What is meant by euthanasia?
Euthanasia
Title 6 - Paper 2
a)
i) What is meant by euthanasia?
ii) Explain what Christian teachings might be used in a discussion about euthanasia?
b) Explain how Christians may respond to the question of euthanasia?
c) Is euthanasia every justified?
Give reasons to support your answer and show that you have thought about different points of view.
What is euthanasia?
People have different ideas, concepts and understandings of the word euthanasia. These must be carefully clarified.
The Oxford Dictionary defines euthanasia as the following :
' The act of causing somebody to die gently and without pain, especially when they are suffering from a painful, incurable disease.'
( from Greek eu = well/good and thanatos = death )
So euthanasia means literally a good death. Some people call euthanasia 'mercy killing'.
I agree with the definition given in the dictionary, I think it clearly stresses the fact that the aim of euthanasia is to give as less stress and suffering as possible to the patient. However, it does not mention the fact that can be quite an unpleasant and horrible act when the person being killed did not agree to it.
There are basically two different types of euthanasia :
* Active : Voluntary, Involuntary, Compulsory
* Passive
Active euthanasia is when you play a part in helping a person to die.
' It is referred to the planned use of treatment which is calculated to bring about death sooner than it would normally occur. ' Active euthanasia is in the form of :
* Voluntary Euthanasia
This is sometimes called 'physician-assisted suicide'. This is when patients,, who are mentally competent, ask for their life to be ended to prevent future pain. This is often the case in terminally ill patients e.g. in the case of Annie Lindsell.
* Involuntary Euthanasia
This is when patients who are not mentally competent have euthanasia performed on them. When people say mentally incompetent, it could mean that they are in a coma, in PVS or mentally ill and therefore they cannot decide whether they would want euthanasia or they are not in the right state of mind to make that decision. Therefore in involuntary euthanasia, the decision is made by the patient's relative and doctors together. e.g. in the case of Tony Bland.
* Compulsory Euthanasia
This is when people who are seen as a 'burden' on society are put to death unwillingly. So it is the ending the life of an able patient without their permission or against their will. This can be seen as murder. An extreme example of this is seen in the Second World War when Hitler signed a secret paper to make it illegal and compulsory euthanasia was carried out on the Jews. This led to gross amount of experimentation and genocide.
Passive Euthanasia
This is when you do not give treatment to a patient which would help the patient to live longer, with the intention of ending life. This could be in the form of
* using life-shortening treatment : in the case where high doses of pain relief are used with the sole purpose of comforting the patient, which, coincidentally shorten the patient's life.
* Withdrawal of treatment : this could be the denial of food or hydration. This could mean turning off the life support machine if the patient's life was depending on it e.g. in the case of Tony Bland.
Living Will
A living will, often known as an 'advance directive' allows people to state which treatments they would or would not want if they became seriously ill in the future and could not say what they wanted to happen.
Living wills usually take the form of a written document, setting out the circumstances under which you would not wish to receive life-prolonging medical treatment.
Some people support the use of a living will. Not only does it enable the terminally ill to have control over how they are treated if they do become mentally or physically ill and they are no longer able to talk over matters rationally with their doctor or their relatives. It also gives doctors and relatives clear instructions when they have to make decisions on behalf of patients who are 'incompetent'.
' As a nurse, I've seen the difficult situations people get themselves into. The family and the hospital never know what to do. People are left wondering if they have made the right decision. This way, the onus falls on me.'
Shane Snape, AIDS sufferer who completed a living will
Living wills are gradually being recognised in Britain although it is not tested in the courts.
' Her Majesty's government acknowledges the right of individuals to draw up advance directives. People have a right, emphasised in the Patient's Charter; to consent or withhold consent to treatment '
John Major, Former British Prime Minister, 1994
Some people oppose to the idea of having a living will, this applies especially to people who oppose euthanasia. They believe that no one, including the doctors, have the right to choose when they should die.
' Living wills threaten lives. They enable doctors to end the lives of patients, whilst protecting the doctor from civil or criminal liability'
Information from ALERT, an anti-euthanasia organisation.
I think that living wills are a very good idea as it allows people to go through scenarios and state how they would like to be treated if they do ever become terminally ill and are not competent enough to decide. A copy of a living will is on Page .
Current Legislation on Euthanasia
There is no legislation dealing directly with voluntary euthanasia. In fact it is the same law as murder. So it is illegal to practice any type of euthanasia at the moment other than passive euthanasia. However in many cases of 'mercy killing', the charge has been reduced to manslaughter under S.2 (1) and (3) of the Homicide Act :
Homicide Act 1957
Diminished responsibility
S.2
(1) 'Where a person kills or is party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind ... as substantially to impair his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being party to the killing'
(3) 'A person but for this section would be liable, whether as principal or as accessory, to be convicted of murder shall be liable instead to be convicted of manslaughter.'
Issued in 1976 August, in their Working Party on Offences against the Person, the Criminal Law Revision Committee actually suggested that there should be a new offence as an alternative to a charge of murder. The new offence would apply to people who from compassion kills another person who is or believed by him to be suffering from permanent bodily pain; permanently helpless from bodily or mental incapacity or subject to incurable bodily or mental degeneration.
Many individuals and groups have supported this idea but it has not yet been pursued.
I think it would be a great idea if people consider the idea of having a new offence because there has been lots of cases where people kill their friend or family out of compassion because they were suffering from a terminal illness. They were not trying to commit murder so therefore it would be good if a new offence was passed.
Life support machine
This is machinery used to provide artificial ventilation. This could be in the form of food, water, etc. Some patients rely on it to survive. Tony Bland, who remained in a coma for years after being crushed in the Hillsborough Disaster . He was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state ( PVS ) and he had to rely on the life support machine to keep him alive. Further discussion on Tony Bland will be in R3.
Hospice Movement
This is a place where it tries to help the dying ( especially one's who are terminally ill ) spend their last few days/months in a loving and sympathetic environment so that they can die with dignity. People who are dying are encouraged by hospices to be as fulfilled as possible physically, mentally and spiritually. Their relatives are offered advice, counselling and support and are helped after the death as well. One of the hospice in Bristol is the St. Peters Hospice which is run by the Roman Catholics and others. Some people consider a hospice to be an alternative to euthanasia.
' It's not like a hospital where everything is done in a great rush. Here we all have plenty of time to talk to one another and create a feeling of welcome.'
Alert
This is an organisation against euthanasia. The name stands for Against Legalised Euthanasia-Research and Teaching. It is a British Christian Medical society founded in 1991 against the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia. It aims to act as a bridge between individuals and organisations in Britain and abroad which are concerned about the threat of legalised euthanasia. Alert 'is calling for restoration of the law against homicide, which ha served our citizens well for centuries'.
Exit
This is an organisation for euthanasia. It's the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. Its aims is to
'make it legal for a competent adult, who is suffering unbearably from an incurable illness, to receive medical help to die at their own considered and persistent request.'
So basically, it aims to bring about a change in the law so that an adult person suffering from a severe illness, if no relief is known, should be allowed by law to the mercy of a painless death, ONLY IF that is their expressed wish. They also hope that doctors should be allowed t help incurable patients to die peacefully at their own request.
"Every one of us has an interest in our own death: a change in the law could increase our options."
Chris Docker, M.Phil (Law ∓ Ethics in Medicine), Director of EXIT
Explain what Christian teachings might be used in a discussion about euthanasia?
The Papal 'Declaration on Euthanasia' ( Jura et Bona ) was issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in 1980. It states that every person is created by God and offered Christ's salvation. Killing an innocent person is never acceptable, whether he or she be an embryo, foetus, infant, adult, old person or someone who is dying. Any attempt on an innocent person's life is opposing God's love for that person. God calls human beings to preserve their lives and to live as Christians ( except when they may have to sacrifice themselves for others ). So suicide and euthanasia are wrong. Suffering can lead people to make mistakes, not just in the case of suicide but also in asking for euthanasia. It is best to understand this as a crying out for love and for help. When faced with a patient who is terminally ill, doctors
* Should not give anything with the deliberate intention of killing the patient;
* But they may give pain relief, even if as a side effect of this life is shortened, as long as the patient does not become so confused that he or she cannot prepare properly for death. ( This point re-states the teaching of Pope Pius XII )
The 1980 declaration also states that treatment for a dying patient should be proportionate to the therapeutic effect expected and should not be disproportionately painful, intrusive, risky or costly, in the circumstances. Therefore treatment may ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
* Should not give anything with the deliberate intention of killing the patient;
* But they may give pain relief, even if as a side effect of this life is shortened, as long as the patient does not become so confused that he or she cannot prepare properly for death. ( This point re-states the teaching of Pope Pius XII )
The 1980 declaration also states that treatment for a dying patient should be proportionate to the therapeutic effect expected and should not be disproportionately painful, intrusive, risky or costly, in the circumstances. Therefore treatment may therefore be withheld or withdrawn.
There are two Christians teachings which are strongly believed by many Roman Catholics, and some other Christians of other denominations. They are the Sanctity of Life and Natural Law. Both of these teachings can be used to support a view against euthanasia.
In the Sanctity of Life teaching, human life is sacred from the moment of conception. It teaches that God remains the absolute owner of all our lives, the Christian tradition has held that it is a sin deliberately and directly to kill an innocent person. It is supported by the following two Old Testament quotations :
Genesis 1:27 :
' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God, he created him; male and female, he created them'.
This means that God gives the gift of life to each person and it is therefore sacred and not to be interfered with.
Psalm 139:13
' For you created my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb'
This quotation is saying that because God is sacred, we are too because he made us to be like him so again should not be interfered with. Together with the Sanctity of Life, these two teachings could be used to support the view that euthanasia is wrong because practising it would be destroying God's sacred notion of human life.
Some Christians use 'Natural Law'. This is the idea of 'there's a time to be born and a time to die'. Writers like the Philosopher Thomas Aquinas in the Medieval period, believed that natural law was ordained by God. In this way, it could be seen that we have a purpose in life to : live; reproduce; have a role in society and to worship God. It teaches that there is a time for everything and that life's natural course of events should not be interfered with.
The Natural Law teaching is backed up in the Old Testament.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-2
' Everything that happens in this world happens at the time God chooses. He sets the time for birth and the time for death.'
Job 1:21
' Naked I came from my mother's womb and naked I shall depart. The Lord and the Lord has taken away : may the name of the Lord be praised.'
This quote from Job is also an example of Natural Law and it refers to God giving us life and then letting us die. This can be seen to mean that God will take away life and we should not interfere with life in ways such as euthanasia. Both the Ecclesiastes and Job quote could be used to support an argument against euthanasia because it tells us that we should not interfere with life or death and that only God can choose when we can die.
Situation ethics can also be used by Christians in a discussion about euthanasia. The idea was originated by a Christian called Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s. He thinks that we cannot always say that something is always good or always bad e.g. euthanasia is never right. You have to take the situation into account. But this can lead to breaking the law. In January 1996, a 75 year old woman suffocated her chronically ill and house-bound husband with a pillow because she thought that he was suffering too much. Situation ethics suggests that we should have the laws on one hand and situation on the other and try to balance it. ( see Page for the newspaper article. This article is talked in greater detail in R3 )
There are also many teachings in the Bible which appear to be against euthanasia.
In Exodus 20:13 or Deuteronomy 5:17, one of the Ten Commandments say that,
' Thou shall not murder'
If we think about it, euthanasia ends up in death. It is actually the deliberate act of killing somebody so some people do consider performing euthanasia to be committing murder.
All these quotations so far have come from the Old Testament, but there also plenty in the New Testament. It is said twice in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 1 Corinthians 6:19 that our bodies are God's temple for his spirit :
' Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him, for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple'
Some Christians would use this argument against euthanasia since euthanasia could be seen as destroying our bodies and therefore God's temple.
' So those who suffer according to God's will should commit themselves to their faithful creator and continue to do good.'
This quote from 1 Peter 4:19 is saying that those who suffer should not give up. Euthanasia can often be seen as a way of giving up.
There are also quotes in the Bible which some people would say support euthanasia.
Matthew 5:5
' Blessed are the merciful'
Some people think that in order to be merciful in these sort of cases we should let those who are in great pain be released from it and allowed to die.
Some people say that euthanasia is showing compassion and mercy. In the Bible we often see Jesus being compassionate to sinners. In John 8:3-11, when everybody was condemning the adulterer, Jesus said, ' .......neither do I condemn, go now and leave your life of sin'. This shows Jesus' compassion and forgiveness. Similarly, the story of the Good Samaritan showed compassion towards the victim in Mark 12:28-34.
1 Corinthians 13:1-13 is often used as a compassion quote by Christians to support euthanasia.
' If I have no love.... I'm nothing'
These quotations could be used to support the argument that in certain cases, for example when a person has an incurable disease and may be in a great deal of pain, then euthanasia would be acceptable and right. It would be right because both Jesus and Paul said that people should have love for every human being, therefore people should be filled with an urge to help the patient who is suffering from the incurable disease. Sometimes modern medicines can't help them and they want their suffering to end by death, either by lethal injection or withdrawal of food ( if they are paralysed or in a coma ).
How does Christians respond to the question of euthanasia?
The Roman Catholic Church condemns euthanasia absolutely. They'd argue that other options are available like other caring alternative - hospice movement. They also support natural law and sanctity of life, that life is sacred, it's created by God, we're all images of God, we're all gifts from God who should be preserved and cherished. Only God can take away our life.
The Roman Catholic Church however would say that we need not, and indeed should not, seek to preserve life at all cost. It also teaches that we should never directly attack human life in its teachings on euthanasia and death. It is stressed that we do need to accept the reality of death and to prepare ourselves for it. It tries to draw a clear distinction between letting death occur when any further treatment is futile, when it is of no use to the patient and directly causing death by act or omission. Double effect is accepted because the primary intention was to relieve the patients' pain, not to cause death. It is partly a matter of intention. It is also acceptable by The Roman Catholic Church to turn off life support machines if continuation is medically not working. The Roman Catholic Church realises that sometimes, when treatment to the patient can be assessed to be 'extraordinary'. That is if it's too dangerous, futile, causes pain to the patient or lays a burden on the patient and the family. When this happens, the treatment need not be accepted. The Roman Catholic Church thinks that there is a better alternative to euthanasia, and that is the Hospice Movement. They believe that a hospice movement can provide excellent palliative care in a caring environment where the patient can die in a loving atmosphere. The Roman Catholic Church's view on this issue is basically summarised in the Papal 'Declaration on Euthanasia' of 1980 which is stated in R1b).
In principle, the Baptist Union of Great Britain is opposed to euthanasia because life is God's gift and because any relationship is worth preserving, however poor or shallow it may be. 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 Baptists accept that it is not wrong for treatment to be withdrawn and thus for the patient to be allowed to die.
The Church of England's view and teachings on euthanasia is basically the same as the Roman Catholics in that it believes in the sanctity of life and that it's a Christian duty to protect the interests of the most vulnerable. The Church of England thinks there should be a clear distinction between deliberate killing and the administration of painkilling drugs or withdrawal of treatment which will have the effect of shortening life.
In 1975 the board for Social Responsibility produced a report called 'On Dying Well : An Anglican Contribution to the debate on Euthanasia'. Here is a few examples of what was said in the report :
(1) Euthanasia implies killing, an it is misleading to extend it to cover decisions not to preserve life by artificial means when it would be better for the patient to be allowed to die.
(2) Nor should it be used to cover the giving of drugs for the relief of pain and other distress in cases where there is a risk.
(3) It should be the aim to improve the care of the dying in hospitals and hospices.
The list goes on. I think that the report has helped a lot of Anglicans and also other people to understand the Church's view on this issue.
Due to two particular court cases which occurred in 1992 and 1993 and the renewed interest raised by it, the Board for Social Responsibility prepared a position paper for the Church of England bishops. It highlights some of the changes that have occurred since the last report issued in 1975 and it also reaffirms some of the most important principles e.g.
* Human life is a gift of God to be preserved and nourished....
* There should be a clear distinction between deliberate killing and administrating painkillers or withdrawing treatment such as to have the effect of shortening life... etc.
To find out the view of the Methodist Church, I went to a Methodist minister in a local church and asked him to answer a few questions. Here is a brief outline of his reply :
What are your views on euthanasia ( voluntary, compulsory ..etc )?
I do not agree with voluntary euthanasia because life is not ours to take. I don't agree with compulsory euthanasia either because I believe only God can only control our lives. He is the one who decides when we live and we die.
What about passive euthanasia - turning off life support machines and prolongation of life?
This depends. It is sometimes acceptable. It would give time for research which may provide a reasonable quality of life for the person.
Also, I don't think everyone should have to make a declaration or decree consent to euthanasia, I do not agree with it personally.
Would you ever consider euthanasia for yourself?
No. I wouldn't consider taking part in any forms of active euthanasia.
The Methodist Church is strongly opposed to euthanasia. This can be seen in their 'Methodist Conference Statement on Euthanasia of 1974'. The report states that they believe in the sanctity of human life, supported by the Old Testament biblical quote 'God made man in his own image' ( Genesis 1:27 ). They believe that what God has given, we should not take away. The Methodist Church began a new study in 1994 exploring the issues raised by the campaign to legalise euthanasia. Some of the issues that the new study have deal with is the recognition of the problems facing doctors and nurses and living wills.
The Quakers are generally less strict on issues concerning euthanasia. Like Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, it realises that a clear distinction should be made between voluntary euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Some Quakers believe that people who are suffering should have the right to die with dignity if they request it. Other Quakers would argue that if we care for each other and offer support, euthanasia should not even be needed. Some Quakers work in the Hospice movement so that the quality of life of the patients can be increased.
Some Christians believe that instead of carrying out euthanasia, terminally ill patients should be put into Hospices and be treated with palliative care. They believe that Hospices are the place where patients can spend their last days without pain or any suffering because they try to eliminate their pain and give them painkillers. They also think that both the body and spirit of the patient needs care and love. Dame Cicely Saunders is the Founder and Chairman of St. Christopher's Hospice in South London. As a Christian, she believes that death is not the end of everything, but a brief stopping place on a journey. She was once involved with someone who was dying and she realised that what they need, was love and care. She believes that it is part of her religion to carry out her belief and religion into practice.
Most Christians think that we're all gifts from God, we shouldn't be allowed to decide when to die, only God has the right to do that. And so we shouldn't disobey the commandment ' Thou shalt not kill '. Because if you carry out euthanasia, it is an act of deliberate killing, and you are indeed killing an innocent person which is wrong.
Some Christians will oppose to euthanasia because they think it goes against the natural law. They believe that there's a time to born and there's a time to die. We should not fiddle around with nature, we should let it take its course. Carrying out euthanasia is clearly going against nature because you're deliberately killing a person. All these natural processes are under God's control.
Some Christians think that circumstances like long illness and old age can actually help people to face death, even though death is frightening. They argue that death is an event in life, not the end of life. Jesus in the New Testament heals the sick and the dying so we should try to heal the dying as well not to end their life. God gave man ' dominion over every living thing ' ( Genesis 1;28 ). Humans have a responsibility to use God's gifts to the full.
Some Christians believe that euthanasia should be allowed, because it is kinder in some circumstances to let people die than to make them carry on living. But most Christians do not accept this.
But of course not all Christians oppose to euthanasia.
Here is a quote from Rev. D.L.Weatherhead, a Methodist
'I believe that those who come after us will wonder why we kept a human being alive against their will when all the dignity, beauty, and meaning of life vanished. ( Quali, the quality of their lives ) and when we should've been punished by the state if we'd kept an animal alive in similar physical conditions.'
I think that he is right in a lot of ways. If we can put a dog out of pain, why can't we put a human being out of pain? Why should we let patients who are suffering, especially those who are terminally ill suffer?
Hans Kung, a famous theologian believes that :
"...as a Christian and a theologian I am convinced that the all-merciful God, who has given men and women freedom and responsibility for their lives, has also left to dying people the responsibility for making a conscientious decision about the manner and time of their deaths'.
Some Christians do support euthanasia because they recognise the pain that terminally ill patients suffer. They also realise that dying with dignity is very important, and that it is the quality of life that counts, but not the quantity. The following quote from Dr Christiaan Barnard, a Christian heart-transplant surgeon shows how he feels on this issue :
' I have never seen any nobility in a patient's thrashing around all night in a sweat-soaked bed, trying to escape from the pain hat torments him day and night.... To my mind, when the terminally ill patient has reached this stage, the best medical treatment is death.'
I did a questionnaire on 60 people to get an idea of what they felt about the issues concerning euthanasia. Here are my results.
(1)
Out of the 60 people I interviewed, half was man and half was woman.
(2)
This pie chart shows the age distribution of the people I did the questionnaires on. I felt that it was important to find out the views of the older generation i.e. 41+ as well as the younger generation as they could have had some experience of relatives or friends who has had euthanasia performed on them.
(3)
The majority of the interviewees were Christian because I want to find out how Christians would respond to questions concerning euthanasia. But I also asked people of other religions so that I can get a more varied view.
(4)
Not everybody actually knows that euthanasia is illegal in Great Britain. The people who didn't know were mainly aged 10-15.
(5)
63% of the people said that euthanasia should be partially legal. Some say that because they think that it depends very much on the individual case. In cases of euthanasia, we often cannot pinpoint what is right and what is wrong and therefore what is legal and what is illegal.
(6)
Most people actually think that euthanasia is justified if the person has a terminal illness. I think this is because they realise the pain that some terminally ill patience suffers and the lack of quality of life that they possess.
(7)
The figures are very close here. 53% says that they would practice euthanasia on a relative, and 47% says they wouldn't. Some of them said they wouldn't because, although they realise the suffering their close relative might go through if they had an terminal illness, they would not be prepared to actually practice euthanasia on them. Here are some quotes from the people who said they would not practice euthanasia on their relatives,
' I think euthanasia is classified as killing.'
My friend's dad, who is a priest, said,
' Euthanasia should not be practised at all. We should remember that every human life is sacred and therefore everybody is God's gift. No one but God has the right to end our lives.'
Here is a comment from a person who would practise euthanasia on a close relative :
'It is good because the close relative will no longer have to suffer from the incurable disease, they will die in a painless way.
(8)
The figures are very close again. 56% said they would consider euthanasia on themselves if it was necessary, 44% was against this.
'' I would rather die and rest in peace than to suffer. There's no point in me being like a 'vegetable'.''
Here is a comment from a person who wouldn't consider euthanasia for themselves if they were suffering from a terminal illness and were going to die in the near future :
' There is a time to born and a time to die. I don't want to interfere with that. '
(9)
Most people did say that they consider euthanasia to be mercy killing because the intention is usually to release someone from their pain and let them have the quality of life and die with dignity.
Some others consider euthanasia to be suicide but I think there is a difference in between euthanasia and suicide. This question is being looked at in question 12.
(10)
68% say that doctors should not imprisoned for assisting a person's death. One of the reason is that to become a doctor, at least 4 years of studying would be needed. In this case, it has proved their commitment and abilities. If a patient dies in the hands of a doctor, the doctor should not be jailed, because after all they are trying to do their job. However if a doctor blatantly committed murder, in this case, by all means they would and should be sentenced to jail.
Some people believe that doctors are wrong if they do anything which intends to end a person's life and so they think that doctors should be imprisoned for assisting a person's death.
(11)
I think lots of people are influenced by the media who have reported stories about people who are kept on life support machines e.g. the case with Tony Bland.
Some say that it is wrong because we shouldn't take extreme measures to keep someone alive but others argue that there have been cases where people who are in PVS and their life depend on the life support machine do come round.
(12)
The majority feels that there is a difference between euthanasia and suicide. Some feels there's no difference because they consider that both euthanasia and suicide is a way of giving up hope and also life. However, most realise that euthanasia is practised when there is no hope of recovery whereas decision to commit suicide is sometimes a temporary one e.g. because of a bereavement and they were in a depression and they were suicidal because they felt there was no reason to live without that person.
(13)
Suicide is sometimes talked about with euthanasia. 85% of the people thought that suicide is never justified because, as I said in the previous question, the decision to commit suicide is often temporary.
(14)
71% of the beliefs about the euthanasia came from a personal and moral viewpoint.
The last question and the whole questionnaire proves that being a Christian doesn't necessarily mean that they are against euthanasia.
Is Euthanasia ever justified?
Euthanasia has been such a controversial topic because this issue is so complicated and so complex. Different people have different definitions of euthanasia. It is not surprising that with euthanasia meaning different things to different people, why there have been so many debates on this issue and so many confusions.
Some people oppose to euthanasia. They, like a lot of Christians, believe that death is merely an event in life and not the end. In this way, there is no need to preserve life at all costs. Some people prefer the hospice movement, they find it as the perfect care alternative to euthanasia. This way, you're not killing an innocent person with deliberate intention but instead you're giving the patient the chance to be helped to face death and to accept it with dignity. It tries to give you as little medicine to have as possible because some medicine can cause great pains for patients. They try to eliminate the suffering of the patients who were dying and give them painkillers. It tries to help the dying spend their last days in a loving and sympathetic environment where their relatives can visit them anytime if they want to. However, many GPs still regard hospices as 'a place to die' and only to be used as a last resort. As Dame Cicely Saunders emphasised, 'hospice is a philosophy rather than a facility.'. Hospices tries to create an environment in which the physical, emotional, social, psychological and spiritual needs of the patient are met. Many people, including many Christians think that the hospice movement would be the perfect answer for an alternative to euthanasia so that the dying patients will not have to spend their last days in pain and suffer. The body and spirit of the patient need care and love. And because Hospices depends on charities we should all try to fundraise for hospices to help them maintain their service.
Not all people support the idea of a hospice movement. Many of those who support euthanasia point out its disadvantages. First of all, there are not always enough beds in the hospice to cope with the number of dying patients. In the UK, where the hospice movement is well established, there were 150,000 deaths from cancer in 1993 while just 28000 deaths occurred in hospices. Secondly, most hospices only concentrate on dealing with cancer patients or in a few cases, AIDS patients, therefore people fear that other terminally ill patients may not receive effective palliative care.
Let's consider the situation where a person is in a coma, PVS, and they are on a life support machine? If they have been on it for a long time and still have not recovered, should we turn off the life support machine? If we do, this would be considered as passive euthanasia. This happened in the case of Tony Bland in 1989 when he was crushed in a human stampede at the Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield. His injuries left him in a PVS and he was kept alive by feeding types. His doctors and parents felt that he had no chance of recovery and that the artificial feeding should be stopped. By doing that, a doctor would be guilty of a criminal act. After a long battle, in which the lawyers argued that passive euthanasia was in the patient's best interest, the doctors were allowed to stop treating him and he died in 1993. This decision was questioned by those who opposed euthanasia and believed in the sanctity of life. They argue that a patient with PVS has the same value and dignity as it did when they patient was fit and well. Turning off the life support machine could be the best solution in some situations, but a shocking research at the Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability, who led the study into patients in PVS revealed that over two years, 15 out of 80 patients thought to be in PVS came round!
In February 2000, Ian Brady, who has been convicted of the Moors Murders 34 years ago has been on a hunger strike for 5 months. He launched his legal bid for the 'right to die' and he wanted the High Court in Liverpool to stop Ashworth secure hospital from force-feeding him. The newspaper article can be found on Page . I think that this can be considered as passive euthanasia as he is asking the doctors to stop force feeding him. Passive euthanasia is usually for patients who are believed to have no hope of recovery but Ian Brady is a perfectly healthy person. I think letting him dying is a easy way out for him, he should serve his life sentence that he deserves. If the law court's decision is in favour of Ian Brady, then I think they are just letting someone commit suicide in front of their eyes.
Issues dealing with dying with dignity and the quality of life is being talked more about. Some people say that it is very hard for terminally ill patients because of the amount of suffering and stress on them. Most of them think that dying with dignity is very important. They believe that euthanasia can be a quick and humane end o a patient's suffering. Personal autonomy is very important, a lot of people believe in their rights : that they have a right to live, and also the right to die. Some people argue that we are all going o die some day, so why can't one stage their own death. Some people would wish to create a time where, with their loved ones, they can have a doctor to assist them to die. The quality of life is often stress also. It is often argued that it's the quality of life that counts, not the quantity. Page has two newspaper articles on how more and more people think that dying with dignity is better. On the first article, taken from the Evening Post in March 2000 tells us how an increasing number of elderly patients are asking not to be revived if they suffer from life-threatening conditions. They want to die with dignity and would not want to be kept alive in extreme measures. The second article has been taken from the Daily Mail in October 1996. There are two case studies in there gives a personal account of how terminally ill patients must feel from the patients' relatives. I think this article makes people think that maybe dying with dignity is better because it makes us realise that pain that terminally ill patients suffer.
' it broke our hearts to see him so pitifully thin, full of pain and hardly able to eat...his last days were spent in a wonderful hospice. He couldn't swallow and could hardly speak. His whole quality of life had gone and he asked more than once to be given an injection to be put o sleep. It's time we treated our loved ones as well as we do our animals.'
These two articles shows the increasing support for voluntary euthanasia, especially among the elderly because they are the ones who are more likely to have concerns about terminal illnesses.
Some Christians do believe in dying with dignity as the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on euthanasia is that people should not seek to preserve life at all costs. Surely, if people do not seek to preserve life at all costs, that means that they are respecting the fact the quality of life is important and not the quantity.
However, some people believe that suffering is a part of life and that we should not try and avoid it. Church of England would seem to be sympathetic in issues concerning euthanasia, but the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope especially are set against it, saying that human life is in the hands of God and it is not for us to regulate it.
In the Vatican's Declaration on Euthanasia , 1980, it is stated that according to Christian teaching, suffering, especially during the last moment of life, has a special place in God's saving plan. It also stresses that 'it is in fact a sharing in Christ's Passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which He offered in obedience to the Father's will.'
So should we legalise voluntary euthanasia? There certainly has been many cases in the past in the media dealing with issues of voluntary euthanasia. One of the most agonising decisions faced by doctors is whether to withhold or withdraw medical treatment from dying patients. In July 1998, new guidelines were issued by the British Medical Association which are designed to aid the professionals who have to make these life or death choices. The newspaper cutting on Page talks about the difficulty facing doctors. They have to think about the ethical side - they often have to ask themselves whether or not the patient's quality of life would be improved if they withheld their treatment. In the article, it also has a case study of a girl, Laura Davies who suffered from cancer and went through a six-organ transplant. The father talked of the fact that maybe he shouldn't have let his daughter gone through the operation and that he should've realised the fact that the operation was only causing more pain on his daughter. I think that this is one example of extraordinary treatment. The parent realised afterwards that he shouldn't have taken extreme measures in order to keep his daughter alive.
A newspaper article ( on Page )on the 29th January, 2000 talks about a possible new euthanasia bill which could be passed. The bill states that there should be tighter legislation against doctors who unlawfully allow patients to die by withholding food and fluid. Mrs Winterton, who opened the second reading debate her Private Member's Bill fears that there is a slide towards the acceptance of euthanasia. This is what we call the slippery slope which is talked about later in R3. I think that what Dr Brand said in the article reflects the problems that doctors face.
' To assume doctors can help life or death is nonsense '.
' People are entitled to slip and leave this life in a quiet peaceful manner.'
Mrs Winterton do have support from Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders.
However, a recent research showed that 79% of the British population think that doctors should be allowed to end the life of an incurably ill and intolerably suffering patient, at that patient's considered request.
There has been many other cases in the media concerning with euthanasia. One famous one is of Annie Lindsell who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. She was not able to feed herself properly, dress herself. She went from 100% independence to total reliance. The article on Page shows an account of Annie, fighting for her right to die. Annie was a famous case and she had made a very big impact on everyone. She couldn't stand the loss of dignity as her disease slowly deteriorated.
Voluntary euthanasia is illegal in the United Kingdom but there are countries which allow euthanasia e.g. Netherlands. It has been permitted since 1980. It is claimed that up to 10,000 cases of voluntary euthanasia per year occur in the Netherlands but over 80% are no reported.
The Dutch Medical Association is very supportive. Methods which are commonly used is stated below :
. The slow infusion of barbiturate to produce death within hours.
2. An injection of barbiturate causing rapid unconsciousness, followed by a muscle relaxant o produce respiratory arrest and results in death in a few minutes.
Of course there must be safeguards. There are 10 guidelines drawn up in 1981 in Rotterdam which voluntary euthanasia has to follow. They include guidelines like 'The patient must be making an informed decision to die - I must be a voluntary decision', 'There must be physical or mental suffering which the sufferer finds unbearable', 'The feelings of suffering and the desire to die must be lasting and not temporary' etc. I think the last guideline I mentioned is very important. I think people should realise that voluntary euthanasia is not a form of suicide e.g. you want to die because your girlfriend/boyfriend broke up with you.
Euthanasia performed on children has also been in the media. Polls show support for the principle of euthanasia running at more than 90% in the Netherlands. The child euthanasia clause however looks to be a step too far. It would probably be dropped due to the outrage in the country and abroad. Dutch laws has long permitted children as young as 12 to refuse medical treatment, in defiance of their parents' wishes if necessary. More to the point, Dutch doctors are already helping dying children to early deaths.
There are groups in the Netherlands that oppose euthanasia. The opposition is led by the Christian Democrats. They say that it must remain an illegal act. If you end somebody's life on purpose, it's no medical treatment, it's a different stage altogether and the law should always protect the weakest person involved and we shouldn't be passing a law to make life easier for the doctors. They also believe in Sanctity of Life and Natural Law and therefore condemn euthanasia.
An article in The Telegraph in 1998 reveals the concerns raised by the House of Lords that Britain might follow Holland along the road to widespread use of euthanasia. Advocates of the 'right to die' often point to the Netherlands as a model for how doctor-assisted voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill patients can work without abuse. But Lord McColl said the system of regulation was not working and pointed out the dangers of Britain adopting similar practices under a review of the law now taking place. Church leaders also expressed concern that plans to make 'living wills' legally enforceable means that people have taken one further step towards voluntary euthanasia. They fear that 'the courts could be used to make case law that would bypass Parliament and allow doctors to assist the deaths of mentally-incompetent patients'.
The newspaper cutting from he Daily Mail in 1996 on Page talks about Dr Nitschke who developed a computerised machine and performed euthanasia on an Australian man suffering from prostrate cancer. He became the first person in the world to die using legally sanctioned euthanasia. Euthanasia became legal due to a new law by the Northern Territory parliament. The man died after pressing a button on the computer which activated a program to pump barbiturates into his arm. The patient must respond to three questions using 'yes/no' keys which confirm his absolute intention to proceed. The final statement says,
' In 15 seconds you will be given a lethal injection'. When he presses 'yes', the drugs are automatically delivered.
The head of the Catholic Church in Australia said that the first case of euthanasia was a 'shameful day for Australia'. The Archbishop Goodhew of the Sydney Anglican diocese said,
'It's a very sad thing ... The consequences may not be known for another 25 years and we may be very sorry.'
And a spokesperson for the Australian Associations commented : 'I feel very sad that we are the first nation in the whole world to have voluntary euthanasia'
The Chairman of Alert said that 'What the Northern Territory needs is a new health service not a new death service.'
I think this is the kind of thing which shocks people the most about euthanasia. It also scares people that because euthanasia has become so easy it might easily turn into involuntary or compulsory euthanasia.
Many are opposed to euthanasia. The Roman Catholic Church condemns it because they believe in the Sanctity of Life and Natural Law and the Biblical teachings. But they do accept double effect, which is, in cases of euthanasia, that you can give pain relief to the patient by injecting them with morphine but as a side effect shortening their life. Some people, Christians and non-Christians argue that this is total hypocrisy. Roman Catholic Church states that it is okay if the intention was to relieve their pain but doctors can be injecting patients with morphine, saying that they want to relieve the patients' pain but in fact have other intentions. This could easily lead to what people call the 'slippery slope'. The theory of slippery slope states that it is impossible to set secure limits and that voluntary euthanasia would eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia or even compulsory euthanasia. It might lead to the stage of the Nazis' programme in World War 2 and we wouldn't want that history to repeat itself. There was much controversy in 1999 when a doctor named Harold Shipman unnecessary injected lethal doses of drugs into his patients and they died as a result of it. Some people Harold Shipman was performing involuntary or compulsory euthanasia on his patient, this is one good example of what we call the 'slippery slope'.
There are also other reasons why people oppose to euthanasia and that is because they think that the patient might not be able to make a rational decision or might change their mind but would be incapable of telling the doctors. Also, doctors-patient relationships will be destroyed. It is always thought that doctors are there to heal people, if euthanasia becomes legalised then the whole image would be changed. However I think that the general aim of the doctor is to 'heal' people. This does not necessarily mean to do everything, even in extreme measures, to try and keep someone alive even when they have no hope of recovery. Some thinks that healing the patient means relieving them from the pain in which they suffer. Some people feel that the elderly might feel that they are a nuisance to others and a burden on their family and so are pressurised into asking for euthanasia when deep down in their heart, they do actually want to carry on living.
I think that a particular quote which has already been mentioned in R2 strongly reinforces the argument for supporting euthanasia.
'I believe that those who come after us will wonder why we kept a human being alive against their will when all the dignity, beauty, and meaning of life vanished. ( Quali, the quality of their lives ) and when we should've been punished by the state if we'd kept an animal alive in similar physical conditions.'
Reverend. D.L.Weatherhead, a Methodist
As I've briefly mentioned in R1, in 1996, a newspaper article ( Page ) reported that a 75 year old woman suffocated her chronically ill and house bound husband and then tried to kill herself shortly. She suffocated him with a pillow and made unsuccessful suicide attempt afterwards. It is clear that the woman killed her husband out of compassion because she couldn't bear to see her husband, who suffered a heart attack and had chronic kidney failure, live like that. The Crown accepted the woman's plea for culpable homicide because she was suffering from diminished responsibility at the time.
Diminished Responsibility S.2a) states that :
'Where a person kills or is party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind ... as substantially to impair his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being party to the killing'
I did a questionnaire on people of different religions and asked their views on issues concerning euthanasia. The results of the questionnaire can be seen in R2. The close figures in many of the questions show that euthanasia is a very debatable topic and it is very hard to decide whether euthanasia is justified or not.
I think that euthanasia is such a complicated issue. I don't think I or anyone can ever say definitely whether euthanasia is justified or not. I think that it strongly depends on particular case and situation. If I thought that the patient had absolutely no quality of life, had no hope of recovery then maybe it is justified. It should be made sure that voluntary euthanasia is not made an easy way out for people who feels temporary suicidal.
