In high school, I distinctly remember the week or so that my AP Biology class spend discussing ethics in science. The liveliest debate that grew out of these classes was about a topic that is so controversial it seemed to cause even the quietest students to take a strong stance on one side or the other. This topic was euthanasia. Whether we were talking about taking a patient off life support or about physician assisted suicide, it was clear that each member of the class had very distinct views on this topic. Throughout the nation and around the world, people continue to have very distinct views on euthanasia. When making decisions on this topic, religious officials rely on long standing Christian beliefs and moral values. The Roman Catholic Church’s stance on euthanasia can be traced far back to the teachings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and has continued to develop throughout history. In this essay I will argue that the Roman Catholic Church’s strong opposition to euthanasia is based on the ideas of many influential historical figures and has had an impact throughout the world. Before discussing the way the Catholic Church has responded to the topic of euthanasia, it is important to understand what euthanasia truly is. Euthanasia comes from two Greek works: eu which means good and thanatos which means death. These terms come together to mean “good death”, referencing the common practice of voluntary suicide by old or sick people who wish to have a painless death by drinking the poison hemlock. The term euthanasia has assumed several dimensions throughout history. During the 17th century the term came to explain actions taken by a physician to reduce pain in dying patients, associated with assisting in death or suicide. In ... ... middle of paper ... ...istian beliefs and moral values that can can be traced far back to the teachings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and has continued to develop throughout history. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes euthanasia because it recognizes the importance of human life. Historical Christian views support the idea that the taking of any life is the rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan, and thus is as bad as killing. True compassion is helping someone through their pain and sharing in their pain, not killing him or her to end it. Therefore humans have a moral obligation to oppose any laws that legitimize assaults on the dignity of human law and to use conscientious objection in any situation like this because “society as a whole must respect, defend, and promote the dignity of every human person, at every moment and in every condition of that person’s life”.
As a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, I feel it important to express in this essay the stand of the church on the question of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Our church has strong biblical and traditional reasons for adamantly opposing these new end-of-life approaches.
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.
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.
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
The Catholic view of euthanasia is that euthanasia is morally wrong. it has always been taught the importance of the commandment "you shall not kill". The church has said that "nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent person, whether a foetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease. disease, or a person who is dying. " The church says any law permitting euthanasia is unjust.
On United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, It is suggested that “As Catholic leaders and moral teachers, we believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving God- a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion.” They also suggest that the God will always offer them with bearable experience and an end shows distrust and disrespect to the God. All these opinions points out the disagreement of Catholics in euthanasia. It is a fact that in some parts of the world the religion plays a big part in the society. Therefore allowing euthanasia is obviously a measure to destruct religious beliefs so that we should ban it for the religious side. Yet there is a significant and growing percentage of non-Christians and liberal Christians in North America who do not accept these arguments, the number of opponents compared to that of people holding the previous point is still
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 order to provide a framework for my thesis statement on the morality of euthanasia, it is first necessary to define what euthanasia is and the different types of euthanasia. The term Euthanasia originates from the Greek term “eu”, meaning happy or good and “thanatos”, which means death, so the literal definition of the word Euthanasia can be translated to mean “good or happy death”.
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.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their lifetime. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are suffering from euthanasia.
Euthanasia had become a big debate in our society and the world. Many people ask, what is Euthanasia? “Euthanasia is a deliberate intervention or omission with the express intention of hastening or ending and individual’s life, to relieve intractable pain or suffering” (Sanders & Chaloner, 2007, p. 41). Thus the meaning of euthanasia is having the right to die if you are terminally ill, suffering and/or suffering a great amount of pain. Many people do not agree with the use of euthanasia, but if humans can put down animals why cannot we use euthanasia on humans? Back in ancient Greek and Roman times, the word euthanasia meant “good death”. Also it was allowed because many people did not live to long ages. When the times began to change so did people’s views on euthanasia, due to the new religion of Judeo-Christian Belief. Because life and death were giving to us by God, euthanasia goes against his wishes. If they practice in the act of euthanasia because of their beliefs they would be committing a sin and end up going to hell. (Yip,2009,p.1)
In the following essay, I argue that euthanasia is not morally acceptable because it always involves killing, and undermines intrinsic value of human being. The moral basis on which euthanasia defends its position is contradictory and arbitrary in that its moral values represented in such terms as ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, ‘good death’ and ‘right for self-determination’ fail to justify taking one’s life.