Islam and Euthanasia Essay

More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. 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 for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their

One of the Ten Commandments put forward by God to Moses at the top of Mount Sinai. The killing of another human being is morally wrong and unacceptable. No one has the right to take away another persons life, whether it be through hatred and disgust, or compassion and love. Murder is murder. So why should those select few who work in the clinics of Switzerland, whose occupation is to assist in a person’s suicide, become immune from this law against murder. It is them who provide the patient with, and administer, the method of how they are going to die. To me, that sounds like murder.

A. Restatement of Thesis: Overall with current situations happening around the world Euthanasia and Assisted suicide has become a very controversial topic, however there are many interpretations that should be looked upon before deciding that huge decision.

People, are incensed because in Muslim beliefs one is not allowed to commit suicide, which also applies to Christianity. (Source I). Several Journalists have also stated against euthanasia because they believe that life is truthfully sanctified and that “God” created life, so one cannot choose to die. (Source A). The Hippocratic oath as well specifically reads that doctors or physicians are not sanctioned to kill patients. (Source M). Even though many people are against euthanasia the citizens still want options for the end of their own life. (Source C). If the alternatives are inadequate and regulated the agony of the patients does not go away; numerous places have already legalized euthanasia, such as the Netherlands in 2002 being the first. Similarly, Japan’s Shintoists believe that people and patients should be sanctioned to die if they request for it. (Source C). In the Netherlands, 85 percent of the doctors will and can also consider facilitating patients and people in death. (Source B). Even though the Hippocratic oath states that doctors are not to kill their patients, there are two main forms of euthanasia- passive and active. (Source C). The two central forms of euthanasia do not go against regulations because subsequently those doctors have to be in accordance with the patients and people. (Source C).

Even with this appreciation of our human reality, Jewish Law does not reduce the mandate that we preserve life, even under the most challenging conditions. While rabbinic authorities, ancient and modern, debate whether under limited circumstances medical treatments may be withheld from a suffering person (thus, no longer delaying an inevitable death), it is abundantly clear that one may not proactively hasten death. At the same time, Jewish Law would endorse the aggressive palliation of pain to a degree not currently practiced in the medical profession. Rabbinic authorities place such treatment under the rubric of loving one's neighbor as one's self

According to the Holy Text in Islam, killing a person, even when said person is terminally ill, is forbidden. Yet modern advancements in medicine are continuously increasing the conditions that question this ahkam or perhaps render it anachronistic. Contemporary improvements in medicine have, for the first time ever, granted humans the ability to maintain physical life even when cerebral existence has ceased. Furthermore, new technologies have allowed doctors to employ extreme measures in prolonging life even in the direst of circumstances. Such cutting-edge developments, which are continuing to create new ways to keep people alive, also generate alternative decisions that were previously unavailable to doctors and patients in earlier times. One of the most controversial options that is now accessible to the medical community is that of life support. Its controversy derives from the many questions it prompts surrounding euthanasia, murder, and suicide. These questions are particularly important to Muslims because the Holy Scripture provides some clashing regulations according to the Shari’a. In my paper, I will analyze the central doctrine and rules of Islam that guide the practices of end-of-life resolutions. I will also review the ethical obstacles that Muslim jurists and medical practitioners face when proposing and carrying out actions regarding brain death and life support with adherence to the Shari’a. I find that two courses of action, which allow the

Euthanasia can be a life reliever to the patients in pain and suffering from an illness that is incurable, or can go completely against the morals and values of cultural groups. It is quite controversial, and is debated among society whether it is right to take the life of a patient who requests it or not. The facts must be considered about this issue before any laws and/or guidelines are set into place.

Moreover, euthanasia is restricted by the church. This is another important point that we should consider, especially for religious people. According to “Death and Dignity” it is emphasized that “Life is a gift from God and it is only God who can take it back”. Christian’s point of view considers euthanasia as a crime against church, religion and God. Christians consider this as an immoral act. When considering the religious factor as well, we can conclude that no one has the right to take control over our lives, especially when we are unconscious.

Today, the fact that euthanasia is morality or immorality permissible is a very controversial issue debated and discussed by doctors and philosophers. This point generated a controversial debate. The discussion takes into account the ethics of medical

In all places, laws and safeguards were put in place to prevent abuse and misuse of these practices. Prevention measures have included, explicit consent by the person requesting euthanasia, mandatory reporting of all cases, administration only by physicians, and consultation by a second physician. With having these measures in place one can begin to see a future where assisted suicide is no longer taboo but something that is a common practice and can help so many people who are in pain. While putting certain safeguards in place there must also be a discussion about policy. Author Dan W. Brock of The Hastings Center Report explores the ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine. In his article “Voluntary Active Euthanasia” Brock debates the issue at hand by removing religion from the argument. Brock believes that in order to have a sound discussion over euthanasia one must examine only secular arguments. “First, there is empirical or factual disagreement about what the consequences would be. This disagreement is greatly exacerbated by the lack of firm data on the issue. Second, since on any reasonable assessment there would be both good and bad consequences, there are moral disagreements about the relative importance of different effects.” (Brock

Whether murder is done in a peaceful, non painful way or in a very gruesome, unimaginable way, it is still considered murder. Physicians have no way of knowing ‘what is best for the patient’ especially if that patient’s terminal illness prevents them from speaking.

not to eat meat. A similar idea can be seen in Buddhism where one of

This is why Euthanasia is important and summarizing the research that I found on Euthanasia. Euthanasia is important because there is a lot of arguments about Euthanasia. Some people support it and some people do not support Euthanasia (Euthanasia and assisted suicide- Arguments). Euthanasia allows people to be free from physical pain. It is the hastening of death of a patient to prevent further sufferings (Euthanasia Revisited). The religious argument states God chooses when human life ends. Euthanasia also causes mental suffering because they are in physical pain or they are experiencing with terminal illness. It is a debatable issue. There are many different opinions on Euthanasia.

Humans, like all animals, attempt to evade death. Though death is usually seen as an unwanted end, some see it as an alternative to suffering. Most people cringe at the thought of suicide, but is euthanasia the same thing? Do human beings have the right to choose death?

Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.