Euthanasia
- Scope of Discussion
- Only God Should Decide Argument
- Thou Shalt Not Kill Argument
- Do Not Tamper With Suffering Argument
- Suicide Leads to Eternal Damnation Argument
- Die With Dignity Argument
- Humans as Transcendent Creatures Argument
- Works Cited
Scope of Discussion
"The Right to Die?" by Susan J. Fleck. May, 1995.
Regarding euthanasia, or so-called mercy-killing, in a word, condemnation is the official position of the Jewish, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths, and of most Protestant sects. However, there are voices among those faiths’ leaders, especially Protestants, who are advocates of euthanasia. Most of us have faced the heart-wrenching experience of losing loved ones. Many have had to wrestle with difficult decisions involving medical care during their last days. This causes us to reflect on the meaning of life, qua human life, and wonder if we might be morally vindicated if we choose to die on our own terms. When a patient is experiencing an agonizing and fatal disease, medical professionals are faced with a logical contradiction in the Hippocratic Oath, which promises two things: to relieve suffering and to prolong and protect life. (2, 85) This short paper will focus on theological considerations regarding active euthanasia, specifically meaning ‘taking action designed to kill the terminally ill patient.’ We will examine the controversy surrounding euthanasia from the Judeo-Christian perspective.
St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the common argument that any form of suicide is inherently wrong, in that it goes against our natural instinct for survival. (3, 67) Also, if we think there is an easy way out, weakened by the agony of suffering, we may not fight for life, which would undermine chances for a recovery. Catholic doctrine claims that appeals from gravely ill people are not true desires for euthanasia, but are anguished pleas for help and love. Anthony Flew contends: “It is wrong to appeal to a descriptive law of nature to justify a prescription to obey that supposed law.”(2, 113) On the practical side, death is final, and euthanasia precludes any possibility of a cure by a new drug or procedure; or of a spontaneous remission; or of a miraculous cure.(1, 101) An extreme example is when George Minot was dying from diabetes, insulin was discovered, and he went on to win a Nobel Prize for research that brought a cure for pernicious anemia. (6, 16) Similarly, many are reluctant to take a stand for the death penalty because someone may die wrongfully. Because a few may recover from terminal illness, many are denied their wishes to leave tremendous suffering behind them.
Only God Should Decide Argument
Jews and Christians hold three main theological doctrines against euthanasia. First, Aquinas points out that only God has the right to decide when death will come (Deut. 32:39). (3, 68) Rabbi Mayersohn explains that the Reform Jewish position is essentially the same as Jewish and Christian Orthodoxy, in that as humans, we do not have the power to make the decision to determine the time of death: The underlying principle is that life is sacred.(7) If euthanasia is violating God’s plan, then Joseph Fletcher wonders how we justify using any sort of medical intervention, e.g., to lengthen life.(2, 90) Associated with this doctrine is the concept, according to a Catholic doctrine, that our souls and bodies belong to God and it is our duty to care for them. (Ezekial 18:4) Flew suggests that this doctrine would commit us to complete quiteism in all matters, in order to avoid interference with someone else’s property, and that the operating principle in morals would be respect for God’s property. (2, 116) Robert Wennberg thinks that the ‘leave it to nature’ argument could be used to throw the responsibility onto God in order to avoid owning any responsibility for what is happening when someone is suffering.(6, 16)
Thou Shalt Not Kill Argument
The second most used reason is ‘thou shalt not kill’, which is a command repeated several times in the Old and New Testament. Several authors have pointed out that the correct translation is ‘thou shalt do no murder,’ distinguishing lawful killing versus murder for purposes of gain. Based on this “eternal moral law,” the American Council of Christian Churches denounced the fifty-four clergymen who supported an euthanasia bill. Fletcher would point out to these fundamentalists that the beatitude “Blessed are the merciful” has the force of a commandment also. (2, 92)
According to many Jewish commentators, the death of King Saul, in 1013 b.c., is the first recorded instance of euthanasia. King David put to death the man who killed Saul. (I Samuel 31:1-6).(4, 116) However, in Judges it is recorded that an armor-bearer assisted Abimelech’s death, so no one would say a woman killed Abimelech, and there is no mention of punishment or condemnation for Abimelech or for his faithful swordbearer. In spite of this, the sum total of all Jewish discussions in the monumental Talmudic Encyclopedia indicates that active euthanasia is strictly prohibited and condemned as plain murder, and anyone who assists is liable to the death penalty as a common murderer. (4, 121) Jewish law codified in the Mishnah is very specific about what one may not do to or for a dying person, so one may be careful not to tamper with the dying person’s soul in any way. (4, 118)
Do Not Tamper With Suffering Argument
Besides the time and cause of death, suffering is the third theological principle which fundamentalists think we have no business tampering with. Fred Rosner describes the exemplary story of Job as fundamentally a mystery, but somehow indicating suffering as part of the divine plan.(4, 112) St. Augustine portrays Christian character, declaring that one who avoids miseries destroys himself, and one who endures calamities has a great spirit.(3, 61) This is not just a stoic view: A Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia avows how a Christian, through suffering, bonds himself closer to Christ, who suffered greatly to atone for all sins.(6, 39) This was the consensus of my friends who agreed that we should do all we can to alleviate pain, but we must rely on God who will not give us more burden / pain than we can bear. One of these six friends thought it would be all right if an individual ended their own life of intolerable pain, but no one else should assist. However, they all expressed that they might not stick to their convictions once they may be in a position to make such a decision about themselves or loved ones.(8)
Suicide Leads to Eternal Damnation Argument
In addition to the three main reasons described above, there is a fourth Christian doctrine opposing euthanasia which leaves no room for discussion for those who hold this view: A conviction that by assisting with suicide, you are sending someone into eternal damnation, as St. Augustine originally declared.(3, 65) When asked about this, my friends speculated that God is the judge and it depends upon what is in the individuals’ hearts. They thought that God would forgive these acts. (8)
Die With Dignity Argument
A frequent argument for euthanasia is so that one can ‘die with dignity.’ Dr. Robert Cooper, finds the idea of dignity abstract, presupposing we know what is a worthy death for a human. He thinks we imply pain and suffering to be the greatest evil, which then leads to the valuation of pleasure as the greatest good. Cooper argues that this is what governs our modern culture, but the Christian view is that suffering is fundamental to being human, and happiness is not the same as pleasure. (6, 60) However, Rev. Ean Simpson (Reformed Tradition) calls for respect for differing attitudes toward euthanasia (1978). Rev. Gavin McCallum (Reformed) argues that Christ showed by his teachings and miracles that suffering was against God’s will, and that we should cooperate with God to relieve it. (6, 84-85)
Humans as Transcendent Creatures Argument
Fletcher believes that those who deal with issues of euthanasia within a religious framework should not succumb to the materialistic doctrine that “God’s will is revealed by what nature does, and that life, qua life, is absolutely sacred and untouchable.” (2, 101) The Reform Tradition finds humans to be transcendent creatures, in which real life comes from beyond bodily function. (6, 80) Rev. the Lord Soper (Methodist) supports this with a sacramental view of life from which one sees humans in an eternal concept and not in a temporal one. His take on the nature of the Christian faith is that it is the law of love, and is compounded by active compassion. He finds voluntary euthanasia an expression of a loving and sacramental concept. (6, 88) On the other hand, orthodox fundamentalism states that life itself is of supreme value and the intrinsic value of each person is a primary value. (6, 52)
We are aware that a Church decree alone does not mean that members will follow those guidelines (consider the Pope’s attack against birth control). The secular laws are also often ignored: There was a report of a medical meeting where a speaker asked for a show of hands from those who have never administered euthanasia. No one raised their hand. (2, 100) The Christian duty to conquer pain seems to be an empty ideal when you are confronted with a loved one literally screaming for death. Perhaps these experiences are tests of faith that people must go through, or perhaps the faithful should re-think their religious and moral beliefs about active euthanasia, and should enable sensible legislation to permit compassionate choices for individuals.
Works Cited
***
1. White, James E.,
ed. Contemporary Moral Problems. Third edition (1991).
a. Introduction to Euthanasia chapter by James White: pp. 97 - 99
b. “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia,” by J. Gay-Williams, pp. 99-102. First published in Ronald Munson, Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics. Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publiushing Company, 1979.
c. “Active
and Passive Euthanasia,” by James Rachels,
pp. 103 - 106. From James Raches,
“Active and Passive Euthanasia,” The
d. “Justifying Voluntary Euthanasia,” by Peter Singer, pp. 115 - 119. From Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 128-129, and 140-46.
2. Porter,
a. “Euthanasia: Our Right to Die,” by Joseph Fletcher. pp. 85 - 102. Joseph Fletcher (born 1905), is / was an Episcopal minister and moral theologian who is primarily known for his advocacy of “situational ethics” - a theory which asserts that love of others is the only norm for Christian decision, transcending all laws and codes of conduct.
b. “The
Principle of Euthanasia,” by Anthony Flew.
pp. 103 - 118. This paper
appeared in Euthanasia and the Right to
Die, ed. A.B. Downing,
3. Beck, Robert N. and
Orr, John B. ed. Ethical Choice : A
Case Study Approach.
a. Seneca, “On Suicide.” pp. 53 - 58.
b.
c. St. Thomas Aquinas, “Whether it is Lawful to Kill Oneself?” Selection taken from Vol. 2 of Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. pp. 67 - 68
4. Rosner, Fred,
M.D. Studies in Torah Judaism :
Modern Medicine and Jewish Law.
5. Young, William
A. The World’s Religions: Worldviews and Contemporary Issues.
6. Larue, Gerald A. Euthanasia and Religion : A Survey of the
Attitudes of World Religions to the Right-to-Die.
7. Telephone interview
with Rabbi Mayersohn, Rabbi of the Temple Beth David of Orange County Reform,
located in
8. Group discussion with
six Christians, all Protestants, having attended various churches of various
denominations over the last 20+ years.
