An Analysis of the Moral and Religious Issues Raised by Euthanasia
An Analysis of the Moral and Religious Issues Raised by Euthanasia
The term Euthanasia comes from two Greek words - eu meaning 'well' and thanatos meaning 'death' and means 'painless, happy death'. Some definitions broaden this to mean the practice of mercifully ending a person's life in order to release the person from an incurable disease, intolerable suffering, or undignified death.
Euthanasia has been accepted in some forms by various groups or societies throughout history. In ancient Greece and Rome helping others die or putting them to death was considered permissible in some situations. For example, in the Greek city of Sparta newborns with severe birth defects were put to death. Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly was an approved custom in several ancient societies. However, as Christianity developed and grew powerful in the West, euthanasia became morally and ethically abhorrent and was viewed as a violation of God's gift of life.
When medical advances made prolonging the lives of dying or comatose patients possible, the term euthanasia was also applied to a lack of action to prevent death. In other words, euthanasia involves the purposeful termination of life by direct action, such as lethal injection, or by an omission, such as starvation or dehydration.
Euthanasia can be divided into four categories:
* Suicide - This is self-administrated euthanasia. Suicide is not illegal, although it may be considered morally wrong, but helping someone to commit suicide is illegal.
* Voluntary Euthanasia - This is carried out at the request of the person who wishes to die, but is not able to commit suicide, or for a person who is no longer able to ask to die, but has left prior instructions that he or she wishes to be helped to die in certain circumstances.
* Involuntary Euthanasia - This is when someone is killed in order to save him of her additional suffering, but when in spite of being able to ask to die, the person has not actually done so. Like a child's visit to the dentist, it is imposed for his or her own good but against his or her wishes.
* Non-voluntary Euthanasia - This is the killing of someone who is not in a position to ask to live or die. E.g. a person who is in a long-term coma following severe brain damage.
Each religion has its own viewpoints concerning euthanasia. These views returning to the ancient writings of the religions founders. This subject of euthanasia is so much discussed, it indicates that people of whatever religion or no religion believe that having a good death is important. But the various religions and philosophers disagree about what constitutes a good death, with their views rooted in their respective value systems.
Many people believe that euthanasia offers a good death and is a fundamental human right, an expression of the freedom to live and make decisions according to one's own conscience and for one's own good. Some might call this a liberal view point and others would describe it as Humanist, Humanism being the belief that all morality and value is grounded in the autonomous human person, and that there is therefore no need for any supreme being to legislate for people or guide them. In the Humanist view, to opt for euthanasia is the right of free persons, ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Many people believe that euthanasia offers a good death and is a fundamental human right, an expression of the freedom to live and make decisions according to one's own conscience and for one's own good. Some might call this a liberal view point and others would describe it as Humanist, Humanism being the belief that all morality and value is grounded in the autonomous human person, and that there is therefore no need for any supreme being to legislate for people or guide them. In the Humanist view, to opt for euthanasia is the right of free persons, not something to be imposed on the unwilling. This view is the complete opposite to that held by many of the traditional world religions.
The Christian view, which is generally shared by Muslims and Jews, is one of absolute morality, that persons do not own their lives but that their lives belong to God. Thus it is not right that any person should take their own life or that of another person for any reason. Christians believe that the taking of life belongs to God and that he has a purpose for each individual and that this purpose can only be achieved if that person lives their life to the full span.
One denomination of Christians, The Roman Catholic Church holds as sacred both the dignity of each individual person and the gift of life. Therefore, the following principles are morally binding: First, to make an attempt on the life of or to kill an innocent person is an evil action. Second, each person is bound to lead his life in accord with God's plan and with an openness to His will, looking to life's fulfilment in heaven. Finally, intentionally committing suicide is a murder of oneself and considered a rejection of God's plan. For these reasons, the Second Vatican Council condemned "all offences against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and wilful suicide. Pope Paul VI summed up one Christian position in these words, 'Euthanasia is a temptation, in effect, to take the life of a man under the false pretext of giving him a pleasant and quiet death so as not to see him live a life of atrocious agony. Without the consent of the person euthanasia is murder. His consent would make it suicide. Morally, this is a crime which cannot become legal by any means.' Other churchmen , particularly the Quakers, argue that God has given us the capacity to reason and we should use that reason to the best of our ability.
Believers differ among themselves about whether God controls the actual moment of death, some believe that God decides on the time at which an individual dies, a position taken by Muslims. This view rests on the belief known as classical theism, that God controls everything that happens in the world.
Islamic followers believe the sanctity of human life is a basic value as decreed by God even before the times of Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. Commenting on the killing of Abel by his brother Caine (the two sons of Adam), God says in the Quran: "On that account We ordained for the children of Israel that if anyone slay a person -unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land- it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people" (Quran 5:32). The Quran also says: "Take not life which Allah made sacred otherwise than in the course of justice" (Quran 6:151 and 17:33). Clearly Muslims do not practice euthanasia because it goes against their moral laws,
Jewish ethics value healing and the preservation of life as important goods and as activities mandated by God. The Talmud makes it clear that he who shoots a man as he falls off a cliff to certain death is guilty of murder, even though he shortened his victims life by just a few seconds. Nothing should be done to shorten a person's life neither should anything be done to prolong agony. Jewish law forbids euthanasia in all forms, and it is considered an act of homicide, but if something will ease someone's last hours even though it accelerate his or her death, that may be acceptable. The life of a person is not "his" - rather, it belongs to the One Who granted that life. It may , therefore, be reclaimed only by the true Owner of that life. Despite one's noble intentions, an act of mercy-killing is flagrant intervention into a domain that transcends this world.
Hinduism, generally speaking, also respects all forms of life and negative attitudes against unnecessary killing give little scope for the justifications of euthanasia. A prominent Hindu attitude here is to say that the terminally ill individual has to wait until the 'right' time has come for him or her to die (kala). Those that care for the terminally ill may well seek to lessen pain and suffering, but in principle they have no right to end another person's life. However, the individual conscience of the terminally ill individual allows for radical solutions. The Hindu concept of a 'good death' and a 'willed death' are relevant. In the former, a person prepares for death having finished all earthly business, in a 'willed death' people who are old and weak, but not terminally ill may virtually wait until death arrives, refusing to take any food or drink; suicide may be morally and ethically acceptable to Hindus in a number of situations.
The Hindu view of a voluntary death as a penance, or as an honourable way out of a life spoilt by a serious crime or sin has also been seen to be acceptable in Christian societies.. In some instances there appears to be a moral duty to commit suicide, thus sparing the ruler of having to impose the death penalty for a very grave violation.
Christianity does not accept that the right to life is an option-right. Option-rights are rights such as the right to marry or to own property which we do not have to use. If we were to treat the right to life as an option right we would be implying that a life can lose its value. This is in contradiction of the Christian principle that every human life possesses value to God and that it should, therefore possess value for every human being.
Clearly no Christian could accept that individuals may freely end their lives, even if they are unhappy in them, for they believe that human life ought to be committed to God and lived for His purposes. However, very few people want to take their own lives and it is usually when there is some serious problem that euthanasia is suggested. In such cases the principle that we should work to end pain and misery are put forward in support of euthanasia. But then comes the question of who is really alive? With the advance of medical science this has become a significant question in the case of coma victims, particularly those suffering from PVS (persistent vegetative state).
It is at this stage that the question arises, how does one define 'quality of life' and the value of life'? A positive attempt to these moral and ethical questions was made by Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the hospice movement. The movement has become a Christian alternative to euthanasia. As a result of her love for a terminally ill man, she realised that there was an acute need for deeper caring for the dying. Too often hospitals and doctors turned aside from dying patients, perhaps to shield themselves from the pain of having failed to cure them. She wondered whether a environment where the individual could be cared for as a person with spiritual as well as physical and social needs to be taken care of, would enable more people to die in peace. She hi-lighted the need to control pain but also showed that where the whole person is cared for body ,mind and spirit, the quality of that patient's remaining life is greatly enriched, bringing relief and comfort not only to the patient but also to the patient's family. Hospices relieve the pain, physical and emotional of the dying and help them to meet death in dignity and peace.
Euthanasia is both a moral and a political question. All religions have to ask whether they can take on the rights of God to end life, and, if so, in what situations and under what conditions. The Christian answer will take into account that Christians do not see suffering in this life as an ultimate evil to be avoided even by bringing on the death of the sufferer. Most of today's religions do not approve of the use of euthanasia as it goes against their fundamental principle that life is God-given and his to take away. However, with the advance of medical science during the past century, the issue has become more and more openly discussed and allowances are being made in certain cases.
There is also the political question that there are people in our society who agree with euthanasia. Should those with strong religious beliefs try to legally prevent others from living according to their consciences or should they allow others their freedom of conscience and acknowledge the 'right of the individual'?
In recent years modern medical advances have brought about a blurring of the previously black and white arguments and have produced a new grey area where the additional ethical questions of 'the quality of life rather than the 'value of life' seem to take precedent. Medical progress may help to relieve suffering but it also raises moral issues for those with strong religious beliefs and ethical problems for those in the medical profession - those who, at the start of their careers, took the Hippocratic oath to "do everything possible to preserve and restore life and not to take it".
As scientific knowledge becomes more and more advanced, euthanasia continues to cause many religious arguments, but it is discussed more openly between religious and non-religious groups. Modern scientific methods challenge the views of many religious people. In today's society human beings seem to have greater power over life and death than ever before, and the question remains, 'is it right' for humans to make such decisions?
1.
