Euthanasia in the Light of Christian Anthropology - Research Paper Example

The Number 27 June Euthanasia in the Light of Christian Anthropology “Euthanasia is a temptation, in effect, to take the life of a man under the false pretext of giving them a pleasant and quiet death…this is a crime which cannot become legal by any means” (Pope Paul VI, 1963-78) (quoted in Keene 30) Along with physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia is an act which strikes at the very heart of humanity concept. The subject of euthanasia is so popular in modern time that the overwhelming majority of people who are not experts in Bioethics possess at least minimal understanding of arguments either for/against euthanasia. The goal in this paper is to explore one set of arguments against euthanasia that are based on Christian anthropology and discuss the phenomenon of euthanasia from the viewpoint of a person. In order to achieve my goal, the following thesis statement has been developed. Euthanasia is unacceptable from Christian point of view since it violates the principles of Christianity through contradicting the will of God, violation of society’s recognition of the sanctity of life, contradicting Christian idea that suffering has value, and paving path for involuntary killing of people who are no longer desired to be a part of the community. Besides, attempt will be made to disprove several major anti-euthanasia arguments from the perspective of Christian anthropology. Historical Background Historically, debates on ethical relevance of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide go back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome. There euthanasia was a regular practice. According to credible historical sources, lots of Romans and Greeks opted for “voluntary death over endless agony”, so that “this form of euthanasia was an everyday reality…and many physicians actually gave their patients the poison for which they were asked” (Manning 6). The voluntary essence of dying was emphasized, so that euthanasia was totally justified as a way to bring end to suffering from an incurable illness. Only with the advent of Hippocratic school was euthanasia ultimately rejected in medicine (Fernandez 2). With the spread of Christianity in Europe, the philosophical ban on euthanasia practice initiated by Hippocrates and his followers was supported as the one that corresponded to the Revelation. The new religion taught that every person possessed invaluable worth since he/she was created in God’s image and likeness. Given this, the majority of European doctors had refused from euthanasia by the turn of the 15th century. This was the case until the Nazi coming to power in 1930s with their programs of involuntary euthanasia massively run during the Holocaust (Emanuel 793). In his “History of Euthanasia Debates in the United States and Britain”, Emanuel rightfully observes that debates about euthanasia in the States and in the UK which took place in late 1890s and at the very beginning of the 20th century remind the ones that one witnesses today, both by the nature and ferocity of the discussion (Emanuel 797-801). Interestingly, interest in euthanasia is known to boost throughout history at certain moments, as Emanuel points out. These are times when economic pressures align with the Social Darwinist approach in politics whose aim is to remedy the recession. Also, these are times when physicians find themselves struggling with the society with the intention to hold their authority and be in charge of their own profession. In addition, it happens when the termination of practices aimed at life sustenance has grown to be a standard of accepted medical practice and a desire is expressed to extend this approach to active euthanasia (Emanuel 797). By the turn of the 21st century the mentioned conditions have arguably been met. The advancement of managed care, healthcare costs soaring, plus a constantly increasing number of patients without insurance brought unprecedented pressure both to political and economic spheres with regard to looking for a cost-effective solution. Moreover, the 1970s were the time when patient autonomy started to be an issue. With dominance of patient autonomy, medical profession and its authority was challenged (Pellegrino 23). Today the availability of the Internet makes it possible for patients to get access instantly to huge amounts of data about any disease which were earlier considered technical and privileged. In addition, government have made attempts to restrict the power of physicians through special regulation. Ultimately, with the case of Karen Ann Quinlan back in 1976 that allowed removing the life support based on respect for her autonomy as a patient, the number of voices suggesting that euthanasia should be legalized multiplied in various domains including medical, scholarly, and legislative spheres (“In the matter of Karen Quinlan, an alleged incompetent”). In the United States, the 1994 Oregon Death with Dignity Act was passed and affirmed once again in 1997. It freed “from civil or criminal liability physicians who, in compliance with specific safeguards, dispense or prescribe (but not administer) a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of the terminally ill patient.” (Gostin 1941). Reportedly, Oregon is the only American state where euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are legal (Fernandez 4). Across the globe, euthanasia has been made legal in two countries: the Netherlands and Belgium. Also, Estonia and Switzerland permit physician assisted suicide, whereas Holland allows for euthanasia in pediatric medicine along with permitting physician assisted suicide. The legislation of the latter was also attempted to pass in Australia, namely its Northern Territory, but was banned the Senate. The practical issues arising within the sphere of euthanasia practice in these countries include medical complications as well as false reports of deaths (only about a half) or lots of cases of involuntary euthanasia (amounting up to 1, 000 cases a year) (Onwuteaka-Philipsen 691-693). Here a clarification needs to be done as to what is meant by euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. While these to notions are quite similar, the principal difference between is in what part the physician plays in the death of a patient. Specifically, euthanasia suggests the doctor killing his /her patient, while the physician assisted suicide is when the patient kills himself/herself with the help of a doctor (Willems et al 63-67). As for this paper which focuses on the issue of euthanasia relevance in general, it is suggested that the term euthanasia extensively be used with the meaning of active and voluntary euthanasia. Euthanasia in Christian Religion Christianity has always been against euthanasia as the practice of taking away the life of an innocent person. Moreover, euthanasia was actively condemned. At the same time, resorting to suicide in order to free oneself from suffering was a perpetual issue. For example, at the turn of the first millennium, in The Shephard of Hermas one comes across the passage where it is advised to take care of the poor in a proper way so that they do not commit suicide. Christian martyrs that during Roman persecutions were induced to commit suicide refused to do so saying they had to obey God by living and preaching. One of the most authoritative Christian theologians St Augustine was against suicide based on the God’s commandment “Thou shall not kill”. He posited that both person’s life and suffering are ordained by Providence and had to be endured accordingly. Because all humans had been created after God’s image, they and their lives were in His possession. This means that death, its time and the way it was to occur depended completely on God’s will (Manning 17). These views expressed by St Augustine were popular among the Middle Ages. Catholic monks codified them in certain moral manuals. Another great Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas was able to ground ban on suicide philosophically. Through the theory of natural law, he developed an approach to defy any logic of suicide. In particular, Aquinas based his ideas on the thought that only through human reason one can arrive at the truth which was revealed from above. This is embodied in acting in a good manner and avoiding doing evil in complex situations. Aquinas begins with the assertion of St Augustine that God dominates all people’s lives. However, he also prefaces this argument with other two. First of all, he contends that inherently suicide is not compatible with the found intrinsic motivation of every alive being to preserve itself alive. Secondly, suicide is said to be unjust from the political viewpoint since it deprives a given community of one of its members (Manning 17). In the universe, which was created by God and which functions under consistent laws, suicide is seen as a violation of love of God, of community and of oneself. On the ground of this, the idea of the sanctity of life was developed. Human life is sacred irrespective of its quality. In this respect, euthanasia emerges as a wrong practice since it largely violates the very meaning of a human being and personality, as well as the essence of community of people. Instead of looking for ways to commit suicide, Christians developed a new approach to accepting death. Having reinterpreted the concept of good death popular in ancient Greece and ancient Rome, Christians contended that suffering did have a point. Specifically, it was assumed that suffering was the means of God’s teaching a person on the way to produce spiritual maturity. At the same time, Christians were welcome to comfort the person who suffered by a variety of means which, however, excluded killing for merciful purposes (Manning 16). De Lugo, a Jesuit Cardinal, developed the set of arguments against suicide including euthanasia. The first one is based on understanding that it is God that dominates and rules human life. The second says that suicide is itself an injustice in relation to the community. The third one is suicide and euthanasia contradict natural love that every human owes to himself. Finally, suicide is said to be a matter of cowardliness (Manning 18). These days the debate on whether euthanasia should be allowed and legalized touched the representatives of various Christian denominations. As Keene rightfully observes, the differences in the opinions among representatives of churches are compensated by the general agreement on the fact that life is God’s gift and is of great value. At the same time, some denominations also support the view that a person should have a right to die in dignity (Keene 30) Whereas some nonconformist churches still leave space for euthanasia, as for example, Methodists who back in 1974 said that ‘the argument for euthanasia will be answered if better methods of caring for the dead are developed’ (Keene 30), traditional churches, for example, the Roman Catholic Church, are fiercely against euthanasia. Within this church, euthanasia is considered a murder (Keene 30). One of the greatest opponents to euthanasia who developed a solid philosophical base to disprove the arguments of euthanasia supporters was Karol Wojtyla, late Pope John Paul 2. Specifically, he developed responses to the following arguments: that a person has a right for autonomy, that a person has a right for compassion, that a person has a right to be relived from the evil of pain and suffering, and finally that a person has a right to preserve dignity by dying in a dignified way (Fernandez 7-8). Wojtyla’s anti-euthanasia response starts with recognition of the fact that ethical action is meaningful only if a person is understood as an authentic phenomenon. Yet, it is only via acting that a person reveals himself/herself. This living experience is what is primary for a person’s development. Being aware of what a person is and should be is inseparable from what he should do. Thus, all the arguments are disproved once the following thing is recognized: having been deliberately put to death, a person is not realized through experiencing himself/herself as an author of action. Hence, freedom is not achieved. In conclusion, euthanasia is incompatible with the principles of Christian anthropology due to its violation of the foundations of Christianity, its contradiction to the will of God, its destroying the very notion of sanctity of life, as well as its preparing the way for mass involuntary killings of the terminally ill patients. The philosophical searches of both contemporary and past theologians point at the invalidity of the arguments of euthanasia supporters who claim the primacy of the patient’s autonomy, the need for compassion, the need to remove evil brought by suffering, as well as the right to avoid loss of dignity. Works Cited Emanuel, Ezekiel “The History of Euthanasia Debates in the United States and Britain,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 121 (10), November 15, 1994: 793-802. Fernadez, Ashley. Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, and the Philosophical Anthropology of Karol Wojtyla. Georgetown University, 2008. Print. Gostin, Lawrence, “Physician Assisted Suicide: A Legitimate Medical Practice?” JAMA, Vol. 295 (16): April 26, 2006: 1941. Keene, Michael. Religion in Life and Society. Folens Limited, 2002. Manning, Michael. Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killimg or Caring? Paulist Press, 1998. Print Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B., et. al, “Dutch experience of monitoring euthanasia,” BMJ, Vol. 331, 2005: 691-693 Pellegrino, E. and Thomasa, D. “The conflict between autonomy and beneficence in medical ethics: proposal for a resolution,” Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, Vol. 3, Spring 1987: 23-46. Print. Supreme Court of New Jersey. “In the matter of Karen Quinlan, an alleged incompetent” 355A, 2d, 1976. Willems, D., et. al., “Attitudes and Practices Concerning the End of Life: Comparison Between Physicians From the United States and From the Netherlands,” Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 160, Jan 10, 2000: 63-67. Read More