There are many ethical philosophers who have produced ethical theories about the acceptance of the practice of voluntary euthanasia. Saint Thomas Aquinas, developed the deontological argument of natural law, and that situations in our lives should conform to these absolute principles. He argues that the principle of natural law depends on establishing the purpose of human life, which Aquinas maintains is to live, reproduces, learn, worship God and order society. He believed that if everything is created for a purpose, human reason, in examining that purpose, is able to judge how to act in order to conform to that purpose, He therefore decided that people decided how to act in situations based on natural laws, which were devised from Christian morals. Therefore he concluded that the Ten Commandments must be kept and so voluntary euthanasia is therefore not acceptable because it goes against the commandment; ‘Thou shall not kill’ (Exodus 20:13). This is why Christians believe it is wrong to take your own or life or another person. Also elsewhere in the bible it says ‘The bible also teaches that life is sacred’ (I Corinthians 6:19). This says the temple of God cannot be destroyed. Furthermore (Ecclesiastes ‘For everything there is a season...a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted’ This teaches that we as humans do not have the right to decide when to die. From analysing the bible it is clear that generally Christians
The absolutism of Natural Law can be considered strength and it has been described as a simple, universal guide for judging the moral value of human behaviour. It states how humans and God share the same rationality, therefore making this philosophy more accessible. However, for those without faith in God it is not necessarily suitable for basing morals and ethical decisions on and it may be seen as too absolutist in solving complicated ethical problems. When applying Aquinas theories to the debate on euthanasia, it would appear that because it does not promote life and Gods power over this life, it is not compatible. By taking away a life that God has no chosen to do, we are playing God and this is wrong according to Aquinas.
Peter Singer dismisses the idea of sanctity of life and suggests that our attitudes are changing. He asserts that we put ourselves in this situation due to technological advances.
He introduced the idea that voluntary euthanasia can be morally justified in cases involving individuals suffering from painful, incurable conditions. Singer uses sources such as preference utilitarianism, the theory of rights, and the overall respect for autonomy as the basis for proving his argument. Simply, Singer considers the fact that the individual has the right to waive his/her own rights if the individual decides to do so. Also, the idea of respect for autonomy provides the thought of respecting the decisions rational agents, or the individual at hand, make including the decision to end his/her own life. Quality of life supporters, mainly Non Christians believe that life is not intrinsically valuable which Singer supports but instead believes that Euthanasia should be available when quality of life is deemed to low for life to carry on such as the case of Anthony Bland. Although a majority of Christians would disagree with the QOL stating suffering is a part of life some Christian agree with the QOL. This is because Christianity is based on loving and caring for others if a loved one is pain or suffering many would accept Euthanasia as a way to relieve their pain. Moreover other Christians believe as God is all loving and caring he would not want his followers to suffer and therefore it would be alright to for Euthanasia.
James Rachels argues that a form of Euthanasia (passive) is already going on in hospitals and many doctors have engaged through the withdrawal of treatments or doctors purposely given patients powerful painkillers knowing it will also end their life also known as the doctrine of double effect. James Rachels challenges the idea that passive euthanasia can be morally permissible but however active is not. The argument being killing someone is not worse than letting someone die, so active euthanasia is not worse than passive euthanasia. He gives an analogy of a person deliberately drowning someone and another person watching someone drown. The both bring about the same result the death of a person. I think here Rachels wants society should decide whether euthanasia is permissible in regards to which death would be brought upon the individual, which of course would be the most humane. Rachels furthers bringing up the case where a patients suffering can not be relieved by care. He suggest the idea that active euthanasia in this specific case should be used rather than passive euthanasia because it would free the patient of their suffering more quickly.
Problems and issues will be raised if Euthanasia is legalised as it could lead to a slippery slope and the facility may be abused. Terminally ill may feel pressured to die to relief their ‘burden’ on their families and also then there is the problem of the interpretation of a person quality of life. Where will it stop at? Anybody with imperfections could be deemed to have a low quality of life death, handicapped, blind or elderly. We never be able to fully measure quality of life for this reason I believe sanctity of life is of greater importance because it sets the rules straight and there can be no misinterpretations which arise with QOL. The different Christian denominations have their own views and opinion on the subject of euthanasia but the Roman Catholic is absolute stating that life itself is valuable and sacred and if any person can be kept alive without futile treatment they should.