As for utilitarianism in general, calculating the pleasure and the pain of euthanasia can prove to be difficult. This is due to the fact that it is not death itself that matters to many people, just the pain along the way. This is the key motive used to request euthanasia. When using the ‘hedonic calculus,’ are we measuring the patient’s pain, or the friends and relatives’ pain? Which one outweighs the other? Can the two types of pain really be compared? Another complication is one of the general criticisms of utilitarianism, and that is that utilitarians have to have an interpretation of what is good and what is bad, which some argue is made by the conscience.
The conscience itself may actually cause long-term guilt for family and friends. This would most likely be motivated from the fact that they have taken a life. The conscience may not have ‘spoken out’ originally if the friends and relatives were wrapped up in the pain and suffering of their dying loved one in the first place. This does, however, entirely depend on the principles that operate within the conscience.
The main debate of euthanasia is the different ideas of the value of life. Is quality better than quantity? Does the individual contribute to society? The opinions of questions such as this may shape an individual’s ethical view of euthanasia.
A religious analysis of euthanasia in general would start with the idea that death plays a highly important part in religious ethics. All faiths assume the idea that the understanding of death is vital in finding meaning to human life. They all offer explanations for death, and have rituals and services surrounding an individual dying. It is not therefore surprising that they all have strong views on euthanasia.
Most religions (and branches of religions) oppose euthanasia; the Roman Catholic Church, for example, is one of the most active organisations in opposing euthanasia. This is due to the fact that most faiths have strict commandments involving a rule in which one shouldn’t kill. Whether or not circumstances in euthanasia can justify this rule depends on the religion itself, although its followers in most religions will usually condemn the act to be wrong.
Western religions tend to believe in one God, and according to religious scriptures, God has commanded that innocent beings should never be killed. This fits in with the idea that most religions believe that human life is sacred, as it was created by God, and is a gift from God. This refers to the ‘Sanctity of Life,’ which tends to mean something along the lines of, ‘God gave us life and so only God can take it away.’ Religious followers would therefore hold the idea that life must always be protected and looked after. The sanctity of life could, of course, be interpreted that we should not interfere with the ending of anyone’s life. This would rule out life-support machines being used to keep a patient alive.
Christianity is a perfect example of the idea that ‘life is a gift from God.’ They uphold the idea that man is made in the form of God, ‘God made man in his own image’ (Genesis 1: 27). This makes human life appear to be even more sacred as it implies that man has an importance close to the greatness of God. This does not mean that we look like God, but there is a related likeness beyond the form that we appear as. In the case of euthanasia, it means that human life should be valued, and that Christians should live a life of love, as they believe God does, ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man’ (Genesis 9: 6). Christians also believe that ‘God gave dominion over every living thing’ (Genesis 1: 28) which implies that God’s gifts, such as life, should be cherished and lived to the full. It also means that Christians have a duty to look after one another until death.
Christians believe that it is God’s duty only to take life away: death is a spiritual process and it should not be interfered with. Some may argue that death and suffering is present as a result of the fall of man, and traditional moral rules should still be accounted for even in unbearable pain.
Then there are quotes spoken by Jesus, such as the famous ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself.’ This can be interpreted in many ways under circumstances such as a request to die from a relative. Is the correct care for an individual the care that serves their request? Is it more caring to let the patient die painlessly, with dignity, or more caring to extend life as much as possible?
In the case of Christianity, I believe duties towards one another conflict with duties towards God. This is because duties to one another require respect for every living thing. With respect, comes respect of one another’s decisions. Of course, to accept one another’s decisions, they’d have to respect another’s rational decision to have their treatment stopped, or even their request to be actively killed. As I mentioned in the ethical analysis, it is up to the individual Christian to decide which is more important – ‘quality’ or ‘quantity.’ If Christians generally interpret the idea of ‘quality’ in life and that one another’s decisions must be respected, then it can conflict with early teachings that life is a gift from God. It could be the other way round; Christians may prefer quantity to quality, and believe strongly that life is a gift from God. If a request for an early death from a relative came about, then Jesus’ preaching of ‘love your neighbour’ would probably be neglected. Christians also believe that no one can judge the value of an individual’s life: it lies within God’s understanding and it is not for us to decide. Humanists, on the other hand, believe that the value of life lies in oneself.
Thus, Christian beliefs need a compromise when it comes to euthanasia. Christians have especially set up hospices for the terminally ill. These are aiming to care for the patients individually, and prepare them for death. This is because in the past, the dying were deprived of the truth, and brave faces were put on by friends and relatives, pretending that everything was all right. Hospices, on the other hand, help everyone in the situation face death and not fear it. Through this, Christian duties to God and one another can be resolved and prevented from conflicting.
Roman Catholocism is a branch of Christianity that strictly forbids euthanasia, ‘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). They believe that killing in any form is not permitted; and despite the idea that ending suffering could be considered to be a caring action, they believe that life in itself is valuable, even if there is immense pain and suffering. This means that death should be postponed until the last possible minute, and certainly not put to an end intentionally by any human being.
Roman Catholics completely dismiss the idea of any person having a ‘right’ to die. By supporting a right to freedom, they do not believe it goes to the extent of one being able to end their life or anyone else’s. However, Roman Catholics do support the right to refuse aggressive medical treatment. This could be because they see passive euthanasia as an acceptance of death, as opposed to deliberately inducing death. As I mentioned earlier, death is considered to be a sacred occasion in all faiths, most of which believe that it is not the end of life. All Christians uphold this idea, including Catholics. Acceptance and awareness of death is therefore, of course, acceptable and even encouraged.
‘True compassion leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear’ (Pope John Paul II: Evangelium Vitae, 1995). Pope John Paul II states that sufferers should be cared for and we must face through it bravely, and share their pain.
Muslims uphold the ‘life is a gift from God’ argument. They believe that Allah has given us all the great gift of life, and that he only can choose how long each person will live, ‘And no person can ever die except by Allah's leave and at an appointed term’ (Qur'an 3.145).
They believe that no person has the right to interfere with the length of life, as it suggests that one knows better than Allah.
‘Do not take life, which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice’ (Qur'an 17.33). The ‘course of justice’ does not, Muslims argue, apply to euthanasia or suicide, ‘Destroy not yourselves. Surely Allah is ever merciful to you’ (Qur'an 4.29). It applies to more complicated circumstances, for example, one person dying so that another can live (e.g. A mother is at risk from her pregnancy and so the foetus may be prematurely expelled).
‘When their time comes they cannot delay it for a single hour nor can they bring it forward by a single hour’ (Qur'an 16.61). Quotes such as this complicate a Muslim’s view of euthanasia. Passive euthanasia, for example, may involve turning off a life-support machine that a friend or relative is attached to. Of course, this quote states that to delay the end of life is also morally wrong. This means that to keep the person alive on the life-support machine was wrong in the first place. This form of euthanasia may, therefore, be acceptable; that is if Muslims allowed their relative to be kept alive in the first place. However, it is argued that ‘almost all of medical practice interferes with nature.’ (‘The Moral Maze,’ by David Cook).
Jews have very similar beliefs to Muslims. This is because they believe that people should be grateful for the gift of life, and lives are not to be disposed of as we please.
As with Christians, they believe that man is made in God’s image (as it is included in the Old Testament). They uphold the ‘quantity over quality’ idea, suggesting that even a moment in life is equal in value to many years of human life, ‘The value of human life is infinite and beyond measure, so that any part of life - even if only an hour or a second - is of precisely the same worth as seventy years of it, just as any fraction of infinity, being indivisible, remains infinite’ (Lord Jakobovits, former UK Chief Rabbi). They uphold this regardless of the pain and suffering a person might be going through, as they believe that this is not an excuse for killing them, ‘...The message of Judaism is that one must struggle until the last breath of life. Until the last moment, one has to live and rejoice and give thanks to the Creator...’ (Dr. Rachamim Melamed-Cohen, Jewsweek, March, 2002). This is a very strict rule in Judaism, for example, if someone is a ‘goses’ (someone who has started to die, and will die within seventy-two hours) it is wrong to do even the slightest thing that would make death come more quickly… E.g. To open their eyes, or move a limb. Thus euthanasia is a huge moral violation according to Judaism.
There is, however, a limit to the duty of keeping people alive. Jews believe that if someone is in incredible pain and terminally ill, then doctors shouldn’t extend their life longer than necessary, ‘Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive officiously to keep alive,’ (Poet Arthur Hugh Clough). This is the ‘natural’ idea. For example, if a life support machine is keeping someone alive it is morally acceptable to turn it off if it is likely that they will not pull through, and let death come naturally. It is also only merely pro-longing death, and not actually curing pain. This is as Muslims believe, but with more emphasis. Jews strictly forbid active euthanasia under any circumstances, even if the patient has requested it.
A famous case of euthanasia in the Old Testament of the Bible is in 2 Samuel, when ‘King Saul’ was seriously wounded after a battle. He ordered a young soldier to kill him, to save him being captured. The young solider did as he requested, and when King David heard of this, he had the man executed. The purpose of this was to show that euthanasia was simply a form of murder, and so the soldier paid the penalty for taking a life. This confirms that one of the Ten Commandments, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ rules out euthanasia, making it forbidden in Judaism.
Alternatives that a patient could focus on if their request for euthanasia is refused include the hope that the medical cure for their illness is just around the corner. Although this hope is small, it is still hope, and could be enough to change his or her attitude. More care and affection towards patients could also hopefully reduce the amount of pleas for euthanasia.
To conclude the religious view of euthanasia in the western faiths, they all value the sanctity of life, and although they feel that quality of life is important, quantity is just as valuable as life itself no matter how unbearable. It is also believed that only God has the power to take the life that he has given away, and that man has no business interfering with such matters. An exception could be seen in Christianity, as certain circumstances involving euthanasia can be seen as loving actions.
I do not believe that myself or anyone else would state that euthanasia was morally right under all circumstances. I personally refuse to completely condemn euthanasia as a right or wrong action, and would treat any event in which a request for euthanasia is involved individually. Thus I will bring forth two moral ways of approaching it, through situation ethics, and through my personal conscience. Utilitarianism is also, I feel, a logical moral theory, but I do not think we can judge it through any ‘hedonic calculus’ because euthanasia is such a delicate issue, and we must account for certain degrees of loving emotion.
Putting the fact that euthanasia is illegal aside, I feel that situation ethics and our individual consciences should combine to decide which is the morally right action in the case of a request for euthanasia. General criticisms of these sorts of circumstances could also be eliminated; for example, a rational decision should be ensured from both the patient and his or her friends and relatives. These criticisms aside, providing the action will generate a greater love, and our consciences are speaking out and claiming ‘this action is right,’ then euthanasia should be carried out.
I would now like to bring a political view into the picture. Naturally, the British system as it is will not allocate for factors such as love and other general emotions, this is merely how I would handle an individual situation and how I would advise others to handle it. If euthanasia were to be legalised, strict rules would have be applied to circumstances in which death is actively induced in order to put one out of his or her pain and suffering. For example, in Holland, (where euthanasia is legal) a decision for euthanasia will be responded to thirty days afterwards, when a doctor will induce it. I believe that this system works, and also believe that non-biased professionals should judge the situation and decide whether or not a request for euthanasia should be granted. It would, therefore, still be judged upon the situation. It would then be up to friends and relatives to decide if they feel that it is the best thing to do in the situation.
A lot of people do, of course, have objections to the legalisation of euthanasia. Mainly, it is because it is against their personal morals, which includes conflict with their religion. There is obviously no way of compromising all of these principles, other than simply saying that there is of course no obligation for them to go through with euthanasia themselves. I do personally think that they should accept this, but no one can demand them to do so.
We must also consider the effects of the legalisation of euthanasia besides others’ disapproval. Because no one is able to predict the future, we can only guess the consequences of any action. Many people argue that life would be taken too light-heartedly if euthanasia were legalised; I personally do not think that this will happen, providing that the rules for which euthanasia can be carried out are strict.
If I may, finally, quote Joseph Fletcher, ‘Christian action should be tailored to fit objective circumstances, the situation.’ This sums up my argument completely, except that it should apply to everyone, and not just Christians. If the morally right action were judged upon the situation, rather than merely condemning particular actions without any consideration of the individual circumstances of a situation, then perhaps religious and non-religious people, moral and not-so-moral people would agree that euthanasia, under some circumstances, is morally right. On the same scale, people could decide when euthanasia is morally wrong in some situations.
