‘9 "Then he said to me, 'Stand over me and kill me! I am in the throes of death, but I'm still alive.'
10 "So I stood over him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive.’
2 Samuel 1:9-10
There is also the condemnation of this act:
David asked him, “Why were you not afraid to lift your hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?”
Then David called one of his men and said, “Go, strike him down!” So he struck him down, and he died. 16 For David had said to him, “Your blood be on your own head. Your own mouth testified against you when you said, ‘I killed the Lord’s anointed.’ “
2 Samuel 1:14-16
David sentences the Amalekite to death for helping Saul to die at his own request, Christians would say that this demonstrates that assisted suicide, or voluntary euthanasia is, and always has been wrong in the eyes of god and of the church.
Most sectors of the Christian church feel that suffering can be beneficial and that euthanasia is in many ways the easy way out of a painful situation. The bible says that we should not complain about our suffering we must simply accept it since it may be a punishment from god and suffering our punishment on earth means that we will be able to go to heaven.
Mormons think that both voluntary and involuntary Euthanasia are completely wrong, they do, however feel that it is acceptable for Christians to refuse treatment for terminal illness so that death may take its natural course (Passive Euthanasia) ,
“There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven — a time to give birth, and a time to die.”
Ecclesiastes 3:1, 2
Mormons also believe that taking life before it ends naturally is denying the chance of god to heal people emotionally. By stopping them from living life right to its end, they have no chance to gain acceptance and face death without fear.
The Orthodox Church’s view is
"The Church distinguishes between euthanasia and the withholding of extraordinary means to prolong life. It affirms the sanctity of human life and man's God-given responsibility to preserve life. But it rejects an attitude which disregards the inevitability of physical death."
What this means is that they feel that any willed action to cause ones own, or another’s death when it would not otherwise occur is morally wrong. In addition, they believe that, although it is human responsibility to preserve life, we do not have to insist that the terminally ill are kept alive using unnecessary and extraordinary medical efforts just because they are available due to advances in medical science.
Roman Catholics have the same views as the Orthodox Church, the pope says,
"Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person."
Pope John Paul II: Evangelium Vitae, 1995
The only difference between the orthodox and Catholic views is that Roman Catholics believe in the double effect, this means that a patient may be given medicine, which will shorten or eventually end their life if the only intention was to relieve pain. This is not seen as morally wrong.
- Explain how these beliefs might affect the behaviour of a believer
Some Christians who disagree with euthanasia but support the idea of dying with dignity have been involved with the setting up of the hospice movement. A hospice is a place people with terminal illnesses are treated until they die. The hospices focus in pain control and the aim of the hospice movement is to give people with painful terminal diseases the best possible quality of life for the remainder of their life.
Hospices are not just for pain relief they also help families sort out all the problems associated with death, this includes counselling relatives and giving financial advice.
Many Hospices have foundations in the teachings of Christianity. However, not all the nurses, doctors of patients have to be Christians. One of the first was Helen House; it was also the first hospice for children in the world, it is situated in the grounds of a convent in Oxford and is run by nuns.
The founder of the very first modern Hospice was Dame Cicely Saunders (a devout Christian) who created St Christopher's hospice in London in 1967 , St Christopher’s was run on the principals of pain relief, spiritual, emotional and medical care, searching for cures and educating doctors and nurse in how to deal with the terminally ill. Death is a subject which can be talked about openly in a hospice and this means that patients are less anxious about it because there is always someone to talk to or just to listen.
Hospices are thought by Christians to be a good alternative to Euthanasia because they take into account the value each life has to God. And realise the enrichment spiritually and mentally to the patients carers and relatives that allowing life to end naturally has. Christians might give money to hospices or do voluntary work there to show they care about the terminally ill.
- Death is god’s business and people should not interfere. Do you agree? Give reasons for to support your answer and show you have thought about different points of view.
Some people (Atheist and Humanists for example) would say that Euthanasia is a compassionate, loving thing to do; they would say that after all, animals are put down if they are going through pain and suffering; their owners do this because they love their animals and do not wish them to go through extensive anguish. They would argue that we should act no differently when humans are in the same situation. Christians may say however, that ending Human life is a completely different issue to the ending of animal life because Human life is more important than animal life because it is God given so therefore the two issues cannot be paralleled. Some People might also argue that allowing Euthanasia would allow terminally ill people to die with dignity when they are still healthy enough to make decisions and have not yet entered the final stages of their illness. However, a Christian would argue that a human being always has the God Given Dignity and the selfish, wealth and ability based dignity is worthless.
I think that in an Ideal world, we would leave death to be completely natural and controlled by God but unfortunately I think that this is no longer an option, medical science has progressed so far that some people now expect every chance to be taken to ‘beat’ death, just because they are available to us. I, on the other hand think that life should be preserved, but not at all costs, in certain circumstances it is better to do nothing than to allow people to suffer large amounts of pain and suffering just to live a few days or weeks longer. What needs to be taken into account is the quality of life a person is likely to have. If Euthanasia was made legal, I believe that it would cause too many problems because there are so many problematic questions, such as, would this give the doctors too much power and responsibility? Would it lead to families pressurising relatives into it or social pressure for involuntary euthanasia of the Handicapped, senile and mentally ill? I think that with these all being possibilities for what could happen if euthanasia was legal we should not legalise it or make it morally all right. If we did then with all these problems we could end up with a Hitler society where people can be killed if they are not thought to be good enough for society this is a possibility we must not induce through meddling with death.
Christians might also agree about the majority of my opinions; however, they might say that our actions towards a persons’ condition should be irrespective of their potential for life since all life is of equal value to God.
The issues concerning life and death and the line between then have become far too blurred .Everyone has very different opinions so therefore a consensus is impossible to achieve concerning situations involving these issues, this makes it a complicated and delicate subject to face. I think, therefore that we must take each case on its own merits.
Helen Crutcher