| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Is this your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Good books |
| Visitor essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other site features |
| Buy a CD of this site |
| Vital notes |
| Non-theistic... |
| Atheism |
| Agnosticism |
| Humanism |
| Other |
| Spirituality and ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality and ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace and conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Religious tolerance |
| Religious hatred |
| Religious conflict |
| Religious violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
Sponsored link
Religious watches by
Whimsical Watches
|
|
 | The verbal battle over euthanasia |
| Ethical aspects of euthanasia |
| Religious aspects of euthanasia |
| Public opinion on euthanasia |
The Verbal Battle over Euthanasia
Many hotly debated social questions revolve around choice:
| Giving gays and lesbians a choice in whether to marry; |
| Allowing women the freedom to choose an abortion; |
| Giving people access to assistance in dying. |
All are emotionally laden questions. Discussions about euthanasia often get mired in a mountain of emotional accusations, such as charges that the "most vulnerable" of humans are "besieged by euthanasia practitioners" and that families must fight "anti-life assaults on their loved ones" which "threaten the lives of those who are medically vulnerable".
In reality, the basic question posed by euthanasia/assisted suicide is: should a person:
| who is terminally ill, and |
| who feels that their life is not worth living because of intractable pain, and/or loss of dignity, and/or loss of capability and |
| who repeatedly and actively asks for help in committing suicide and |
| who is of sound mind and not suffering from depression |
be given assistance in dying?
Euthanasia is not:
| Whether a person should be free to ask a physician for assistance in dying. A patient can ask any question of their doctor. |
| Whether a particular physician should take the initiative to kill a patient. The dying person must be the person to take the initiative. |
| Whether a person should be allowed to commit suicide. In most jurisdictions, suicide is a legal act, and has been so for decades. |
| Whether an otherwise healthy person who is going through a period of depression should be given help in committing suicide. They would not be given such assistance under any proposed legislation. Instead, their depression would be treated. |
| Whether a person's family should be allowed to initiate euthanasia; a request for aid in dying would have to come from the terminally ill person. |
| Whether death squads should periodically visit hospitals and nursing homes in order to kill people who are no longer contributing to society. This is a red herring created to scare people. |
| Whether everyone should select physician assisted suicide. Even if it were generally available, only a small percentage of people would request it. |
Ultimately, euthanasia is a question of choice: empowering people to have control over their own bodies. As of 1999-MAR, unless a person lives in Colombia, Japan, the Netherlands or the state of Oregon, the only lawful option is to remain alive, sometimes in intractable pain, until their body finally collapses.
The main opposition comes from some:
| conservative religious groups. They are often the same organizations which oppose access to abortion. |
| medical associations whose members are dedicated to saving and extending life, and feel uncomfortable helping people end their lives. |
| groups concerned with disabilities, who fear that euthanasia is the first step towards a society that will kill disabled people against their will. |
Groups that promote access to assisted suicide seem publicize cases where people have a terminal illness, are in intractable pain, and want to end their life. Although such cases do exist, they are in small minority. Many dying patients who are in serious pain have adequate access to pain-controlling medication. Most of those who would ask for assistance in dying may well be individuals concerned with quality of life or dignity issues.
Unfortunately, groups on all sides have resorted to scare tactics. They do not tackle the issue directly, but create false scenarios to alarm the public. These methods may work on the short term, but will only serve to eventually alienate the public:
| Some groups in the pro-choice faction have described horrendous cases of terminally ill individuals, suffering terribly, in intractable pain, even though such cases are not the norm. |
| Some groups in the pro-life faction have been implying that "physician initiated murder" is the topic being debated, not physician assisted suicide. They have been raising the specter that the Oregon law would permit roving gangs of bureaucrats to visit nursing homes and decide which residents deserve to live and which to die; then they will kill all of the residents who they consider to be not worthy of life. |
| Even Focus on the Family, a Fundamentalist Christian group who has a reasonably good record of accuracy on social questions, appears to have misrepresented the question under debate. In an end-of-the-year review for 1997, their founder and president, Dr. Dobson, wrote: "By a sizable margin of 60-40 percent, Oregnonians [sic] have authorized their doctors to administer lethal doses of poison to willing patients...For the moment, if you are elderly and ill, Oregon is the last place you should want to be." 1 Dr. Dobson seems to have implied that elderly, ill residents of Oregon are at risk of being murdered against their will. |
| Dr. Abraham Halpern, an ex-president of the American Association of Psychiatry and the Law, and Dr. Alfred Freedman, ex-president of the American Psychiatric Association, wrote an article in the New York Times, stating that "Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act...should be repealed. It greases the slippery slope and will surely result in undignified and unmerciful killings." 2 The implication is that if we allow some terminally ill patients to die that eventually laws will be created to allow the state to kill anyone that it deems to be worthless. Dr. Dobson agreed, stating: "We will eventually be killing those who aren’t sick, those who don’t ask to die, those who are young and depressed, those who someone considers to have a poor quality of life, and those who feel it is their obligation to 'get out of the way.'" 1 Of course, the future course of legislation cannot be predicted. But the present law that was approved by the voters of Oregon is very specific and narrow in application, and will never be used unless a terminally ill patient, who is of sound mind and not depressed, specifically requests assistance in dying on a repeated basis. |
Ethical aspects of Euthanasia:
Some considerations:
| Some terminally ill patients are in intractable pain and/or experience an intolerably poor quality of life. They would prefer to end their life rather than continue until their body finally gives up. Does the state have a right to deny them their wish? |
| Suicide is a legal act that is theoretically available to all. But a person who is terminally ill or who is in a hospital setting or is disabled may not be able to exercise this option - either because of mental or physical limitations. In effect, they are being discriminated against because of their disability. Should they be given the same access to the suicide option as able-bodied people have? |
| Many faith groups within Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other religions believe that God gives life and therefore only God should take it away. Suicide would then be "considered as a rejection of God's sovereignty and loving plan". They feel that we are all stewards of our own lives, but that suicide should never be an option. This is an important belief for a member of one of these religious groups. They would probably never choose suicide (including physician assisted suicide) for themselves. But, for each deeply religious person in North America, there are many nominally religious or secular people. Substantial numbers of adults who have liberal religious beliefs treat euthanasia as a morally desirable option in some cases. There are also many secularists, atheists, agnostics etc. who actively disagree with religiously based arguments. And many of these folks would like to retain suicide as an option in case they develop a terminal illness and life becomes unbearable. Do devout believers have the right to take their own personal beliefs and extend them to the entire population? Should the personal beliefs of some religious folks decide public policy for all adults, including religious liberals, Humanists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc? |
| Many faith groups believe that human suffering can have a positive value for the terminally ill person and for caregivers. For them, suffering can be "a divinely appointed opportunity for learning or purification". A Roman Catholic document mentions that "some Christians prefer to moderate their use of painkillers, in order to accept voluntarily at least a part of their sufferings and thus associate themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ crucified". 3 These may be meaningful suggestions to some Christian believers. However, can such arguments justify denying euthanasia to persons who do not share those beliefs? |
| Many people argue that pain experienced by terminally ill people can be controlled to tolerable levels through proper management. They conclude that there is no need for physician assisted suicide. However, tens of millions of individuals in North America do not have access to adequate pain management. Tens of millions are without healthcare coverage. Many doctors withhold adequate levels of pain killers because they are concerned that their patient may become addicted to the drugs. Anticipated cutbacks to health funding will make this situation worse. |
| By making assisted suicide and/or euthanasia available, some people will be pressured into accepting assistance in dying by their families. This pressure may sometimes occur in very subtle forms. This is an important argument in favor of strict controls that would confirm that a patient is not being influenced by others. Some feel that the potential for interference is so serious that all assisted suicide should be banned. |
| Some people wish to die because they are suffering from clinical depression. This is another argument in favor of strict controls to confirm that a patient requesting aid in dying is "of sound mind". |
| In an age when total medical funding is restricted and being continually reduced, is it ethical to engage in extremely expensive treatment of terminally ill people in order to extend their lives by a few weeks, if it is against their will? The money used in this way is not available for pre-natal care, infant care, etc. where it would save lives, and significantly improve the long-term quality of life for others. |
| Some people argue that patients would be frightened that their physicians might kill them without permission. This is not a valid concern, since a patient would first have to request assistance in dying. If they did not ask for suicide assistance, their doctor would continue to preserve and extend their patients' lives. |
Sponsored link:
Religious aspects of euthanasia:
There are two main arguments offered by Christians, and those of other faiths, that advise against an individual seeking suicide, for whatever reason:
| Life is a gift from God, and that "each individual [is] its steward." 4 Thus, only God can start a life, and only God should be allowed to end one. An individual who commits suicide is committing sin. |
| God does not send us any experience that we cannot handle. God supports people in suffering. To actively seek an end to one's life would represent a lack of trust in God's promise. |
Of course, there is a significant and growing percentage of Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, secularists, non-Christians and liberal Christians in North America who do not accept these theologically based arguments. They might argue:
| Each person has autonomy over their own life. Persons whose quality of life is nonexistent should have the right to decide to commit suicide, and to seek assistance if necessary. |
| Sometimes a terminal illness is so painful that it causes life to be an unbearable burden; death can represent a relief of intolerable pain. |
An active political question is whether individuals should be allowed to choose suicide, or whether they should be forced to follow the theological beliefs of the dominant religion. This point is similar to that raised in discussions on choice in abortion and compulsory prayer in public schools.
A number of religious organizations have issued statements on suicide and physician assisted suicide. Conservative faith groups tend to be most vocal in their opposition to suicide. Liberal denominations tend to be more in favor of individual choice:
| Christian Reformed Church in North America: In 1971 a Synod adopted a
resolution which stated: "that synod, mindful of the sixth commandment, condemn
the wanton or arbitrary destruction of any human being at any state of its development
from the point of conception to the point of death." 4 |
| Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: A 1992 statement on end-of-life
matters from the ELCA Church Council supports passive euthanasia: "Health
care professionals are not required to use all available medical treatment in all
circumstances. Medical treatment may be limited in some instances, and death allowed to
occur." They oppose active euthanasia: "...deliberately
destroying life created in the image of God is contrary to our Christian conscience."
However, they do acknowledge that physicians "struggle to choose the
lesser evil" in some situations. e.g. when pain is so severe "that life
is indistinguishable from torture." Surprisingly, even though
physician-assisted suicide is a hotly debated topic, they do not comment on it.
5 |
| Islam: The Qur'an states: "Take not life which Allah made
sacred otherwise than in the course of justice" An essay on the web page of the Islamic
Center of Southern California states that "Since we did not create
ourselves, we do not own our bodies...Attempting to kill oneself is a crime in Islam as
well as a grave sin. The Qur'an says: 'Do not kill (or destroy) yourselves, for verily
Allah has been to you most Merciful.' (Quran 4:29)...The concept of a life not
worthy of living does not exist in Islam." 6 |
| Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod: In 1979, their Commission on
Theology and Church Relations issued a report on euthanasia. It condemned euthanasia
because it involves suicide and/or murder and is thus contrary to God's law. Suffering
"provides the opportunity for Christian witness and service." |
| Mennonites: The Mennonite denomination is a decentralized faith group
in which individual conferences make their own statements on social issues. The Conference
of Mennonites in Canada issued a statement in 1995. They believe that pain,
isolation and fear are the main factors that drive dying persons to consider suicide. They
feel that the state should not facilitate suicide, but rather control physical and
emotional pain and support the dying within a caring community setting.
7 |
| Orthodox Christianity: The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America,
commenting on the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996 commented:
"The Orthodox Church opposes murder, whether it be suicide, euthanasia or
whatever, and regardless if it is cloaked in terms like 'death with dignity.' A person
contemplating ending it all because of despondency instead should turn to God for strength
and support. The Book of Job serves as a prime example of how someone overcomes extreme
suffering by staying focused on God." |
| Orthodox Judaism: The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of
America filed a brief in 1997-NOV to the Supreme Court. They supported laws which
banned physician assisted suicide. Nathan Diament, director of their Institute for
Public Affairs stated: "This is an issue of critical constitutional and
moral significance which Jewish tradition clearly speaks to. We believe that the
recognition of a constitutionally recognized right to die for the terminally ill is a
clear statement against the recognition and sanctity of human life..."
|
| Roman Catholic Church: The Catechism of the [Roman] Catholic Church states: |
"2280: Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God Who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for His honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of."
| Salvation Army: "The Salvation Army believes that people do
not have the right to death by their own decision...Only God is sovereign over life and
death...the grace of God can sustain through any ordeal or adversity."
8 |
| Unitarian Universalist: The Unitarian-Universalist Association,
a liberal religious group, issued a statement in 1988 in support of euthanasia and choice
in assisted suicide, but only if there are proper precautions in place to avoid abuse. |
| Mainline and Liberal Christian denominations: Pro-choice statements have been made by the United Church of Christ, and the Methodist Church on the US West coast. The "Episcopalian (Anglican) Unitarian, Methodist, Presbyterian and Quaker movements are amongst the most liberal, allowing at least individual decision making in cases of active euthanasia." 9 |
Sponsored links:
Public opinion on euthanasia:
Many polls have been taken. However, the results vary according to the precise question asked. Recent results show support for euthanasia choice at:
| 57% in favor, 35% opposed in the US (CNN/USA Today poll of 1997-JUN) An earlier Gallup Poll taken in 1966-MAY showed 75% support. |
| 76% in Canada (Gallup Canada Poll, 1995; a rise from 45% in 1968) |
| 80% in Britain |
| 81% in Australia |
| 92% in the Netherlands 10 |
Ballot measures have been voted upon in three states of the United States. They showed support at:
| 46% in Washington (1991) |
| 46% in California (1992) |
| 51% in Oregon (1994); 60% in (1997) |
References used:
- James Dobson, "Dr. Dobson's Study: January 1998."
- A.L. Halpern.and A.M. Freedman, “Oregon’s Suicide Law Creates a Slippery Slope,” New York Times, New York, NY, 1997-NOV-2
- Franjo Cardinal Seper, "Declaration on Euthanasia," the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1980-MAY-5, at: http://www.cin.org/
- Essay: Euthanasia, Synod of the Great Lakes, Reformed Church in America, at: http://www.euthanasia.com/
- "A message on...end-of-life decisions," Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, at: http://www.elca.org/
- "Euthanasia," at: http://www.islamctr.org/(This appears to be a broken link)
- Submission by the Conference of Mennonites in Canada to the Special Senate Hearing Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (1995).
- "The Salvation Army's Positional Statements: Euthanasia" is at: http://www.christianity.com/
- "Religion and the Right to Die," formerly at: http://www.euthanasia.org/ (This website is offline)
- Christopher Reed, "Oregon Tackles Mercy Killing", Globe and Mail, Toronto ON, 1997-JUN-27, P. A12.
|
Site navigation: Home page > "Hot" topics > Assisted Suicide > here |
|
or: Home page > "Hot" topics > Suicide menu > Assisted Suicide > here |
Copyright © 1997 to 2008 by Ontario Consultants on
Religious Tolerance
Last updated on 2001-NOV-19
Hyperlinks checked on 2008-APR-22
Author: B.A. Robinson
|
|
