Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper

Euthanasia is defined in the Chamber?s English Dictionary as ? the act or practice of putting someone painlessly, or as gently as possible, to death?.

There are various forms of Euthanasia, which I must explain before referring to the teachings of the different Christian denominations. The most common of them is Voluntary Euthanasia, where the patient decides for themselves, that they would prefer to be dead. They might decide at the time, or perhaps they might have written a ?living will? instructing doctors to kill them if they are ever in a situation where they will never be conscious again. There is also In-voluntary Euthanasia, were someone else decides against the patient?s wishes that would be better off dead, and enforces it in the act of killing them. Therefore it is often out-classed as Euthanasia, because it is not ?gentle?. Non-voluntary Euthanasia takes place in a situation where the patient cannot be asked, or more correctly, cannot answer. This may be because the victim is a baby and can?t speak yet, or perhaps the victim is in a coma and is unable to respond to people around him, but in this case a relative or doctor will decide for the person.

It is also important to distinguish the difference between killing someone (Active), and letting them die (Passive). Killing a person is expressed in an action. An example of this, would be a doctor injecting his patient with a poison. Whereas letting someone die, is expressed in not performing an action. An example of this would be a doctor not supplying his patient with drugs that would save his life, and as a result the patient?s life is shortened.

I will set, discuss, and finally evaluate a debate about Voluntary Euthanasia using contexts from both the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of England. Some of the key influences I will refer to are Natural Law, Situation Ethics, Doctrine of Double Effect, The Golden Rule, Church documents, and the Bible.

Ignoring all religious views, an argument for Voluntary Euthanasia performed by someone other than the patient, is that it is simply ?mercy killing?. This would, under general Christian views, be just because it was an act of love, and after all that is what Christianity revolves around.

One question, that must be answered is, ?Is there a difference between killing and letting someone die, when it comes to an argument about euthanasia?? Members of different Christian denominations would answer this question in different ways. Generally, the view of the Catholic church is that Euthanasia and any other form of killing (i.e. murder, suicide) are all the same, and should all be viewed under the same respects. However, the Anglican Church is a bit more particular in their attitudes towards different forms of Euthanasia, and other forms of killing, whether voluntary, or other.

The first source I shall use to come to my personal decision, is the Bible. The most logical record of God?s view towards Euthanasia, is the list of Ten Commandments. The fifth commandment states, that ?thou shalt not kill?. It prohibits the taking of an innocent life. However, there are two words for kill in Greek, and when Christ quotes the commandment, he uses the word that is directly translated as ?murder?. Therefore, there is nothing in the list of God-given commandments that directly discourages Voluntary euthanasia.

However, the Catholic Church would argue that there was no difference between murder and any other forms of killing, even in the case of suicide, as long as the killing is deliberate. Even the co-operation in any act of killing is against the moral law. ?Do not slay the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.?

Christians, who oppose Euthanasia (Catholic Church), may do so because they believe that ?The human person is created to praise, reverence and serve God? . This is based on the belief that God created humans in an image of himself, to rule the world, and have power over all the other animals. Therefore, Christians who commit suicide are breaking their God?s wish, by not ruling over the other animals, to protect his creation.

These same people would oppose the act of Voluntary Euthanasia, claiming that the ?victim? is killing a part of God, as he made us in all similarities with himself, a mortal replica. ? We are all made in the image and likeness of God.?

Therefore, by casting themselves into non-existence, they are rejecting His gift of life, and His love.

The Catholic Church would argue that if a treatment is available to lengthen the life of a patient, then they should accept it. It is a person?s moral obligation to take a medicine that will lengthen their stewardship on the earth. The Hospice Movement encourages people to stay alive for as long as God chooses, rather than to make the choice themselves.

The supporters of Voluntary Euthanasia, some of who are members of the Anglican Church, would quote from the Bible: ?Do unto others, as you would have done unto yourself.? In other words, if you expect others to respect your needs and help you, first you have to acknowledge their needs and help them.

The Catholic interpretation of this quote, is that if you take part in euthanasia you are assisting suicide, which is effectively murder.

Part of Christian teachings, more often the Catholic side, follow the Doctrine of Double Effect. The idea behind the Doctrine of Double Effect, created by Thomas Aquinas, is that someone must never perform a deliberate act that is ?wrong?, so that they may achieve a ?right?. An example of the Doctrine in practice would be if a man was taking drugs to relieve pain, and he shortened his life as a result. If he had foreseen and desired the result, then his act would have been immoral. However, if he had solely taken the drugs to relieve himself of pain, and had not done it for the intention of shortening his life, then the act would be moral.

The Church of England would say that by shortening his life, the patient would be relieving himself of pain. Therefore the act would be fine, regardless of whether the original intention was to kill himself.

Situation Ethics is a key issue into the way different people fell about euthanasia. It is based around the idea that a person should perform the act that will bring around the most love. In simpler terms that person has to think what will happen in the future, and whether there will be more pain and grief if the victim remains alive or dies. And if a patient is terminally ill, and in great pain, then the family will no doubt feel far better with the idea that their relation is not in the pain that they previously were.

In 1980, the Vatican released the ?Declaration on Euthanasia?. They said that phrases such as ?mercy killing?, were obscuring the fact that Euthanasia was brutal murder. The Declaration was directly related to Pope Pius?s XII views about the use of drugs to help relieve the patient of pain. He said that it was all right to use pain-relievers as long as the patient isn?t directly using them because they will shorten his life.

If not to add confusion to the argument between the two denominations, the Church of England condemns euthanasia in a document created by the Church of England?s Board for Social responsibility. The report, however, does not claim that it is ?right to die?. It takes exception tom its use in the euthanasia debate because it ?suffers from a dangerous ambiguity?. It claims that a person does have the right to determine whether he should live or die, when in extremis.

Suffering is either caused by natural means, such as old age, earthquakes or disease; or by human wickedness. Sins are caused by people, who instead of allying with God, are distracted by Satan. Traditional Christian theology says that a great deal of suffering is caused by sin. Suffering is very important to Christians. Without suffering Christians would not be able to learn from societies mistakes. C.S.Lewis writes: ?through suffering we gain experience, to avoid going through the same pain again?.

But perhaps the reason that many people do not believe in God, is because there is so much suffering in the world, today. It is easy to see the point that they are making. Why does God allow the suffering to take place?

Suffering is caused by pain, and if God was to eradicate pain then people would lose a defense mechanism. Pain is a part of the world for the reason that it tells you when something is wrong. If God was to keep interfering with the planet then, there would be no point in letting the people make there own choices.

It is also important that people who suffer in the world realize, contrary to Glen Hoddle?s opinions, that it is not because they have done something wrong previously. Jesus visited a blind boy to help revive his sight. He said: ?his blindness has nothing to do with his sins or his parent?s sins. He is blind so that God?s power may be seen at work in him.?

Many people with physical and mental disabilities travel to Lourdes every year, so that they might be cured in spirit if not in mind. In most cases they return with the same outside appearance, however, they all return with the power of god within them.

The Hospice Movement tries to bring meaning to suffering, by running shelters for those who are suffering and are close to death. In this situation people can prepare for their death so that they are ready to meet God in a new life.

Jesus said that every one of his followers, should try to live a life close to his. He suffered all the way through his life, and during his time on the cross, but in the end he overcame the suffering and joined Heaven. This is a sign to all those who suffer, not to end their lives quickly through euthanasia, but to die at the appropriate time, when God chooses.

Especially in Roman Catholic tradition, suffering, and particularly illness, is a key sign that the world is imperfect and in need of God.

Christianity revolves around love, and a Christian is expected to eliminate suffering, in an act of love. Letting someone live in pain, instead of aiding them, or letting them end their own lives, is not an act of love.

I would take the Utilitarian view when approaching the subject of euthanasia. If a patient is in such pain that they would prefer to be dead rather than stay alive, he should first consult his family and close friends before ending his life. His family are likely to think of his needs first. But in the end, the decision should be made by taking all their views into account.

If the family would suffer as a result of his death, then he should not die in an unnatural way. But, it is more likely that they will be suffering with him, and will feel the relief if he does not, and they do not have to watch him, live any longer in his painful condition. If this is the case, then they should back his feelings, and give him their support.

It has been said that although the earth does not belong to the people, God did create humans to make their own decisions on it. Therefore in the case of voluntary euthanasia, there is no doubt that the end decision must be made by the patient, and not the doctor.

If the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, then the appeal for his death, falls into the non-voluntary category, and is of no complication to my conclusion.

As I have said already, the fifth commandment is addressing the point of murdering innocent people. Murder is when one person intentionally kills another without legal justification or excuse. If euthanasia was legalised, then it would not officially be murder. In such a case, a Christian would not be violating the fifth commandment, and there would be no reason why he could not be a supporter.