Christian Perspectives on Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicides - Research Paper Example

?Introduction Euthanasia has been around for thousands of years, although it used to be perfectly acceptable. The ancient Greeks and Romans condoned the practice, and actually celebrated it. This changed with Christianity, as the belief was that man was made in God's image, and only God has the power to create life or take it away. Since then, the ethics of the practice has evolved, and so have the reasons for proscription. Nowadays, the proscription is based more upon practical concerns then scriptural ones – concerns such as the introduction of a slippery slope; the possibility that the person might be cured and miss his or her chance for this cure; and the need to create a culture of life that values everybody in society, even the infirm and terminally ill. Still, the belief remains that God has sovereignty over life and death, and man cannot usurp this. St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the first religious figures to advocate this, and the traditional Christian proscription for the practice has been based upon this ever since. Although some individual Christians may take issue with the official church teachings on the subject, for a variety of reasons, in the end the practice should be banned because of the practical concerns listed above. Discussion According to Fontana (2002), there have been a variety of traditions throughout the ages concerning the ethics of euthanasia. For instance, in Ancient Greece, Hemlock, a common poison, was made available for individuals who desired a “good death,” after an appeal to a tribunal. In fact, ending one’s life was a festive occasion for the elderly and the infirm, as they drank ceremonial poison at a banquet that honored their lives. It was similar in ancient Rome (Fontana, 2002, p. 147). Of course, these practices were prior to Christianity, and the advent of Christianity caused these euthanasia practices to be outlawed (Fontana, 2002, p. 147). In particular, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine declared such practice a great sin. However, an increase in secularism during the Renaissance period and Enlightenment in the 18th Century caused a resurgence of Greco-Roman beliefs regarding the practice, and this greater tolerance continued into the 19th Century when social philosophers advocated for the practice. However, even though there was great tolerance for the practice, it was not entirely accepted as it was in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, because the church still had some sway, and, as the church believed the practice to be sinful, this had some impact on society and the laws regarding euthanasia even during the Renaissance and Enlightenment (Fontana, 2002, p. 147). Euthanasia may be either involuntary or voluntary. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when there is brain death or the person is otherwise incapacitated. In that case, especially if there is some kind of directive from the person, in that he or she signed a living will or a “Do Not Resuscitate” order, then that person will be allowed to die. Voluntary euthanasia, however, is more active and involved, therefore more controversial. Voluntary euthanasia is when an individual who is of clear mind chooses to end his or her life with assistance (Nayernouri, 2011, p. 54). Nayernouri (2011) further delineates the practice of euthanasia from suicide. As she explains, suicide is an act that one takes by oneself, without assistance, and this is not as controversial as euthanasia as the act of suicide is presumably one’s right, although the world’s religions, including Christianity, Islam and Judaism view this act to be one of great sin (Nayernouri, 2011, p. 54). The secular rationale against euthanasia are that the patient may be treated therapeutically for depression or pain, which are the major reasons why individuals choose euthanasia. It is for this reason that the American Medical Association (AMA) has come out against the practice. The AMA’s stance on euthanasia is inconsistent with its other stances which conflict with the traditional pro-life views regarding abortion and contraceptives, in that the AMA is clearly for these other practices, while the pro-life movement views these other practices to be anathema. However, according to Nayernouri (2011), the AMA bases their views on euthanasia on the fact that these patients may be adequately treated (Nayernouri, 2011, p. 54). Nayernouri (2011), who is a neurosurgeon, has come out firmly for euthanasia because of the indignity caused to dying patients, as well as the pain that they experience as they approach the end of life. For her, it is rational for patients who consider themselves a burden, coupled with the fact that they often have no hope of surviving, to consider euthanasia, especially if the patient is in a great deal of pain. Nayernouri (2011) also dismisses the voices that state that euthanasia often robs the patient of a chance for a cure, pointing out that the cures for cancer, Huntington’s Disease, and spinal cord injuries lay so far in the future that the patient cannot realistically hope for these cures. As for religious cures of terminal diseases, Nayernouri states that 200 million individuals have made a pilgrimage to Lourdes, which is a holy site upon which the apparition of the Virgin Mary was sited. Of these 200 million, there have been 12 million who have visited the site hoping for a cure for their disease. Of these 12 million, only 65 have been recognized as having been miraculously cured, as designated by the Vatican, only three of these have been cured of cancer and none have been cured of a spinal cord injury (Nayernouri, 2011, p. 55). Christianity and Euthanasia While the above perspectives include the historical analysis, as well as some secular concerns and other secular views, Christianity also has weighed in on the issue, although it is not settled even within this religion, as individual Christians inevitably have different views from one another and from their own religion. As stated above, Christianity had a profound effect on the overall debate regarding euthanasia, as the practice was widely accepted in the pre-Christian civilizations of Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome. Early Christians abhorred any kind of suicide, including euthanasia, and a Christian body met in Orleans, France, in 533, and this body proclaimed that anybody who attempted suicide and survived should be excommunicated (Fontana, 2002, p. 148). However, the basic Christian tradition, according to Keown & Keown (1995) is a rejection of euthanasia. This basic view is based upon, according to Keown & Keown from a rejection of the consequential-based ethics, which states that the basic belief is that the act of suicide or euthanasia is inherently wrong, therefore it is always wrong, regardless of what good may come of it (Keown & Keown, 1995, p. 267). It is also based upon the sanctity of life, which states that life is precious and cannot be taken away, as it is a gift from God that is meant to be cherished. The exception to this is when one is defending others, or defending one’s own life. According to this view, as humans were made in the image of God, it would be a sin to prematurely end one’s life, regardless of whether or not the person is suffering (Keown & Keown, 1995, p. 267). Keown & Keown (1995), in explaining their views on the sanctity of life make exceptions for self-defense or defense of others. Therefore, it is presumably not a sin to kill someone who attempting to kill oneself. It is also not necessarily a sin to kill somebody who is threatening the life of somebody else. This might extend to war, in that it is not a sin to kill somebody who is threatening one’s life or the life of others, however, it is unclear whether it is not a sin to put oneself in this position in the first place, as this is inevitable in war. It also does not really address whether this proclamation of the sanctity of life extends to giving one’s life to save one’s community, although it is logical that it does, in that this would fall under the rubric of self-defense or defense of others. While the Christian perspective is against active euthanasia, as defined above, the Christian perspective is also against taking heroic measures to keep somebody alive, according to Keown & Keown (1995). Or, rather, the perspective of the Catholic Church, which is, of course, just one denomination of Christianity, states that the position is not to “insist” that heroic measures are taken to keep somebody alive – “neither of our Churches insist that a dying or a seriously ill person should be kept alive by all possible means for as long as possible” (Keown & Keown, 1995, p. 267). This would include advocating palliative care that would necessarily shorten somebody’s life. Their delineation between the act of euthanasia and the act of simply letting somebody die is between something that is intended and something that is “foreseen but unintended” (Keown & Keown, 1995, p. 267). Sullivan (2005) has weighed in on the debate about active euthanasia verses simply letting someone die. As a medical doctor, Sullivan sees many cases, and has been able to draw an ethical line between active and passive euthanasia – the first being proscribed by the official line of the Christian faith, the second being acceptable by this same official line. Sullivan states that, in the case of a patient whose death was imminent and care futile, such as a patient who would have to live the rest of his life on a ventilator to keep him or her alive, it is acceptable to remove the ventilator if the person has signed a “Do Not Resuscitate” form. In this case, it is the physician’s call, and it is not up to one to second-guess a patient’s physician. As with the Christian perspective, Sullivan inquires about one’s intent - is the intent to relieve suffering, or is the intent to cause death? In the case of a patient who must live on a ventilator, the intent is not to cause death by removing the patient from the ventilator, but, rather, to ease the patient’s burden and suffering (Sullivan, 2005, p. 8). Of course, one of the major arguments for euthanasia is that one has the right to control one’s own destiny. For instance, Socrates in ancient time was said to have committed suicide before he was scheduled to be executed, because this gave him a measure of control over his own life and his own destiny. Indeed, this measure of control is one of the primary motivations for euthanasia, and one of the major reasons why the practice is advocated (Fontana, 2002, p. 148). This is the basis of individual autonomy. However, Christianity has limited this basic autonomy, stating that one is not to act against basic moral values, which includes protecting the sanctity of life, whether the life is one’s own or the life of another (Keown & Keown, 1995, p. 267). In this view, according to Keown & Keown (1995) killing somebody is against one’s personal dignity, as opposed to the view that this mercy killing protects the person’s dignity, such as the argument put forth by Nayernouri (2011) above. Lin (2003) expands on these basic tenets. He states that the prohibition against euthanasia in the Christian tradition stems from the Sixth Commandment which states that “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” as well as the belief that man is made in God’s image, therefore the power of life and death belongs only in His hands, not in the hands of the individual person. When one chooses euthanasia, that person is violating God’s purpose for that person’s life, as only God has the choice of when a person may die. The person does not have control over his life – only God does - so to kill oneself is a violation of the sovereignty of God (Lin, 2003, p. 7). This view is in accord with St. Thomas Aquinas, who proclaimed that life and death are the sovereign of God alone, citing Deuteronomy 32:39, which states that God “will kill…and will make to live” (Schrader, 2010, p. 4). Hatzinikolaou (2003) also has weighed in on the debate. He states that death is the point where man is closest to God, therefore death is considered to be sacred. It is also regarded as a mystery that cannot be defined, understood or observed. Death is an event, according to Hatzinikolaou, that should be respected and approached with humbleness and fear of God. The last moments of one’s life, according to this view, is sometimes worth more than the entire life of the person. It is important to respect these last moments of life, for this is a time to repent, and this is the time when the soul is judged. In this view, euthanasia would be tantamount to stealing moments of one’s life that might be inherently valuable to the person and to the people surrounding the person. Death is sacred, so much so that “its purity should be safeguarded by any means possible” (Hatzinikolaou, 2003, p. 190). To advocate euthanasia would be reducing death from its position of being sacred and mysterious to just another mechanical event, and to perform euthanasia would not only be robbing the person of precious time, but also the person’s dignity, because his or her death is reduced in this way (Hatzinikolaou, 2003, p. 190). That said, even Hatzinikolaou takes exception with heroic measures to keep a person alive. Such is an example of keeping a person who is brain dead alive on a respirator. In this case, the measures are truly futile, and there is not a hope that the person will get better, so it is perfectly acceptable to withdraw machines to keep the person alive. Hatzinikolaou (2003) states that death is inevitable, and the effort to stave off death by artificial means is also robbing the act of death of its inherent mystery and dignity, and death is something that is to be humbly accepted and respected. To use futile measures to keep somebody alive is the antithesis of humbly accepting and respecting death. In fact, according to Hatzinikolaou (2003), not accepting death, and attempting to attain immortality, is just as prideful as the act of hastening death. And, because taking these measures opens one up to further suffering, agony and doubt, “it bears witness to a lack of faith” (Hatzinikolaou, 2003, p. 191). While these are scriptural reasons for the belief that euthanasia is a sin that should not be tolerated, there are also more practical reasons why Christianity abhors the practice. One of these practical reasons is that the implication in euthanasia is that the person who elects the practice has become a burden to society, and, when one elects to kill oneself for these reasons, it diminishes the basic sanctity and value of one’s life. The belief, then, is that, instead of advocating a practice that might make individuals in comatose states or with a terminal illness feel that one is useless, one should assure these individuals that they are useful members of society, and that their contributions are still valued and appreciated. The only way that this is possible, according to this theory, is to continue to abhor euthanasia, as the practice necessarily goes against the value of human life (Lin, 2003, p. 8). Christians also abhor the practice of euthanasia because of the possibility of the “slippery slope.” According to this argument, advocating and legalizing euthanasia opens the door to greater evil. Morgan attests to the case of the German Nazis before World War II. The Germans legalized euthanasia before the Nazis, in cases of extreme pain. At some point, the legalization extended to “the unwanted and finally to all non-Germans” (Morgan, p. 6). While this is, of course, an extreme example, it is nonetheless one that needs to be attended to, and this argument is one that Christians also use in justifying their proscription on the practice of euthanasia. While these are all Christian perspectives against the practice of euthanasia, the issue is in no way settled with each individual Christian. Lin (2003) points out the prohibition against euthanasia is not a blanket condemnation by all Christians, as many Christians still believe that this practice is not a sin. According to this belief, since there are many Christians who make exceptions to the admonition “Thou Shalt Not Kill” for wartime and for capital punishment, the Sixth Commandment is not absolute. Because it is not absolute, there are exceptions that can be made, and euthanasia is one of them, according to these individuals. Just like wartime killing and capital punishment, euthanasia is not “wrongful killing,” according to this argument. Euthanasia is not evil because it accomplishes a greater good, which is to unite the individual in heaven with God. Therefore, according to this view, God’s sovereignty is not violated and his purpose of fulfilled (Lin, 2003, p. 8). Another reason why some faithful Christians condone the practice of euthanasia is because, as one is made in God’s image, one should not be made to suffer. There is not a point in suffering, according to this view, as suffering does not impact whether one gets into the Kingdom of Heaven or not. Also, God’s purpose is to reduce suffering, so carrying out euthanasia would be, in effect, carrying out God’s purpose. According to this view, God’s purpose does not include forcing us to endure unredemptive suffering. Moreover, Jesus healed the sick and suffering whenever he could, which shows that Christ also abhorred suffering (Lin, 2003, p. 9). Another Christian reason for advocating for euthanasia is the doctrine of self-sacrifice. Morgan states that this principle is one that was advocated and practiced by Jesus. In this case, the argument is that the person who is suffering from a terminal illness will be a burden not only to society but to the people caring for her, for that person will probably leave a great deal of medical debt that the family might have to pay. Moreover, there is the argument that the person is taking up precious health-care resources in their care, thus draining Medicare or private insurance, and the person is therefore a burden to society in general (Morgan, p. 8). According to the principle of self-sacrifice, the person should be able to lessen the burden on society and those around him or her by ending his or her life, if the person is terminal and there is no hope of survival. Analysis In analyzing the various beliefs surrounding euthanasia, it is clear that how one feels about the topic depends upon how one feels about the issue of the sovereignty of God verses the sovereignty of man. Those who believe that God is sovereign believe that only God has the power to give life or take it away, and that, when one usurps this sovereignty, that person is, essentially playing God. On the flip side of the coin, God gave to man free will – this was the essence of how he created Adam and Eve. As such, he gave man autonomy, and the right to make decisions regarding himself or his body. Autonomy is one of the most powerful reasons for advocating euthanasia, and, one could argue, since God gave man free will, then God intended for man to be autonomous, therefore man can make decisions for himself on whether or not to end his own life. In this camp, of course, euthanasia would be an acceptable practice, as it is, in essence, a man making decisions about his life, decisions that were given to him by God when God made Adam free to choose. Therefore, there is not an easy answer to this conundrum, even to faithful Christians. St. Thomas Aquinas was very clear that only God has the ability to give life and to take it away, but he was only one philosopher. Nevertheless, the proscription against euthanasia within the Christian church is based upon this philosophy, so St. Thomas Aquinas’s view does hold considerable sway. But what about the other view? After all, most Christians would agree that the admonition “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is not absolute. For instance, it is perfectly and morally correct to kill animals for sustenance. While the prevailing view is that the Sixth Commandment does not extend to such killing, there is also considerable contention among the Christian Church that the Sixth Commandment does not extend to wars or capital punishment, either (Nayernouri, 2010, p. 54). If this is true, and exceptions are made to the Sixth Commandment regarding wartime and capital punishment, then one cannot say, with authority, that the Sixth Commandment would proscribe euthanasia. After all, the Sixth Commandment is not “Thou Shalt Not Kill Unless It Is Wartime or Unless the Person Committed a Heinous Crime.” It is simply “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” and exceptions are carved out according to the ethics of the individual and the church. These exceptions also apparently extend to killing in self-defense and defense of others. The list of exceptions to this Sixth Commandment is long, so the view that euthanasia is another possible exception to the Sixth Commandment is compelling. The other view is that, essentially, God is merciful and it cannot be His will to inflict prolonged suffering. In this view, euthanasia would be actually carrying out God’s will, because it is the end to suffering, and this is really what God wants for mankind. This is also a compelling view, if one views the Supreme Being as being merciful and not desirous of undue suffering. This view is enhanced with the knowledge that undue suffering is not redemptive, in that it does not guarantee a person a place in heaven, nor does it even make a person more likely to go to heaven. The decision on who is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is God’s alone, and the Christian doctrine states that the path to salvation is through accepting Jesus Christ as one’s personal savior. Therefore, suffering does not make redemption more likely. It follows, then, that the suffering is unnecessary and not what God would want for the person. The other argument put forth by Christians is less compelling. This argument states that euthanasia is, in effect, a form of self-sacrifice. This is because the person, by electing euthanasia, is essentially lifting the burden off of family and society in caring for that person, and this is self-sacrifice as would be advocated by Jesus, who promoted self-sacrifice. This is less compelling because of the Christian doctrine states that people, all people, are to be loved where they are, and, as such, a living person cannot be a burden. It is also less compelling because this is the argument that can be made, and has been made, by evil societies, such as the Nazis. After all, there are many individuals in society who would be considered to be a “burden” – children in foster homes, because they are living on the taxpayer’s dime; elderly people who cannot work or contribute to society anymore in this way; poor people who receive public assistance; anybody without health insurance who becomes ill; etc. Once this edict is in place, in that anybody who is a burden to society should off themselves in the name of self-sacrifice, then it truly would open the door for evil, and it would truly be the slippery slope. In the end, in contrast to the official church doctrine against euthanasia, the issue is not that simple. It is not as simple as stating that man is made in God’s image, therefore only God has the power to give life and take it away. It is also not as simple as stating that the Sixth Commandment prohibits it. There are conflicting values and conflicting interpretations of scripture and the Sixth Commandment. The practical reasons for prohibiting the act hold more of a key in the argument, in that these reasons are concrete and do not necessarily rely upon conflicting interpretations. The reasoning that allowing euthanasia leads to a devaluation of the sanctity of life is a compelling one. This is because anything that cheapens life, and cheapens death, is something that should not be allowed. Moreover, those among us who are suffering from infirmity and pain should be accorded love and grace from those around them, so that their suffering may be alleviated, not necessarily killed. These are reasons that Christianity gives when justifying its stance against the practice of euthanasia, and these arguments are perhaps the most compelling of all. Conclusion Traditional Christianity abhors euthanasia for a variety of reasons. Scripturally, the proscription stems from the belief that only God has power over man’s fate, and this is the view that has been held since the time of St. Thomas Aquinas. The view is also based upon the Sixth Commandment. That said, there are too many exceptions to the Sixth Commandment to confidently state that this Commandment would proscribe euthanasia. And, God gave man free will, so the other argument is weakened by this as well. That said, the practical arguments that everybody in society is valuable and worthy of respect, and only doctrines that recognizes this inherent worth and value are acceptable doctrines, would state that euthanasia is a practice that should be acceptable to a civilized society. Bibliography Fontana, J. (2002) “Rational Suicide in the Terminally Ill,” Journal of Nursing Scholarship, vol. 34, no. 2: pp. 147-151. Hatzinikolaou, N. (2003) “Prolonging Life or Hindering Death? An Orthodox Perspective on Death, Dying and Euthanasia,” Christian Bioethics, vol. 9, no. 2: pp. 187-201. Keown, D. & Keown, J. (1995) “Killing, Karma and Caring: Euthanasia in Buddhism and Christianity,” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 21: pp. 265-269. Lin, L. (2003) “A Moral and Scriptural Assessment of Euthanasia and the Sanctity of Life: Is Euthanasia Ever Justified?” Available at: http://www3.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/pew_papers/2003_luke_lin.pdf Morgan, P. “Active Euthanasia in Terms of the Common Good.” Available at: http://www.zygoncenter.org/studentsymposium/pdfs/papers03/symposium03_Morgan.pdf Nayernouri, T. (2011) “Euthanasia, Terminal Illness and the Quality of Life,” Archives of Iranian Medicine, vol. 14, no. 1: pp. 54-55. Schrader, J. (2010) “Argument for the Legalization of Active Euthanasia,” Available at: http://www.galleryofwriting.org/conferences/galleryofwriting/uploads_converted/KEY_2 27410 4/2274104.pdf Sullivan, D. (2005) “Euthanasia Verses Letting Die: Christian Decision-Making in Terminal Patients,” Ethics and Medicine, vol. 21, no. 2: pp. 1-15. Read More