An acceptance of the practice of Voluntary Euthanasia is incompatible with the Christian belief in the Sanctity of Life but not with the attitudes of some ethical philosophers. Discuss.

The Roman Catholic Church has persistently condemned the direct ending of human life.  It was originally stated in 1980 that ‘Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being…furthermore no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing…nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action’ Most Christians believe that God has ultimate control over every person’s life and that there are many alternatives to euthanasia that should be explored in every circumstance.  However in recent polls statistics did not reflect these views, 89% of atheists were in favour of euthanasia, 84% of Jews, 75% of Church of England Christians and 54% of Roman Catholics.  

In response to Christian statements, many people argue that in many cases of people wanting euthanasia, often their quality of life is so poor that their lives are not worth living.  However Christians argue that God created and cares for every single one of His children and will help them through any suffering they may experience.  “Now God’s presence is with people, and He will live with them, and they will be His people.  God himself will be with them and will be their God.  He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more sadness, crying or pain.’ 

It can also be argued that there is an example of euthanasia in the Bible and so God can excuse the practice of voluntary euthanasia in some cases. In the book of Samuel, there is an example of euthanasia: ‘Then Saul said to me, ‘please come here and kill me.  I am badly hurt and am almost dead already’.  So I went over and killed him.  He has been hurt so badly, I knew he couldn’t live.’  It could be argued that if a man in the Bible is allowed to kill a man who is already dying, a man now is allowed to end a person’s life who has only suffering before an inevitable death in a relatively short amount of time.  Admittedly, king David in the story killed this person, but with the attitudes of society changing as time has gone on, some would argue it would be acceptable to assist euthanasia without capital punishment

The British medical association’s report 1998 stated that life is ‘God – given’ and it claimed that it is not for doctors to play at being God by shortening it: nature must be allowed to take its course.  This report therefore seems to be re - affirming the Christian beliefs in the sanctity of life.

Currently in the Hippocratic oath, which doctors have to swear before they are allowed to practice, it states that: ‘I will… never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death… but I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.’  Hippocrates was alive in about 500AD and it was said that: ‘He provided an example of the ideal physician after which others centuries after him patterned their existence.’  Therefore doctors today still hold the view that they should maintain human life for as long as possible, a view which coincides with the Christian view in the sanctity of life.  

Wilcockson states that ‘The main problems with the sanctity of life lie not so much in the principles but in the application to situations which become more and more complicated as medical science blurs the boundaries between life and death’.  Some supporters of the sanctity of life argument argue that the killing of a person can be justified if that person’s life is determined ‘not worth living’.  This diluting of the argument has led to many believing that the sanctity of life argument in its traditional form is collapsing with a changing society, for example Peter Singer says; ‘the traditional ethic has collapsed because people now think that the low quality of a persons life…can justify her in taking her own life or justify someone else in killing her life at request’.

There are weaknesses in the sanctity of life argument.  If the life of a person is in the hands of God, then surely it is not acceptable to prolong a person’s life with medication and machines because this is not the way God has planned that person’s life?  The counter argument to this would be that God has given us the intelligence to develop this technology and so we should use it to our advantage.  However, He has also given us the intelligence to advance our technology in the field of euthanasia, so some people would argue that could we not take advantage of this intelligence as well?  Within the Christian religion there are different interpretations of the Sanctity of life argument, as medical advances have made it increasingly difficult to determine when ‘life’ is still a life.  Another weakness it that the sanctity of life argument is essentially deontological as it reflects the assumption that a person believes their life is valuable to God.  Therefore it cannot be relevant to a non-believer.  

It also has strengths however, because a Christian would very much believe that God does have control over every life and this would be a very valid point.  Some may argue that for the non-Christians, it would play on their conscious and it is their compassion, or agape, which makes them feel this guilt.  For the non-believer it stops the risk of a slippery slope, and people being killed for convenience.  As a Florida physician said: ‘We shall start by putting patients away because they are in intolerable pain and haven’t long to live anyway and we shall end by putting them away because it’s Friday night and we want to get away for the weekend’. 

The sanctity of life argument can sometimes have adverse affects; it could be regarded that ending a person’s life can have more positive effects than negative. For example if the person is deeply suffering and has a sincere wish to end their life and the family are happy with their choice in the situation, it maybe more pleasant and beneficial to allow euthanasia because it leaves everyone with happier memories.  It also means that socially it is less expensive and it means there are more hospital beds that younger patients with a chance of regaining a normal life can use.

There are many ethical philosophers who have produced ethical theories about the acceptance of the practice of voluntary euthanasia.  Saint Thomas Aquinas who lived from 1225-74, 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, reproduce, learn, worship God and order society’.  He developed many of ideas from those already established by Aristotle, and, as explained by Thompson 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; ‘You must not kill’. 

The absolutism of Natural Law can be considered a 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 God’s 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.

Joseph Fletcher in the 1960’s although he did not initiate the idea, developed the consequentialist concept of situation ethics, which is based upon Luke10: 27 ‘Love your neighbour as you love yourself.’  It uses the Agapeistic calculus, the measurement that will always choose the most loving alternative in any choice of actions. Therefore in some situations, depending on the circumstances, a follower of situation ethics would advocate voluntary euthanasia.  Fletcher maintained that there was a middle way between legalism and antinomianism and this lay in the application of agape, love, which will enable us to achieve the greatest good.  However, situation ethics are sometimes not a good principle to follow because there are instances where if Fletcher’s theory was applied on the basis of love, things could be justified that are usually seen as morally wrong, for example adultery.   Also the theory is teleological and so it is impossible to be unfailingly accurate in calculating the consequences.  The exact consequences of an action are unattainable until they have actually happened, therefore this principle can never be entirely reliable.  

Situation ethics has been praised for enabling individual cases to be judged on their own merits and not stating anything is intrinsically right or wrong except love.  However this has also been seen as a weakness because it seems contradictory to say that there are no laws, except one, love.  Another strength is that it is based on the teaching of Jesus and so can be considered as a Christian approach with good intentions of love to help other people.  However, simply because an action has been done out of love, it doesn’t make it acceptable.  For example if a person murdered someone because they believed that individual had the intention of harming their sister, this does not make it any more right.  It has been considered that perhaps Fletcher was too optimistic about human capability to make good moral decisions.

Fletcher’s philosophy is not entirely incompatible with euthanasia, every case needs to be analysed individually.  He maintained that there is more to being alive that merely being alive and believed that any action can be justified, if it coincides with the principles of love.  Therefore in some situations euthanasia may be considered to be the most loving thing to do, in which case it is morally acceptable.  However because each situation is different, voluntary euthanasia is not always the correct action to take.

Immanuel Kant, who places a strong emphasis on autonomy; the freedom to determine one’s own actions and behaviour., is another philosopher with his own approach to the topic of morals. His argument is a priori so it is independent of experience, this means that it takes into account that not all situations are the same and the consequence for one incident does not necessarily follow for another; an important strength.  However it is possible for two absolute morals to conflict, therefore making it hard for a person to choose the right course of action, also different people have different opinions and one person’s reaction may not be the same as another’s.  ‘Nothing in the world…can possibly be conceived which could be called good with qualification except good will’.  Superficially this may seem to permit euthanasia if one had a compassionate intention.  However Kant only allows ‘will’ to be good if it entails acting from respect for the moral law.  He therefore would not be able to permit euthanasia because although it may be done out of love for a person, it means breaking the moral laws, which is not permissible

All of these previously mentioned philosophers believe that there are absolute values, and that some actions are intrinsically evil and others are intrinsically good.  The alternative to this approach is one of relative values.

One of these arguments is the utilitarian argument, developed by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Henry Sidwick in the nineteenth century.  This is a teleological principle, which adopts the idea that ‘right actions are those which produce the greatest total pleasure for everyone affected by their consequences and wrong actions are those which do not produce the most happiness.’  Bentham introduced the phrase ‘greatest good of the greatest number’.  He argues that there are seven things which should be taken into account; intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent of the pleasure.  Therefore in some cases, voluntary euthanasia may be considered acceptable under Bentham’s proposal.

John Stuart Mill developed this argument, saying that it was qualitative not quantitative pleasure that should be measured.  Again this principle does not condone voluntary euthanasia because a person’s life may be considered to be of such a low quality, it would be more beneficial to end it prematurely.  The main strength of this argument is that is focuses on the consequences of the situation and actions taken, which is the most important factor to consider in my opinion.  It also ensures that the majority’s decision is applied, not a dangerous minority.  This however can be a danger when regarding voluntary euthanasia.  If everyone apart from the person it concerns decided it is better to end that person’s life, it would not really be fair to end their life when they are against the majority; the majority’s decision is not always just.  A past historical example of this is Nazism, the majority of Germans believed that Jews were an inferior race and so they were exterminated despite this not coinciding with usual morals.  Utilitarianism might also allow the practice of eugenics, if a person argues that it would be more beneficial for them to be able to chose the sex, hair colour etc of their baby, despite this being against our everyday morals.

David Hume is one of the strongest opponents to this philosophy.  He exposed the weakness that it is not possible to achieve a definite assessment of the total happiness or suffering achieved by an action.  He said that ‘the effects of an action form part of a chain that stretches into an indefinite future.  There is always the possibility that a very positive result of an action may subsequently lead to very negative consequences.’

Friedrich Nietzsche, who lived in the nineteenth century, wanted to set aside all traditional morality and start again, to get past the traditional way of assessing behaviour, a process that he called ‘the revaluation of all values’.  He believed that ‘the practice of the church is hostile to life’, and that the Christian religion has a harmful influence on people’s perceptions of their sin and actions.  He also believed that ‘whatever purpose there is in life, it is given that meaning by humankind.  There is no God.’  Nietzsche’s ethical theory presents a clear challenge both to religious ideas of morality, utilitarianism and Natural Law.  He believed that human kind shies away from the idea of meaningless; they would rather rely on theories such as the one that the church presents, and feel guilty about their sin, than accept nothingness. In his theories, Nietzsche totally disregards Christianity and so would not feel an obligation to comply with the sanctity of life.  There is therefore no reason that he would disagree with voluntary euthanasia, because it is the decision of the person; they should not be made to feel guilty about issues that they do not have to consider.

Voluntary euthanasia, is not compatible with the Christian belief in the sanctity of life because it disputes the belief that God has total control over a person’s life and suffering, and that He is not loving enough to support them through their pain.  Also to say the practice of voluntary euthanasia is incompatible with the beliefs of some ethical philosophers is a fair assessment to make.  There are many philosophers who condone euthanasia, however a significant number of these are Christians anyway.  The vast majority of non-believers or atheist philosophers have developed theories that can accept euthanasia in certain circumstances, for example Hume, John Stuart Mill, and Bentham.  I believe that the sanctity of life argument is a strong argument and could relieve society of serious mis-interpretations regarding a person’s wish to the direction of their life.  However, it is up to the individual to make the judgement for themselves, and in carefully considered instances, euthanasia may be permitted.  As the first man to commit assisted suicide under the voluntary euthanasia in Darwin Australia said ‘the church and the law should be separate.  If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia don’t use it, but please don’t deny the right to me to use it if I want to’.

Bibliography

1. Ought Euthanasia to be allowed? (Dialogue

Issue 10 - 1998)         Paul Badham

2. The ethics of euthanasia conference notes

(Philip Allan Updates 2002)        David Cook

3. Euthanasia vol.4-Issues for the nineties

      (Independence 1997)        Craig Donnellan

4. Living and dying well (Dialogue issue 9 - 1999)        Joe Housten
5. Euthanasia (Chalto Counter Blasts no. 13

        1990)        Ludovic Kennedy

6. Euthanasia (Dialogue issue 17 - 2001)        Helga Kuhse
7. Natural law (Dialogue issue 13 - 1999)        Peter Jackson
8. Moral Problems (Lutterworth 1991)        M Palmer
9. Caring to the end (Dialogue issue 7 - 1996)        Dame Cicely Saunders
10. Ethical theory (Hodder and Stoughton1999)        Mel Thompson
11. Advanced religious studies (Philip Allan

      Updates)        Sarah Tyler and Gordon Reid

12. AS/A level Religious Studies exam revision

      notes (Philip Allan Updates)         Sarah Tyler

13. The Puzzle of ethics (Fount 1994)        Peter Vardy and Paul Grosch                            
14. Issues of life and death (Hodder and

        Stoughton 1999)        Wilcockson

15.   NCV Youth Bible
16.  Oxford English Dictionary

---