them going.  The Bible would be read to them, things like John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”.  This means that whoever believes in Jesus will live with God in heaven forever.  When read to patients, priests and vicars hope to calm and make peace.  Because euthanasia is illegal anyway, no one wants people to feel like they want their life ended, so the best palliative care can be provided.   The value of hospice care is therefore very important to dying patients, where they can spend their last few weeks or days in comfort and around people they love.  

After having explored the religious beliefs of Christianity, I shall now explore the beliefs of Buddhism.

Buddhism

Before I explore the direct beliefs on euthanasia, I shall clarify the use of karma in the Buddhists everyday lives. Karma originally meant "action" in Sanskrit. Karma is the Buddhists doctrine of causality, the universal law that for every action there is an effect. Another important take on karma is that if you believe in it (as Buddhists do) then everything that happens in your life is literally your doing, or your "action". Thus your life and situation are entirely one's own responsibility.

By achieving good karma, a Buddhist can be reincarnated when he or she dies, and come back to life as something better.  For instance, after they have reached the human level of reincarnation, they will keep coming back as humans until their life has been lived as best they can. This is making spiritual progression until they can spiritually be the best they can. This can be done by bringing happiness and well being to others, and finally reach nirvana.  The attainment of nirvana is the goal of Buddhists. It is neither something nor nothing, it is uncreated, and it is the only unchanging state. Buddhism teaches that chain and transience creates suffering, so the absence of all suffering means attaining that which is unchanging.  This can often be described as a “transcendent-like” bond with the world.  In other words, seeing and understanding everything for what they really are as one, rather than focusing on one individual object alone.  

If good karma is reached in one life, the next life will have the quality of that achieved by the previous life.  Equally, if bad karma is gained in one life, then the quality of the next one will be worse than the previous.  It is therefore the Buddhist’s goal to do the best and self-less actions in his or her life.  

In this way, we can study how euthanasia can have different affects on karma.  Buddhists, like Catholics, are strongly against killing anything.  It is not uncommon to see Buddhist monks sweeping the road as they walk, to sweep away the tiny insects so they do not step on them.  Killing any living thing will end in bad karma, and so we would imagine Buddhist are against euthanasia due to this fact. There is no real Buddhist perspective on euthanasia. It's an individual matter.

Buddhists are also very much pro-life, and believe that doing well to others, and taking their feelings into consideration will undoubtedly receive good karma for their next life.  This point of view therefore, can confuse and somehow contradict the Buddhist’s view on euthanasia.  If killing is always wrong, but doing well to others is right, then where does killing someone to end their suffering fit in?

In Buddhism, they believe that someone suffers because they achieved bad karma, so in a way they deserve the pain they receive.  And so through meditation and pain-killing drugs, euthanasia shouldn’t be an issue because they can overcome the suffering by achieving good karma.  

However, in ancient scripts it shows the Buddha himself permitting suicide to take place (we could see this as a form of euthanasia) for Tibetan monks. So some people could say, well the Buddha allowed them to do it, which means that I am entitled to do it also!  This is a fair point, but the difference is that these were monks.  Therefore, they had reached the stage of enlightenment, and they could know or see what was good and bad, know between love and hate.  So in Buddhism, suicide (or euthanasia) could only be committed by enlightened people, because they will know what is originally right.  This enables others to follow their examples as monks, because enlightened monks will only do something for the good of someone else, as they know it is right.  

The near-life experience is what in Buddhism is called Samsara, which is the endless repetition of birth and death in the illusory enclosure of the ego. So long as we are not disillusioned of and with our ego, we will continue to live our life in a circular orbit of the Samsaric existence.  

Metta, usually translated as 'loving kindness', is a quality highly esteemed in Buddhism. Sometimes it is translated as 'good will' but 'loving kindness' seems to capture the spirit of the word more comprehensively - it's about giving oneself selflessly to others, without enmity, without cruelty. Metta is about developing an attitude of mind in which one desires the welfare of all others. But it is also about expressing this in active ways. This doesn't mean that we get up one morning and set about changing the world in some sort of highly dramatic fashion (though of course, there's room for that!), it's more about bringing this selfless attitude into one's daily affairs - the way one interacts with colleagues at work, or with one's family, or even with people we meet on a casual basis. It's trying to get this attitude of mind to permeate everything we do.

So therefore for Buddhism, I think there is no real answer to whether euthanasia is right or wrong.  For monks, it will be right whatever they do, as they are enlightened and so know what is good and bad.  Therefore they know whatever the decision, it will be the correct and most peaceful one.  However for normal Buddhists, it cannot be that simple.  I think if I were Buddhist, I wouldn’t look outside for answers; I would use my knowledge and understanding of my religion to decide for myself.  For instance, if the dying person was in a lot of pain, and was begging me to kill them, then I think I would have a moral obligation to fulfil their wish.  Although I would suffer the consequences of such an action through bad karma, if I was a committed Buddhist I would be able to overcome the badness and by putting someone before myself I would have achieved good karma.  It would be very hard, of course, however I think that if in the long-term they will just continue to deteriorate, then as I am Buddhist and it is in my nature to bring peace and harmony to others, I would have to let them free.

Since Buddhists believe in reincarnation the manner of death is of great importance.  Bad karma may affect anyone who helps.  

Conclusion

Following on from the understanding of the two religions two main points can be drawn out from the essay. In Christianity, the vast majority are against euthanasia.  Not only does it disobey God’s wishes of “loving your neighbour” but it also puts Christians in a position of playing God, and therefore going against His plans.  Also euthanasia is illegal, and as Christians are good people, violating the governmental law would be a serious sin in itself.  Through the passages listed in the Bible, we can see that Christians follow God’s wishes, such as “Do not kill” and so I think the majority would put God’s rules before morals.

In contrast, Buddhists cannot take the point of view that killing someone would be against God’s wishes, because they don’t believe in a god.  Instead, being kind and considerate to others lets them receive good karma, and so helps them with their next life.  In this way, euthanasia can be looked upon as good or bad, depending on the context of it.  As a Buddhist, it is very important to die with dignity and naturally.  Euthanasia isn’t natural, quite the opposite!  So therefore a high majority of monks would be against it, however in the end it would be a personal decision.    

Bibliography

“The New Testament and Psalms”, Gideons International

“Good News Bible”, The Bible Society/Harper Collins 1994

“Buddhism, A New Approach”, Steve Clarke & Mel Thompson, Hodder & Stoughton

 

---