Euthanasia is a compassionate response to suffering of life. Discuss this statement from a Christian perspective.

Euthanasia is a compassionate response to suffering of life. Discuss this statement from a Christian perspective.

nName

nInstitution

nCourse

nDate

n

nIntroduction

nThe phrase “euthanasia” comes from two Greek terms, “eu” and “thanatos” which means good and death respectively. Therefore, the term refers to homogeneity of assisted suicide, murder or killing. Precisely, the bible is considered the word of God and the importance of human life is regarded as part of the salvation of Jesus Christ, which is intrinsic in creation (Meilaender and Werpehowski eds. 2005, p.13). Most Christians oppose the process of euthanasia. Their arguments are normally based on the views that God is the sole giver of life. In addition, they believe that human beings are created in the image of God. Therefore, they teach against interfering with the normal process of death (Muskus 2015, p.11). However, proponents of this practice argue that euthanasia must not be considered as an evil act, since the life of humans is based on responsibility and stewardship for engaging in good things, which is impossible in a suffering person (Messer 2002, p.10). Therefore, Christians experience a major dilemma in protecting life without committing killing, but remaining respectful and compassionate in various kinds of circumstances. In the Christian perspective, the paper will discuss and explore the idea behind compassionate care of terminating a life of a person who is suffering with respect to the biblical teachings.

nMoral differences are formed between active, passive, involuntary and voluntary euthanasia. Specifically, voluntary euthanasia relates to the request of the patient who desires to die. On the other hand, involuntary euthanasia the patient does not have a choice to die (Muskus 2015, p.12). Moreover, active euthanasia assumes a considerate and planned intervention such as giving an injection to a suffering person desiring to die. On the contrary, passive euthanasia refers to the act of discontinuing or withholding treatment to a person so that he/she can die (Meilaender and Werpehowski eds. 2005, p.13). Passive euthanasia can be used in cases of looming death, which requires a sympathetic moral inclination toward the life of humans.

nChristian teachings do not embrace the idea of euthanasia as a compassionate response to suffering in life. On the contrary, they believe in the concept of salvation, which is entrenched in Christian traditions (Badham 2009, p.41). In this respect, it teaches against using euthanasia in case of physical suffering. The right to life and a Christian complete duty not to take a life expounds the foundations for an active type of euthanasia not being welcomed or embraced (Gielen, Van den Branden and Broeckaert 2009, p.9). Additionally, the supremacy of the Creator as the giver and owner of life eliminates the right of people to use euthanasia. However, Christians have a duty to provide compassionate care for those encountering suffering and pain (Geisler 2010, p.1).

nThe Christians perspective supports the right to life of all human beings. Therefore, it identifies the intrinsic self-worth of human life safeguarded by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Badham 2009, p.41). Moreover, Christian deontologists such as Saint Augustine and Aquinas support the dignity of human life through protection of the right to life. For this reason, they considered the act of suicide as opposing the principles of Gods law (Messer 2002, p.10). Based on this principle, the vital purpose of man was to fellowship with his Creator; hence, confronted any chance of salvation (Thrower 1984, p.20). Proponents of euthanasia suggest that suffering is similar to physical pain; hence, being compassionate is the removal and relief of that physical pain (Barr 1987, p.2). Nonetheless, euthanasia is strongly opposed by Christians as they propose that Gods will, mercy and grace are more than bodily comfort. In addition, according to Christians, suffering is a consecration or blessing. This perspective is supported by biblical teachings as in the case of Romans 5:3; ‘…but we glory in sufferings also: understanding that suffering is worth patience and bear suffering as correction; God is handling you as sons (Muskus 2015, p.14)

nFor Christians, the complete sovereignty allocated to Holy Bible is expounded by sayings, which have firm foundations. In particular, life is believed to be a gift from the Creator and His supremacy over life is characterized by his responsibility to take life (Engelhardt Jr and Iltis 2005, p.32). The capacity to what an individual can do with his/her life or that of others is dependent upon this autonomy. Some of the evangelists propose that moral reflection is generated openly from the Gospel when it encounters ethical quandaries, which needs opposition to injustices (Messer 2002, p.22). Although there are no open declarations against suicide in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, St Augustine deliberates the sixth commandment as the incorporation of all horrific and self-destruction sin against the Creator who had formed and repeatedly protected peoples life (Gielen, Van den Branden and Broeckaert 2009). In this regard, the perception of humans losing disposition or dignity is not substantial; irrespective of the degree of suffering that, an individual can endure. More significantly, God deliberates the intrinsic value of the life of humans (Bretherton 2006, p.3). Christian caregivers are obligated at all times to be careful of this dignity and work accordingly.

nNevertheless, some Christians who also ascribe to biblical exegesis, proposes for a contrasting reaction to the human sufferings in life. For instance, some arguments echo to utilitarian teachings (Engelhardt Jr and Iltis 2005, p.32). In this regard, it refers to a case of Schroder William aiming to depict the ethical cost of preserving ones life conflicts with the worth of minimal health services in events like birth control and hunger relief in Africa. Similarly, although God preserves human life, allowing euthanasia helps critically ill persons to avoid high degree of sufferings (Crooks 2015, p.17). While this is not the main Christian position on euthanasia, it considers a religion and its system being forced to adapt to modern space and time. The contemporary medical technology permits humans to endure illness that surely would cause death in the past (Varelius 2007, p.31). Therefore, technology presents problems that did not exist at the early times of Christianity. Furthermore, a problem of poor quality of life is extended by medical care, which would otherwise have ended (Messer 2002, p.33). According to Badham (2009) arguments, if a persons terminates his life through euthanasia, he oversteps upon the Creator as the sovereign proprietor of life. The practice of extending or increasing human life through artificial means infringes on His supreme authority. Therefore, it raises the question of whether technology can serve as a mediator of moral selection. Christian perspective noted that technology could not serve as a mediator because compassion needs a higher knowledge of the image of Gods creation and love, which pays attention to the impacts of all those involved (Badham 2009, p.45).

nMesser (2006) pronounces the challenges with absolutist responsibilities because they oppose with one another, where one unavoidably contravenes the other. For instance, parents are required to provide care for their children and to avoid stealing. However, they may sometimes be forced to steal to protect their children from starvation (Messer 2006, p.31). More importantly, this idea is inapplicable in euthanasia since nurses and doctors have an obligation to the patients and a strict duty of beneficence. In addition, euthanasia cannot be considered a compassionate care by terminating the life of a patient who is suffering (Engelhardt Jr and Iltis 2005, p.32). In logical or humanistic standpoint, persons believe that a good life is synonymous with happiness or contentment, but is opposed by theological ideologies in Christianity. For instance, Christians philosophers indicate that enduring of suffering encompasses no inherent value and observes no motive for opposition to patients aiming to use euthanasia (Meilaender and Werpehowski eds. 2005, p.19). However, this is challenging because it does not pay attention to the main idea of deliverance in Christian faith.

nThe concept of liberating suffering theologically is respected in that there is no objection between creation and the salvation; the Gods grace is evident in salvation of Christ that is in-built in humans. Therefore, the sufferings of Christians unite them with those of Christ and impart the virtues of hope, courage and humility (Messer 2006, p.31). In addition, this knowledge of salvation has implications for the understanding of the end and beginning of the bodily life. St. Augustine stated that at the resurrection, the hardships endured by Christians in the short-term would mean they succeed in their real bodies (Liechty 1998, p.1). For instance, James 4:15 encourage Christians to respect the will of God. Therefore, Christian patient and doctors should accept the natural death, which confirms the supremacy of God with the confidence that good will follow (Engelhardt Jr and Iltis 2005, p.32).

nWith regard to passive euthanasia, which involves withholding or withdrawing treatment and allows the natural process of death, Christians tend to accept this kind of euthanasia. Christians in various occasions embrace the idea of removing treatment of critically ill patients as logical and natural (Crooks 2015, p.17). Nonetheless, the conventional Christian traditions have considered the value of human life as infinite, absolute or unconditional (Gielen, Van den Branden and Broeckaert 2009, p.7). Some Christian supports euthanasia in cases of the critically ill patients undergoes a suffering life and death is more likely to occur. In such instances, life can be morally dangerous in attempting to maintain life since it would instinctively generate bitterness and destroys the relationship between God and Christians (Thrower 1984, p.20). Others state that the concept is to die for the correct things rather than betray or deny Christians faith in Christ Jesus.

nNonetheless, this argument may not be consistent with Christian teachings as it suggests that the life of humans is not absolute while involuntarily admit that the same life has the ability to make such a transcendent decision in using euthanasia (Geisler 2010, p.1). In this respect, they oppose all forms of euthanasia, including passive euthanasia because its objective is still facilitating the death of patients (Muskus 2015, p.17). It also prevents physicians from initiating reliable diagnosis that can increase chances of recovery. The use of euthanasia is not being compassionate, but it is disastrous as Christians consider the Holy Spirit as fundamental in faith (Meilaender and Werpehowski eds. 2005, p.21). In addition, this involves embracing the Lord Jesus as Saviour who can cure all forms of diseases and suffering by miracle. Therefore, euthanasia is not acceptable among the Christians because the right to life should be preserved and protected (Varelius 2007, p.31).

nConclusion

nEuthanasia is a form of killing that is intended to reducing the suffering of human life. However, the issues have generated debates among the Christians with regard to whether it is a compassionate response to suffering in life. Christian deontologists such as St Augustine oppose the use of euthanasia as a compassionate response to Christian suffering. They suggest that God is the sole giver of human life hence He has the supreme authority to take away life. In addition, they are guided by the concept of salvation (Meilaender and Werpehowski eds. 2005, p.21). Similarly, by enduring physical suffering, Christians believe that they are able to unite with Christ sufferings hence gain the value of hope, courage and humility (Gielen, Van den Branden and Broeckaert 2009, p.7). However, more Christians tend to embrace passive euthanasia for critically ill patients through withdrawal of medical interventions.

n

nReferences

nBadham, P., 2009. Is there a Christian Case for Assisted Dying: Voluntary Euthanasia Reassessed. SPCK.

nBarr, W.R., 1987. Debated Issues in Liberation Theology. Theology Today, 43(4), pp.510-523.

nBretherton, L., 2006. Hospitality as holiness: Christian witness amid moral diversity. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

nCrooks, R.H., 2015. Introduction to Christian Ethics. Routledge.

nEngelhardt Jr, H.T. and Iltis, A.S., 2005. End-of-life: the traditional Christian view. The Lancet, 366(9490), p.1045.

nGeisler, N.L., 2010. Christian Ethics: Contemporary issues and options. Baker Academic.

nGielen, J., Van den Branden, S. and Broeckaert, B., 2009. Religion and nurses’ attitudes to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Nursing Ethics, 16(3), pp.303-318.

nLiechty, D., 1998. Assisted Suicide And Euthanasia: Christian Moral Perspectives. Journal of Religion & Health, 37(2), pp.175-176.

nMeilaender, G. and Werpehowski, W., eds. 2005. The Oxford Handbook of Theological Ethics. European Journal Of Theology, 15(2), p.161.

nMesser, N., 2002. Theological Issues in Bioethics: An Introduction with Readings London: Darton.

nMesser, N., 2006. SCM studyguide to Christian ethics. Hymns Ancient and Modern Ltd.

nMuskus, E., 2015. Liberation Theology: Its Origins And Early Development. British Evangelical Council, p.30.

nThrower, J., 1984. Marxism: The Liberation of Theology or a Theology of Liberation?. Theology, 87(720), pp.420-426.

nVarelius, J., 2007. Illness, suffering and voluntary euthanasia. Bioethics, 21(2), pp.75-83.