Religion And Euthanasia

As euthanasia has become a prevalent topic in our society, many opinions have formed regarding the morality of it and whether it goes against Christian beliefs. Two opposing points of view, both written by Christians, explore this topic. John Shelby Spong argues in his article “Euthanasia Does Not Violate Christian Beliefs” that Christians need to reevaluate their view on assisted suicide and that it should be an individual choice. Chris Armstrong argues against euthanasia in the article “Christianity Condemns Voluntary Euthanasia” and contends that as Christians, we should never support the taking of life. While both authors agree that passive euthanasia

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial subjects to discuss or read about within our society. This paper will examine both sides of this discussion, from the aspect of the patient choosing to end their own life based on the quality of their remaining life. Also, the religious factors of the medical staff involved and the moral and ethical duty of the doctors to preserve the life of the patient if there are still means available.

Death is one of the most important topics that religions cope with. Since religion deals

Euthanasia is argued to be defined as depriving of life or causing the death of a living being. A primary and controversial component to euthanasia is the idea that the physicians are acting in “God” like form. Christians are thought to believe that “thou shall not kill.” Christians believe that all human beings have been in created in God’s image and should be cherished in all circumstances. However, according to the article written by Ann-Marie Begley, she explains, “if only God can end a life, then clearly all instances of killing are wrong, including killing in war and self defense” (Begley 300). The only way this philosophy can be upheld is with complete pacifism in which most Christians would not agree with. The other argument opposing euthanasia is the concern about the perceived public role of the physician. The metaphorical stance of doctors seen around the country is that they are the ‘enemies of death.’ The fear is that the image would be eroded resulting in the lost of trust within the public. Ann-Marie Begley explains, “the trust does not rest with the cure and healing but with the compassion and a recognition that there comes a time when the healer has reached the limits of his or her ability” (Begley 303). The argument of depriving someone of life is also seen in equivalence to murder. Scholars also differentiate murder from euthanasia in that euthanasia there is no malice

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).

Again, in the words of Girsh; “It should be as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent” (Girsh). In response to this argument, and perhaps the best reason for Catholics to support the church, is the fact that physician assisted suicide is a slippery slope to legalized murder — that the intent to kill is of utmost importance in the matter, and the moral repercussions of killing someone are irreversible (Harriss). In other words, physician assisted suicide inevitably leads to a culture of death. This claim is supported by the current state of healthcare in the Netherlands, where “Studies show that hospice-style palliative care 'is virtually unknown’” (Smith). Additionally, as a final note, it may be important to note that one of the problem with physician assisted suicide for Catholics is one of control; people want to end their own lives to be in control, but in reality, that control is supposed to be left to

Supporting choice for euthanasia” (Stephan Geotehrey Williams) This quote shows that which christians are known to because suicide are backing assisted suicide. One of the most prominent religions are backing

This case study discusses the moral problems associated with physician-assisted suicide. The Catholic Church is apposed to such euthanasia because it transgresses God's commandment not to kill innocent life, it usurps God's sovereignty over human lives, and it violates obligations to serve others and the common good (Pg. 318). I can understand why the Catholic Church would be apposed to physician-assissted suicide, however I do not take this position. I support Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. Statistics show only a very small percent of patients, 0.132 percent, chose to end their life with euthanasia under this law between 1998 and 2010. Although Christians view such a suicide equally as wrong as murder, these beliefs are not shared by all

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are both types of medical assistance aiding in ending a suffering patient’s life. This pain may be due to a terminal illness and suffering as well as those in an irreversible coma. This practice of doctor assisted suicide is illegal in many countries, but is increasing in popularity as people start to recognize the positive aspects that euthanasia has to offer for those that fit the criteria. Euthanasia is essential for those, placed in such life diminishing situations, and whom no longer want to experience suffering. This is where the issue gets complicated, and many religious groups argue that individuals should not have the legal right to choose whether they get to die or not, but that it is simply in God’s hands. Suffering patients argue that they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have to experience this suffering, to end their life with the dignity they still have, and to alleviate the stress that their deteriorating life conditions have on their families, themselves and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, despite the many arguments, euthanasia can have a very positive impact on the lives and families of suffering individuals, as well as the Canadian healthcare system.

     This essay is dedicated to the expression of the various official views of religious bodies within our nation. Most major denominations are represented. These religions have long been the custodians of the truth, serving to check the erratic and unpredictable tendencies of political, judicial and social bodies which would have Americans killing off their elderly and handicapped.

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.

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

body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and so we must treat each human

In conclusion, much of the data agrees, religiosity should have an inverse relationship with opinions on doctor assisted suicide. Religiosity, as well as, race and denomination seem to be significant predictors when assessing the likelihood of supporting or opposing euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide. The most difficult part of analyzing previous research is understanding if all the researchers define certain concepts in the same way. This makes it hard to adequately compare studies due to the possible misalignment of data from one author to the next. It is also difficult to remove bias in studies such as these. When asking people to self-assess their religiosity, it could be very difficult for them to give an accurate answer for fear

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.