The Conflict of Religion and Euthanasia
There are a number of reasons why religious believers would be
concerned regarding assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. The
Church’s belief concerning this matter is that if G-d has given the
gift of life then it should be “revered and cherished”. As far as the
Church is concerned, the deliberate taking of human life should be
prohibited, except in self-defence or defence of others.
Many religious believers hold sincere belief that to actively seek an
end to ones own, or another’s life would represent a lack of trust in
G-d and to them, suicide or euthanasia is a sin. To Roman Catholics,
suicide has always been considered a mortal sin, as the Catholic
argument is that the giving and taking of life is G-d’s domain.
Voluntary euthanasia is seen to be a concern for the Catholic Church
as taking someone else’s life, no matter what the circumstances is
perceived as murder. These arguments that the Church has against
assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia are based on the doctrine of
the Sanctity Of Life, which teaches that only G-d can begin life and
only G-d can end life.
There are also concerns about the medical profession underestimating
powers of recovery, or indeed misdiagnosing a disease or the
predictions of time left for a particular patient. A terminally ill
patient may improve health wise and carry on living for a further
amount of time than predicted by doctors. A religious believer would
be concerned that there would be no chance of divine intervention or a
‘miracle’ if the person’s life were ended prematurely. ...
... middle of paper ...
...uch facilities.
In terms of the elderly, society has changed in the way that families
have dispersed and often don’t live in such close proximity as they
used to years ago when families lived together and looked after the
elderly in their family. In some cultures, the elderly are revered and
valued and always looked after by their families. The Islamic religion
believes in putting family above all else and would try to make sure
that old people within their family are well looked after.
Religious groups often argue that euthanasia would be unnecessary if
we as a society took responsibility for the sick and elderly within
society. If communities pulled together in a common cause to take care
of these people to make them feel safe, loved and valued then perhaps
the argument on issues of death would be less necessary.
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
Societies frequently reject the use of euthanasia because of the way in which it violates ethics. This is a major concern in the field of religion; along with other religions and religious leaders, Willem Velema of the Orthodox Protestant Church was “fiercely opposed” to the idea of euthanizing (Boer). From a religious standpoint, this procedure is wrong because patients and their families can act as God by determining time of death. Religion teaches that God keeps His children on the earth for a reason. After all, God puts certain obstacles in one’s life in order to make them stronger; resorting to death is a sign of weakness. Euthanasia is also opposed by many because of the way people take advantage of it. In Belgium, where Euthanization is legal, the number of medically induced deaths “has been going up” tremendously (Boer). In fact, “it has increased by an average of 15% a year” since 2006 (Boer). As numbers increase, citizens become desensitized to the idea, therefore, viewing it as a viable option in the face of pain.
Joni was swimming with her friends and drove into the water where she hit the bottom and fractured her vertebrae at the age of 17, becoming a quadriplegic and having to rely on help from her parents for the rest of her life. Joni was lost in her thoughts, which turned into depression with the idea of euthanasia, not wanting to be a burden to her family any more. Joni was focused on what she didn’t have anymore and could not see the blessing of what she still had. When life changes for the good people never question why, then when life changes for the bad they always question why. People ask; why God would allow people to suffer, or what good has ever come out of someone, living like this, in the end can people over come all obstacles.
Is society playing the role of God or is the world so wrapped up in their lives that God no longer matters? Euthanasia has been around since the ancient Romans and Greeks and has been a highly debated subject just as it is today. In history and in arguments stated today is that “people are the created and not the Creator” (Gula 26). There are many things that society can argue about the subject of euthanasia but the main debate is that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is wrong. Society gets euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide confused because they both have to do with physicians tending to the patient’s death. Society is either for or against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. It is debated throughout history, within the church, and even within the medical profession; however euthanasia is wrong.
Euthanasia is and will always be one of the leading ethical issues present in the world. There are strong arguments present on both sides of the issue including that of one of the most influential institutions on the planet; the Catholic Church. The Church has, and always will be against the killing of a human being. This applies to euthanasia: “An action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering.” (Pope John Paul II - Evangelium Vitae). The Church also refers to euthanasia as “assisted suicide” and the “mercy killing”. “Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church – 2277).
"People are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to them" (Vaticana, 550). To decide if euthanasia is wrong, one must first decide whom life belongs to. The Bible says, "In God's hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind" (Job 12:10). Life belongs to God and since God gave life to the human race, God should decide when it is time to take life. Also, the fifth commandment says, "Thou shall not kill." Assisted suicide and euthanasia disobey this commandment.
A recent poll founded by the Canadian Medical Association found that “only one in five doctors surveyed. . . said they would be willing to perform euthanasia if the practice were legalized. . . Twice as many – 42 percent – said they would refuse to do so” (Kirkey 1). Euthanasia is defined as giving a patient the right to die early with a physician’s assistance, and the legalization of this practice is being considered by lawmakers in many countries, including the United States. Accordingly, 42 percent of doctors in Canada are on the right side of this debate. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it violates society’s views that life is sacred, creates economic pressure for doctors, and for those countries that have legalized it, their laws are not specific enough to fully protect patients.
law. The law of the United States. the catholic church does not accept that people have a right to die. Euthanasia and suicide are both gods power over life and death. a person who insists that they have the right to die is breaking their vital relationship with God.
In the essay “The Morality of Euthanasia”, James Rachels uses what he calls the argument from mercy. Rachels states, “If one could end the suffering of another being—the kind from which we ourselves would recoil, about which we would refuse to read or imagine—wouldn’t one?” He cites a Stewart Alsop’s story in which he shares a room with a terminally ill cancer patient who he named Jack. At the end of the recounting, Alsop basically asks, “were this another animal, would not we see to it that it doesn’t suffer more than it should?” Which opens up the question of, “Why do humans receive special treatment when we too are animals?” We would not let animals suffer when there is a low chance of survival, so why is it different for us humans?
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
In Sullivan versus Rachel’s on euthanasia I will show that James Rachel’s argument is logically stronger than Sullivan’s argument. I will present examples given by both authors regarding their arguments and also on their conclusions about it. I will explain both of the author’s logical strengths and weaknesses in their arguments. I will give the examples given by both authors on how they prove their arguments to be true and later I will decide whose argument is stronger based on their strengths and weaknesses. I will give one of Rachel’s main strong arguments and one of Sullivan’s very weak arguments. I will also show if both of the author’s premises follow from the conclusion. And at the end I will give my opinion on my personal reasons on whose I think makes more sense in presenting their arguments.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.
The first definition of ethical in the dictionary is “pertaining to, or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.” The first definition Dilemma is defined as “a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.” Using these two definitions, an ethical dilemma can be defined as when a person has to choose a decision that goes against one’s morals. One alternative may have a negative impact on one’s life or another person’s life. Another alternative may be an excellent choice for one person but may have negative impacts as well. Therefore, an ethical dilemma often puts ones morals and values into question. This paper will review a case study of euthanasia,