Ethics Coursework

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

“An acceptance of voluntary euthanasia is incompatible with Christian belief in the sanctity of life but not with the attitude of some ethical philosophers or some medical practitioners.” Discuss.

In the year of 1989, Anthony Bland, a seventeen year old football player received severe head injuries from being crushed in a crowd at his team’s stadium. Parts of his brain were starved of oxygen and therefore he became unconscious although not brain dead. Unlike other cases similar to his own, a respirator was not needed so doctors decided that it would be better if he carried on living, even though he had effectively lost all his dignity. In 1993, courts eventually decided that there was no point carrying on his life through medical help, but only put this across as their own decision. Euthanasia derives from the Greek meaning ‘good death’ and is the practice of ending a persons suffering from a terminal illness. Although there have been many advances in medicine which help to delay a fast approaching death, many people see euthanasia as being the only option they can take in order to maintain their dignity from the disease. In this way, Euthanasia is a controversial and emotional subject which affects huge numbers of families who have a terminally ill relation. Even though many can clearly see why people would take this way out of pain, there are many groups of people who oppose the subject, from religious groups to the B.M.A (British Medical Association). In Britain, no type of euthanasia is conventional or legal, yet countries such as

Switzerland and Holland fully accept the practice. Many Christians express their views against Euthanasia because of their belief in the Sanctity of Life, which makes clear that no killing is acceptable or justifiable. Nevertheless, due to modern changes in society, many Christians are in line with the belief of the quality of a person’s life rather than the sanctity. Overall, we can see that Euthanasia is indeed compatible with the changes in our modern society but not with the traditional view of the sanctity of life which some Christians still hold.

There are four main categories euthanasia can fall into; active, passive, voluntary and involuntary, all of which have the same concept but involve slightly different actions. Active euthanasia includes specified drugs given to the patient, effectively taking the explicit pain away. Active Euthanasia can be seen as more immoral than Passive, which allows a person to die by turning off a life support machine or ceasing to give them medicine. This is seen as unsuccessfully trying to save a life, not actively giving their illness a catalyst.

This difference is a critical point for religious groups such as Catholics and some groups of Christians as they believe that passive Euthanasia is effectively murdering the patient as it intends to kill the person not save their life.

Voluntary Euthanasia involves the patients own decision to end their life with help of other individuals. Another term used for this type of Euthanasia is ‘Assisted Suicide’. The name indicates a more moral act as the patient obtains help for their death that they have ordered themselves, it is there own choice. However many people think there is a difference between the two as assisted suicide is performed by the patient themselves (obtaining medicine from others), making the other one appear a form of murder.

Many Christian churches also hold this view, one of them being the Evangelical Lutheran Church who, in 1992 stated that “once artificial nutrition stops contributing to an improvement in the patient’s underlying condition” it is practical and therefore justified to cease the patient’s treatment to allow them to die, an example of passive euthanasia. Although this type is accepted, they are still against active Euthanasia as it is “contrary to Christian conscience”.

However accepting this church may seem, most Christian groups are against the different types of Euthanasia, in which they relate back to the Sanctity of Life’. This belief represents the theory that all life is sacred and that God alone has the right to take our life away, as he is the creator. The traditional Christian beliefs concerning euthanasia and murder can sometimes be uncertain. Many Christians maintain that the taking of any life is opposing the will of God, despite the fact the person might want to die. This is still conceived as immoral. Many people believe that the Sanctity of Life contains many complications and debate is rife among in religious groups such as The Church of England. It maintains its opposition against practices of active Euthanasia, but is for the act of passive Euthanasia. In this way, the belief of the Sanctity of Life is in line with the beliefs of the Church.

The Sanctity of Life also expresses that “human life is intrinsically worthwhile”, elucidating that all human beings deserve life even if it is of a bad quality. This belief goes against the notion of Euthanasia because many people believe that a person’s quality of life is more important than life itself. Pope John Paul ll stated that “True compassion leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.” He suggests that the practice of Euthanasia is self-centred, an act where we think more of our own suffering than the patients.

Orthodox Christian views see the Bible as a guide to their lives and often refer back to its views on killing. A popular quote could be said to be “Thou Shalt not kill”, which is seen as self-explanatory, that you should not kill anything whatever the circumstances. Even though the Bible does not refer directly to the practice of Euthanasia, most Christians are against it, following that quote. However, some Christians believe that quotes such as “Love thy neighbour as thyself”, stated by Jesus could be interpreted to mean that Euthanasia would be the most loving thing to do. This concept was later explored by Joseph Fletcher in Situation Ethics.

The Catholic Church holds a parallel belief, It states that “we need not seek to preserve life at all costs” but “we must never directly attack human life". Like Christians, they believe that passive Euthanasia is not immoral because the drugs used are “the primary effect and the intention is to relieve pain, not to cause death”, a way described as the ‘Double effect’. It is compatible with the sanctity of life because the aim is not to kill the patient, which is in line with the Bible. Nevertheless, some Catholics believe that even this cannot justify Euthanasia, even ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Groups such as The Salvation Army place their beliefs generally in line with the above; however they state that Passive Euthanasia does not coincide with the sanctity of life, as God has not got complete authority over the patient’s life. The patient also has little control, making this view on the practice incompatible with the sanctity of life. They believe that care homes would be better suited to the terminally ill instead of Euthanasia and that humans cannot decide when they want to die, stating “only God is sovereign over life and death”. Overall, The Salvation Army’s beliefs cannot be in line with the practice of Euthanasia. The Church of England unlike the latter group believes that you have to consider the social aspects of Euthanasia as well as the medical ones. Pressure could become too much for elderly or extremely ill patients when the subject of Euthanasia is brought up. However The Salvation Army state that “people do not have a right to death by their own decision”, suggesting that human beings do not have the ability or right to control when they live or die, making it God’s decision.

One of the religious groups who supports Euthanasia are the Quakers, however among them are some who still disagree with the practice. A number believe that before using Euthanasia as a last resort, one should make clear that there are ways to extend their life, through care and medicine. On the other hand others are for the active use of Euthanasia, to end a patient’s pain and suffering. The Quaker’s state “accepting the fact of death, we are freed to live more fully” suggesting that, if we accept death will come eventually; we will improve our understanding and will learn to face it “openly with love”. These teachings are generally understood throughout the Quaker church but many still believe that caring for a patient in a hospice is better for the patient and the family. On the whole, Quakers fully accept the practice of Euthanasia, perhaps because their faith appears more liberal than others.

Generally, most Christian denominations contest against the practice of Euthanasia, because of the many Biblical teachings that urge against killing. They do however believe that if the patient is in so much pain, passive Euthanasia should be carried out as this ends the suffering not the life. Many would dispute that this is in line with the sanctity of life, as it does not truly intend to end a life, however others say it does exactly that, as the person knows what the end result will be. Overall the belief in the sanctity of life is in line with the passive form of Euthanasia, as one ‘looks over’ the fact that the patient is discarding the belief that God decides when they will die. On the other hand, it is not in line with active and voluntary Euthanasia as it is without doubt a rebuff of God’s moral authority on our death. Thus, this type of the practice cannot be in line with the sanctity of life.

Although the debate centres mostly on a religious perspective, many philosophers put forward their secular views. For instance, Peter Vardy suggests that the aged and ill who cannot care for themselves, should consider their carers and families. Would it be better for most if they were euthanized? On the other hand, many people could argue that the practice would be abused and many people would be murdered if euthanasia was made legal. Many ethical philosophers have applied their theories to the subject of Euthanasia. The philosopher Immanuel Kant stated, like many religious groups, that all Euthanasia is intrinsically wrong, as ending a life can never be justified. In theories such as Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham and J.S Mill put forward the idea that Euthanasia can be a good act as ending a patient’s pain can validate killing them.

A key point that is made poignant in the Euthanasia debate is the question whether allowing the patient to die is the same as murdering. Although this is a uncertain distinction, The Doctrine of Acts and Omissions tries to make the point clear. Simon Blackburn, a professor of philosophy at Cambridge states, ”The doctrine that it makes an ethical difference whether an agent actively intervenes to bring about a result, or omits to act in circumstances in which it is foreseen that as a result of the omission the same result occurs”. This clearly portrays that avoiding a good act is not wrong, but doing these actions could be seen as immoral. Some people disagree with this quote, a prime example being Jonathan Glover. He suggests that the doctrine is incorrect and leans towards the theory of Negative utilitarianism, where that goal is to abolish pain and suffering, not increase happiness.

Another ethical theory put forward is deontological ethics. It asserts that even good consequences that emerge from actions cannot validate the action itself. When we relate this to Euthanasia, it is clear that it is incompatible with the practice, as it allows doctors to help with the patient’s death, which in the eyes of deontologists is intrinsically wrong. Many would say that passive euthanasia is acceptable for them as the consequence as death is not ‘anticipated’. Other types of Euthanasia such as active and voluntary would never be accepted because they are so obviously meant to kill the patient. Popular proponents of deontology include Kant and John Locke who suggest that humans have duties and rights given to them so their actions can be analysed to show whether they are right or wrong, according to the duties.

Kant developed two groups of duties; contingent and categorical duties. He believes contingent duties need to be performed only at certain times whereas categorical ones must be done at all times whatever the circumstance. When related back to euthanasia, the act of killing could only be right if it was the same for every situation whatever the circumstances. John Locke holds a parallel view stating that our “actions are morally good if they respect our rights”.

Although Deontology appears plausible, there are many arguments against its views. The creator of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, argued that the theories and laws it says are ‘natural and unchanging’, are simply subjective, which do not give any evidence for it being universal. J.S Mill also suggested that humans and duties are incompatible with each other. People have the right to decide when they die, but their duty is not to kill, making the theory of deontology incompatible with euthanasia.

A number of philosophers are for the practice of euthanasia, one of them being Peter Singer. He brought up the issue surrounding many debates on this subject that if animals can be euthanized, why are humans treated differently? “ We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation… so why should we believe that the mere fact that a being who is a member of the species Homo Sapiens endows it’s life with some unique, almost infinite value?” This quote goes against Christian views that humans are supposed to eat animals and have “dominion” over them. They should not, in this way be treated as human beings are. Thomas Aquinas argued that even though we have this authority over the animal kingdom, we should not treat them with cruelty because this could lead to the bad treatment of humans. Christians believe that humans not animals have a soul and therefore ending an animal’s life is justified and killing a human is wrong. From a scientist’s point of view, a human should be of a much higher authority because of their more complicated anatomy and society. We have the capability to judge others feelings and are able to communicate in many more ways than the animal species.

Joseph Fletcher developed a theory called Situation Ethics which states that the most loving act is the right one, even in the case of Euthanasia. Fletcher suggested that Love and justice are the same, “for justice is love distributed, nothing else”, meaning that the most just thing to do is the most loving. He went on to say that “the end justifies the means “, which suggests that because the patient’s suffering has ended (by death) the mean is justified, in this case, the practice of Euthanasia. This theory is heavily criticized as we have to question what the most loving act is. Nevertheless, Fletcher appears to be for the practice of euthanasia making his views compatible with voluntary Euthanasia.

Other ethicists also agree with voluntary euthanasia, one of them being Jonathan Glover who, in Causing Death And Saving Lives, suggests that if we can accept suicide, we can accept the practice of voluntary euthanasia, as it is the patient’s decision. He maintains that euthanasia is a sensitive debate, but realises that some people want to commit suicide without them having a terminal illness. He states that these cases should be “set against the price we already pay in suffering and loss of autonomy”, which shows that if one believes that human rights rise above morality, then they are in agreement with euthanasia.

Overall, Kant and other deontological philosophers do not agree with the practice of euthanasia because the act in question consequentially leads to the killing of the patient, making it morally wrong. A more modern approach taken by Fletcher in situation ethics, allows an acceptance of euthanasia. This is done by his theory that “an end justifies the means”, suggesting that the human race has a greater independence over God’s authority and natural law. We can see that voluntary euthanasia is in line with the beliefs of some ethical philosophers; ones who believe that humans have an independence over their body and mind, not God.

As well as exploring the debate from an ethical and religious point of view, we have to consider the beliefs of Medical practitioners, because they are often the people who carry out the practice. Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath to save a persons life, even if they believe it is right for this person to die because of their suffering. The oath derives from Hippocrates and has been changed over the years including rules such as doctors cannot not practice abortions or teach medicine. In this way, euthanasia creates complicated problems. Even though they are bound to follow the oath, many doctors still believe euthanasia is the best way and therefore illegally use it in their work. An example is Dr Jack Kevorkian. Appalled by the suffering terminally ill patients had to endure; he made it his duty to allow patients to end their life, privately but illegally with him. He was arrested a number of times but this clearly displays the lengths some doctors will go to express their views on the laws. As such, some medical practitioners practice euthanasia even though they have an oath to follow. They prefer to make their patient’s view known, rather than follow the moral laws.

Another view can be taken from the British Medical Association which maintains that “the claimed ‘benefits’ of permitting euthanasia may be more theoretical than real”. They also state that doctors “appear to see a moral difference” when relating to the subjects of euthanasia and assisted suicide, which makes it clear that they do agree with the practice. To demonstrate this view, we can look at the case of Kelly Taylor. When she asked the European court of justice to authorize her death, a BMA representative stated that “there has been a tradition of trust between patients and doctors and they will always do their very best to keep their patients alive and make them better”. They furthermore suggested that ignoring the Hippocratic Oath’s rules will “certainly mean a considerable amount of difficulty for doctors trying to do the best for their patients”, hinting that the BMA, on the whole contests against euthanasia merely on practicality.

Despite the many doctors who oppose euthanasia, many also accept it. Studies have shown that 32% of doctors have practiced or would practice euthanasia if it were to be made legal, many suggesting that the law against it needed to be changed. These figures may be surprising to some people who know doctors have an oath they are bound to, however they may realise that these doctors are more concerned with the patient’s wishes, rather than the moral laws which are attached to them.

In conclusion, many can see that the euthanasia debate brings up many moral issues among religious and ethical groups alike. Following this, it can be difficult to differentiate between the different types of the practice, but also it is difficult to know when you have to disregard a person’s human rights. Most Christians and some deontologists are absolute in their beliefs, taking teachings out of the Bible so they can lead a moral life. Medical practitioners prefer to take a more practical view by following the Hippocratic Oath, although both sets of teachings lead to one ultimate rule: ‘Do not kill’.

On the other hand, others who do not believe that the Sanctity of life is more important than the quality are fully accepting of the practice of voluntary euthanasia. They maintain that a person’s right to the quality of life is more important than dragging there life out for longer but with more pain.

Overall, many would say that the practice is in line with some moral philosopher’s beliefs and also with some medical practitioner’s. We can see that more and more Christians are becoming for the practice and are against the sanctity of life, being more in favour for the quality. However, the problem remains with the sanctity of life demonstrating God’s power over us as His people. So in this way, the practice of voluntary euthanasia is not in line with the principle of the Sanctity of Life.

Bibliography:

Books:

Fletcher, J (1963) Situation Ethics

Gill, R (1998) Euthanasia and the Churches

Glover, J (1990) Causing Death and Saving Lives

The King James Bible

Vardy, P (1997) The Puzzle of Ethics

Wilcockson (1990) Issues of Life and Death

Wilcockson (1991) Issues of Death

Journals:

Paediatrics: Singer, Peter, “Sanctity of life or quality of life?”

Websites:

The Hillsborough Football Stadium Crush, Sheffield in 1989

In November 1993, the Netherlands parliament put into place new guidelines where doctors were able to give lethal injections to patients who suffered unbearable pain from their illness –Peter Singer

Wilcockson, Issues of Life and Death, 1991

http://www.religionfacts.com/euthanasia/christianity.htm

http://hbgdiocese.org/News%20Home%20Page/news_g.htm

The Bible, King James Version, Exodus 20:13

The Bible, King James Version, Matthew 19:19

Wilcockson, Issues of Death, 1991

Wilcockson, Issues of Life and Death, 1991

http://www2.salvationarmy.or.uk/uki/www_uki.nsf/vw-sublinks/

Wilcockson Issues of Life and Death, 1991

http://www.quaker.org.uk/Templates/Internal/

http://quakerscotland.gn.apc.org/aq.htm

http://www.quaker.org.uk/Templates/Internal/

Vardy, Peter, The Puzzle of Ethics, 1997

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/euthanasia/overview/activepassive_2.shtml

Glover, Jonathan, Causing Death and Saving Lives, 1990

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

Singer, Peter, Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life? Paediatrics. 1983

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas/ethics

Fletcher, Joseph, Situation Ethics, 1963

Glover, Jonathan, Causing Death and Saving Lives, 1990

The Hippocratic Oath derives from the name Hippocrates, an ancient Greek doctor in the 4th Century BC. All medical practices and professions are based on his views and practices

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Euthanasiaphysicianassistedsuicide-Summary

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6354997.stm

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/search?fulltext=euthanasia&x=4&y=6