The legal response to euthanasia continues to be hotly debated across the disciplines; Law, ethics, medicine and religion. At present the legal position can be roughly summarised as follows. There is a flat prohibition against active euthanasia, that is killing any person, even with his consent, no matter how painful or terrible his condition is. The law regards life as sacred, and it will punish for murder anyone who kills another individual or even hastens death by active means, be it by blows, strangulation, shock, starvation, injection or poison. The “malice” of the criminal law depends on knowledge of the consequences, and it is not dimmed, no matter how lofty or noble the motive of the actor.
Euthanasia is the practise of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering, it is also often referred to as "Mercy killing". The term is sometimes used generally to refer to an easy or painless death. Voluntary euthanasia involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. Passive or negative euthanasia involves not doing something to prevent death, or allowing someone to die, active or positive euthanasia involves taking deliberate action to cause a death.
Voluntary euthanasia is when a person is:
- Suffering from a terminal illness
- Unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy.
- As a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (because the illness has to ve treated in ways which lead him or her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support)
- Has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to die in the event that the conditions shown in the first three points are satisfied)
- Unable without assistance to commit suicide, then there should be legal and medical provision to enable her to be allowed to die or assisted to die.
The legal response to euthanasia continues to be hotly debated across the disciplines; Law, ethics, medicine and religion. At present the legal position can be roughly summarised as follows. There is a flat prohibition against active euthanasia, that is killing any person, even with his consent, no matter how painful or terrible his condition is. The law regards life as sacred, and it will punish for murder anyone who kills another individual or even hastens death by active means, be it by blows, strangulation, shock, starvation, injection or poison. The “malice” of the criminal law depends on knowledge of the consequences, and it is not dimmed, no matter how lofty or noble the motive of the actor.
The word euthanasia stems from the Greek word “eu” which means well or easy and “thanatos” which means death.
A (ii) Outline the biblical teaching relevant to a discussion of these two issues.
Psalm 139 13-16
This verse is praising god for creating mankind. It shows that it is in fact god who created us, and that by practising euthanasia, you are interfering with his divine plan, as the phrase “You knit me together in my mother’s womb” explains, this phrase show that god has placed you in your mother’s womb, and therefore intends for you to stay there.
The word knit is significant because it makes the impression that god didn’t simply “place” you in the womb. He carefully secured you there, intending for you to grow into a human being. By ignoring this and carrying out abortion, i.e. taking the child out of the womb, you are rejecting god. And putting life in your hands.
“All the days ordained for me”. This shows that god has intended you to live each day of your life until he decides to take it away from you. By practising euthanasia, you are shortening the person’s life, and therefore are interfering with god, and not allowing the person to live their last days as god intended them to. Only god can choose when it is your time to leave this earth.
“My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place” and “Your eyes saw my unformed body”. Both of these phrases are saying that even when you are just a foetus in the womb, god knows you and has a relationship with you.
Another teaching, similar to this one, which states that life begins in the mother’s womb, and that god placed you there. Jerimiah 1:5 states, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”
Job 1 v21
This passage almost defines Christian teachings on euthanasia and abortion. It discusses the teaching that god has given you life, and therefore it is not your responsibility or right to take it away.
“The lord gave and the lord has taken away”. This talks about the issue of euthanasia, by taking someone’s life you are “acting the part of god”, as he is supposed to decide when to take your life away. By trying to “act the part of god” you are comparing yourself to god, which Christians consider as blasphemy.
The use of the word naked is also significant in this passage. One interpretation of this could be that even when you are in your mother’s womb, god can see you for what you are, he knows all of your thoughts, and you can’t hide anything from him. I.e. you are naked of any disguises in front of god. So god is just as close with you when you are born to when you die. “Naked I will depart”.
1 Corinthians v3 16-17
This passage states that by killing an unborn child by abortion or killing a diseased person by euthanasia, you are destroying a part of god.
It suggests that by him making you, you are god’s temple, and therefore part of god. He has “built” you, and so his spirit lives in you. By harming his sacred temple or spirit you are committing a sin.
There is also a word of warning in this passage, “if anyone destroys god’s temple, god will destroy them”. This underlines the importance of the message that the body and soul is sacred and by harming the body you are also harming the soul.
A temple is a holy place of worship, which should be treated with respect, by destroying god’s place of worship (your body) you are showing no respect to god and are rejecting his holiness.
The 6th Commandment:
“Thou shalt not kill”
The ten commandments are god’s fundamental teachings which Christians should try to live their life by.
You can interpret one of these teachings to the issue of abortion and euthanasia. Both abortion and euthanasia are forms of ending a human being’s life (killing them), and therefore are strictly going against this commandment, that states that you shouldn’t kill.
Jeremiah 13
This passage states that god knew you even before you are in your mother’s womb. “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.” This is and important teaching, as it shows that all human beings are intended, and god knew you even before you were a fertilised egg. God knows everything that will happen in your life even before you are born.
By killing a foetus by abortion, you are going against god’s intention for it to live, and god’s intention for its path of life.
“Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” This statement shows that god intends for you to have a life, whether it is two days long or ninety years long. Even before you are born, god has a relationship with you. By killing someone short of the time that god intends for them to die, you are killing someone that god cares for, whether it is before or after they are born.
God intends for you to see the world that he created, and ordains you a prophet unto the nations before you are born.
2. Explain why some Christians may agree with Abortion in certain circumstances but not with Genetic engineering.
On the whole, Christianity and its fundamental teachings are opposed to both abortion and genetic engineering. Christians believe that both are an unnecessary interference with god’s divine plan.
Traditional Christian teachings place the highest value on human life, because of the teachings and therefore condemn abortion. A straightforward command from god in The Ten Commandments was “Thou shalt not kill”. One of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, the Didache says that “You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born”. The Roman Catholic Church follows this up by teaching that deliberately procured abortion is a serious sin in all circumstances. In Catholic theology human life is said to begin at the moment of conception. From that moment it is sacred and should be protected. This theory can now be backed up by scientific proof. Recent discoveries have shown that at the moment the ovum is fertilized by sperm, a genetically unique individual comes into being.
“Human life is sacred” Pope Paul V1 said. “All men must recognise that fact”. (Humanae Vitae, 1968). The Second Vatican Council declared, “Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception. Abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes”. (Vatican 11, Gaudium et spes 51). The Church also explained their views on abortion in the Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that whatever the reasons advanced for abortion, the unborn child should be protected. Never should abortion be resorted to as a means of regulating birth. In this context it should be noted that for Roman Catholics even most birth control methods are in fact agents of abortion by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting or by preventing the growth and development of the fertilised egg in the mother’s womb. They believe that to kill an unborn child at any stage is fundamentally wrong. The embryo or foetus is the beginning of human life, and god’s gift, so therefore, by killing it you are rejecting god’s gift.
However there are different views within the Christian fraternity as to what is considered acceptable circumstances for an abortion to take place.
The Church of England said in a report in 1984 that “the foetus is to be specially respected and protected.” It went on to say, “nonetheless the life of the foetus is not absolutely sacrosanct if it endangers the life of the mother”. So, in this case the Church of England accepts abortion under certain circumstances. The most authoritative recent Church of England statement on abortion, which was issued at the end of the 1993 Synod debate, was “We believe that abortion is an evil, but we also believe that to withhold compassion is evil.”
The Church of Scotland’s Board of Social Responsibility in 1987 came to the conclusion that “Abortion has no moral justification and represents the unwarranted destruction of human life that is made in the image of God”. But it was careful to say that this was only in “the great majority of cases”.
The mental and physical health of the mother becomes more important to some Christians than that of the foetus if there has to be a choice. One example would be if the mother was in physical danger due to her pregnancy. Another example of a situation when a mother would be forgiven for having an abortion is a rape resulting in a pregnancy. Pregnancy in this situation can often seriously damage the mental health of a woman. In these circumstances most Christians would believe that it would not be fair to expect the woman to keep the child. .
Therefore, the view of the Protestant Churches is that abortion is generally undesirable, but that it may be acceptable in some circumstances. This is a somewhat more liberal view than the Catholic Churches. However, like the majority of Christians, they do not agree with genetic engineering.
The majority of Christians completely disagree with Genetic Engineering, despite the fact that it could improve the quality of life. Christians believe that life begins at conception. Advances in embryology and genetics have proved this. It has been shown that at the moment of fusion, the genetic make-up of the new individual is complete and a unique human being comes into existence.
Through genetic engineering, we have accomplished two things so far. These are the ability to produce a baby where ordinary sexual reproduction cannot, and the ability to control the genetic traits (and thus physical/mental traits) of a baby where ordinary sexual reproduction cannot. The first ability raises the following question, should a potential parent be permitted to use any and all technologies to produce a baby? The second new ability raises the question, should a potential parent be permitted to use any and all technologies to control the genetic traits of a baby? The first question is the question of “reproductive rights”. The second is the question of “genetic engineering rights”.
This second question of “genetic engineering rights”, is a morally difficult question. It asks not only whether a parent should be allowed to create a baby using technology, but also whether the parent should be allowed to control the baby’s traits along the way.
Two kinds of genetic engineering must be distinguished, positive and negative engineering. Negative engineering prevents a disease from harming the normal health of a baby. Without negative engineering, a baby would later suffer from some unhealthy problem. Positive engineering enhances an otherwise healthy baby’s traits. Without positive engineering, a baby would end up having the normal traits of any baby.
There are two main arguments raised against genetic engineering. They are the “inherent dignity and value” argument and the “natural law” argument.
The “inherent dignity and value” argument is strongly pressed by Christians. They say that morality is ultimately based on a single principle, that we should treat each other with the highest respect and love. The easiest way to violate this principle is to instead treat another person as merely a useful tool for getting what you want. Using this principle, it can be argued that surrogacy and germ cell selling encourages people to treat each other as mere tools that can be bought and sold.
The “natural law” argument is also strongly pressed by Christians. The basic version of the argument goes as follows:
- God designed humanity to naturally perform basic functions in certain natural ways.
- God would not approve of people performing those basic functions in unnatural/technological ways.
- We ought not to do what god would not approve of.
- Conclusion: We ought not to use technology to perform basic functions.
“So god created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him.” (Genesis 1:27). Human life is therefore sacred and possesses
Genetic engineering and cloning are deeply connected with the issue of experimenting consent. Like any medical treatment, medical experiments must get informed consent from the persons themselves, or from their family member/guardian. Because genetic engineering and cloning are not yet even close to being a well-understood and guaranteed technologies, they will be kinds of experimentation for a long time. What Christians asked is as follows. Since you can’t get informed consent from an embryo, who should protect its rights?
Most Christians see genetic engineering and abortion both as a denial of god’s divinity. Some Christians accept abortion only under some circumstances because they believe that to withhold compassion is unchristian. For them, compassion is the lesser of two evils. Genetic engineering goes against everything that Christians believe in, and all of their holy teachings. They believe that god is the creator, and by trying to “create” a different species or “type” of person. You are trying to be god, and to an extent are “playing god”.
C. “It is unacceptable that abortion is legal whilst voluntary euthanasia is not.”
Do you agree? Give both sides of the argument and refer to Christianity in your answer.
In Britain, our long-established laws are based on Christian teachings. This is because Britain is a traditionally Christian society, and country. For example The Sixth Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is used in modern law. The beliefs held within Christianity, about abortion and Voluntary Euthanasia. Are that both are forms of ending a human being’s life, and therefore are wrong. However, In Britain the law states that under certain circumstances. It is legal to perform and undergo an abortion. Whereas Voluntary Euthanasia is illegal, in all circumstances.
The questions raised by euthanasia are similar in may ways to those raised by abortion. In principle, Christians are opposed to it. This is because life is God’s gift and he should control when to take it away again. However, where a person is “brain-dead” and incapable of establishing or maintaining a relationship of any kind, and where the relatives and friends concerned feel that any relationship has ceased and where medical opinion is that no recovery is possible, most Christians accept that it is not wrong for treatment to be withdrawn and thus for the patient to be allowed to die.
The reasons that people want the law to be changed about euthanasia is because; Advances in medicine have led to people being kept alive who would previously have died, but their quality of life is appalling. It is claimed that doctors and relatives should be able to give such people a painless death.
The development in life support machines has already brought in a form of euthanasia as doctors and relatives can agree to switch off these machines if the doctors feel that there is no chance of the patient remaining consciousness. It is claimed that the NHS cannot afford to keep the person alive for that many years on a life support machine, which could also be used to save the life of someone else, with a chance of recovery.
Doctors already make decisions about switching of life support machines, and various decisions by judges have given doctors the right to stop treatment. For example, Tony Bland a Hillsborough disaster victim, whose parents won the right to stop him being fed. Euthanasia is already occurring all over the country behind closed doors, despite being illegal.
Many people feel that a basic human right is to have control of your life. If you have the right to commit suicide, then you should have that right to ask a doctor to assist your suicide if you are ill and in pain and unable to commit suicide yourself. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society provide “Living Wills”, where a person can write a will whilst they are fit and well saying that they do not wish to be kept alive if they develop an incurable disease. This type of euthanasia, including being able to request a painless death, is now permissible in Holland. Why not in Britain?
