Religious views on euthanasia

There are many religious views on euthanasia, although many moral theologians are critical of the procedure.

Part of a series on
Euthanasia
Types
Views
Groups
People
Books
Jurisdictions
Laws
Alternatives
Other issues

Buddhism
Main article: Buddhism and euthanasia

There are many views among Buddhists on the issue of euthanasia, but many are critical of the procedure.

An important value of Buddhism teaching is compassion. Some Buddhists use compassion to justify euthanasia because the person suffering is relieved of pain.[1] However, it is still immoral "to embark on any course of action whose aim is to destroy human life, irrespective of the quality of the individual's motive."[2]

In Theravada Buddhism, a lay person daily recites the simple formula: "I undertake the precept to abstain from destroying living beings."[3] For Buddhist monastics (bhikkhu) however the rules are more explicitly spelled out. For example, in the monastic code (Patimokkha), it states:

"Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (thus): 'My good man, what use is this wretched, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life,' or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways praise the advantages of death or incite him to die; he also is defeated and no longer in communion."[1][4]

Christianity

Catholicism

The Catholic Church opposes active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide on the grounds that life is a gift from God and should not be prematurely shortened. However, the church allows dying people to refuse extraordinary treatments that would minimally prolong life without hope of recovery,[5] a form of passive euthanasia.[6]

Catholic opposition to active euthanasia can be traced back to ancient Jewish and early Christian attitudes towards suicide. Later in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Thomas Aquinas exemplified and shaped mainstream Christian views on suicide. He condemned suicide for violating the natural inclination towards self-preservation and self-perpetuation, for injuring other people and the community, and for defying divine authority over life.[7] Western opinions against suicide among the sick were near-uniform until the mid-19th century, though Catholic thinker Thomas More may have been a notable exception. In Utopia, More appears to advocate for active euthanasia (though the specific term did not exist at the time),[8] but some scholars have questioned whether More's position was serious or satirical.[9][10]

In the early modern period, Catholic theologians considered moral questions pertaining to refusing medical treatment and passive dying. Francisco de Vitoria argued that a person does not violate the obligation to protect and preserve life if they choose not to take medicine prescribed by a doctor. Domingo Báñez distinguished between ordinary means of preserving life, such as eating and procuring clothing, and extraordinary means, such as painful medical procedures. He asserted that while one is morally obligated to eat and cloth oneself, one is not morally obligated to undergo the amputation of a limb to save one's life. John de Lugo contended that while one must use ordinary means to preserve life, one is not obligated to use ordinary means with no hope of benefit. He also maintained that there is a clear moral distinction between actively killing oneself and allowing death to occur naturally by refusing burdensome treatments.[11]

The Catholic Church became one of the leading opponents of the modern euthanasia movement in the early 1900s.[12] Pope Pius XII was a vocal critic of euthanasia in the 1940s,[13] but in 1957, he wrote "The Prolongation of Life: An Address of Pope Pius XII to an International Congress of Anesthesiologists" in which he declared that physicians did not have an obligation to prolong patients' lives with extraordinary treatments, such as providing ventilator support for patients without hope of recovery.[14] Historian Ian Dowbiggin notes that this permits passive euthanasia in some circumstances without violating Christian doctrine.[6]

On 5 May 1980, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the Declaration on Euthanasia, condemning euthanasia as a "violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity".[15] It noted that advances in medical technology had blurred the line between ordinary and extraordinary means of sustaining life, but allowed terminally ill patients to refuse life-prolonging treatment in situations in which a physician believes the treatment's harm would outweigh the benefit.[14] The declaration stated that a patient's refusal of disproportionate or extraordinary treatment "is not the equivalent of suicide", but instead "should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition".[11] On 22 September 2020, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the letter "Samaritanus bonus", restating the church's opposition to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, criticising end-of-life protocols such as do-not-resuscitate orders, urging Catholic hospitals and health-care workers not to engage in "plainly immoral conduct", including referring patients to other hospitals where they might undergo euthanasia,[16] and accusing lawmakers who approved of euthanasia of being "accomplices of a grave sin". However, the letter also repeated the church's allowance for terminally ill patients to refuse life-extending treatments.[17] Reuters noted that the letter did not alter church doctrine, but instead reiterated existing doctrines in stronger language at a time when governments around the world, including those of some traditionally Catholic countries, were liberalising end-of-life care options.[18]

Protestantism

Protestant denominations vary widely on their approach to euthanasia and physician assisted death. Since the 1970s, Evangelical churches have worked with Roman Catholics on a sanctity of life approach, though some Evangelicals may be adopting a more exceptionless opposition. Mainline Protestant denominations, such as the United Methodist Church, have largely eschewed euthanasia.[19]

Eastern Orthodoxy

The Orthodox Church in America, along with other Eastern Orthodox Churches, also opposes euthanasia, stating that it must be condemned as murder stating that, "Euthanasia is the deliberate cessation to end human life."[20]

Christian groups in support of euthanasia

Groups claiming to speak for Christians rather than the official viewpoints of the Christian clergy have sprung up in a number of countries.[21]

Hinduism
See also: Prayopavesa

There are two Hindu points of view on euthanasia. By helping to end a painful life a person is performing a good deed and so fulfilling their moral obligations. Euthanasia may also be acceptable if it is used for selfless motives. On the other hand, by helping to end a life, even one filled with suffering, a person is disturbing the timing of the cycle of death and rebirth. This is a bad thing to do, and those involved in the euthanasia will take on the remaining karma of the patient. Death is a natural process, and will come in time.[22]

It is clearly stated in the Vedas that man has only two trustworthy friends in life, the first is called Vidya (knowledge), and the 2nd is called Mrityu (Death). The former is something that is beneficial and a requirement in life, and the latter is something that is inevitable sometimes even unexpected. It is not the euthanasia that is the act of sin, but worldly attachment which causes euthanasia to be looked upon as an act of sin. Even a Sannyasin or Sannyasini if they decide to, are permitted to end his or her life with the hope of reaching moksha i.e. emancipation of the soul.

Islam

Muslims are against euthanasia. They believe that all humans life is sacred because it is given by God, and that God chooses how long each person lives. Human beings should not interfere in this.[23] [24] It is forbidden for a Muslim to plan, or come to know through self-will, the time of his own death in advance.[25]

Jainism
Main article: Sallekhana

Jainism is based on the principle of non-violence (ahinsa) and is best known for it.[26] Jainism recommends voluntary death or sallekhana for both ascetics and srāvaka (householders) at the end of their life.[27] Sallekhana (also known as Santhara, Samadhi-marana) is made up of two words sal (meaning 'properly') and lekhana, which means to thin out. Properly thinning out of the passions and the body is sallekhana.[28] A person is allowed to fast unto death or take the vow of sallekhana only when certain requirements are fulfilled. It is not considered suicide as the person observing it, must be in a state of full consciousness.[28] When observing sallekhana, one must not have the desire to live or desire to die. Practitioner shouldn't recollect the pleasures enjoyed or, long for the enjoyment of pleasures in the future.[29] The process is still controversial in parts of India. Estimates for death by this means range from 100 to 240 a year.[30] Preventing santhara invites social ostracism.[31]

Judaism

Like the trend among Protestants, Jewish medical ethics have become divided, partly on denominational lines, over euthanasia and end of life treatment since the 1970s. Generally, Jewish thinkers oppose voluntary euthanasia, often vigorously,[32] though there is some backing for voluntary passive euthanasia in limited circumstances.[33][34] Likewise, within the Conservative Judaism movement, there has been increasing support for passive euthanasia (PAD)[35] In Reform Judaism responsa, the preponderance of anti-euthanasia sentiment has shifted in recent years to increasing support for certain passive euthanasia options. Secular Judaism is a separate category with increasing support for euthanasia.[36] A popular sympathiser for euthanasia is Rabbi Miriam Jerris.[37]

A study performed in 2010 investigated elderly Jewish women who identified themselves as either Hasidic Orthodox, non-Hasidic Orthodox, or secularized Orthodox in their faith. The study found that all of the Hasidic Orthodox responders disapproved of voluntary euthanasia whereas a majority of the secularized Orthodox responders approved of it.[38]

Shinto

In Japan, where the dominant religion is Shinto, 69% of the religious organisations agree with the act of voluntary passive euthanasia.[39] The corresponding figure was 75% when the family asked for it. In Shinto, the prolongation of life using artificial means is a disgraceful act against life.[39] Views on active euthanasia are mixed, with 25% Shinto and Buddhist organisations in Japan supporting voluntary active euthanasia.

Unitarian Universalism

The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) recommends observing the ethics and culture of the resident country when determining euthanasia. In 1988 the UUA gathered to share a commitment to The Right to Die with Dignity document which included a resolution supporting self-determination in dying.[40]

Influence of religious views

Religious views on euthanasia are both varied and complicated. While one's view on the matter doesn't necessarily connect directly to their religion, it often impacts a person's opinion. While the influence of religion on one's views towards palliative care do make a difference, they often play a smaller role than one may think. An analysis of the connection between the religion of US adults and their view on euthanasia was done in order to see how they combine. The findings concluded that the religious affiliation one associates with does not necessarily connect with their stance on euthanasia.[41] Research shows that while many belong to a specific religion, they may not always see every aspect as relevant to them.

Some metadata analysis has supported the hypothesis that nurses’ attitudes towards euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are influenced by religion and world view. Attributing more importance to religion also seems to make agreement with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide less likely.[42] A 1995 study of public opinion found that the tendency to see a distinction between active euthanasia and suicide was clearly affected by religious affiliation and education.[43] In Australia, more doctors without formal religious affiliation were sympathetic to active voluntary euthanasia, and acknowledged that they had practiced it, than were doctors who gave any religious affiliation. Of those identifying with a religion, those who reported a Protestant affiliation were intermediate in their attitudes and practices between the agnostic/atheist and the Catholic groups. Catholics recorded attitudes most opposed, but even so, 18 percent of Catholic medical respondents who had been so requested, recorded that they had taken active steps to bring about the death of patients.[44]

See also

References
  1. Keown, Damien. “End of life: the Buddhist View,” Lancet 366 (2005): 953. SocINDEX with full text, EBSCOhost.
  2. Keown, Damien. “End of life: the Buddhist View,” Lancet 366 (2005): 954. SocINDEX with full text, EBSCOhost.
  3. This is the first of the Five Precepts. It has various interpretations.
  4. Thanissaro Bhikkhu (1994). Buddhist Monastic Code I: Chapter 4, Parajika Archived 2009-04-27 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 2007-11-11.
  5. "Religious Groups' Views on End-of-Life Issues". Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center. 21 November 2013. Retrieved 7 August 2022.
  6. Dowbiggin 2003, p. 98
  7. "Chapter 5: The Ethical Debate". When Death is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context. New York: New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. 1994. p. 79-80.
  8. Fye, W. Bruce (1978). "Active Euthanasia: An Historical Survey of Its Conceptual Origins and Introduction into Medical Thought". Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 52 (4): 494. JSTOR 44450518.
  9. Sargent, Lyman Tower (2016). "Five Hundred Years of Thomas More's Utopia and Utopianism". Utopian Studies. 27 (2): 185. doi:10.5325/utopianstudies.27.2.0184. S2CID 151902232.
  10. Dowbiggin 2003, p. 182-183
  11. Panicola, Michael (2001). "Catholic Teaching on Prolonging Life: Setting the Record Straight". The Hastings Center Report. The Hastings Center. 31 (6): 14–25. doi:10.2307/3527778. JSTOR 3527778. PMID 12945451.
  12. Dowbiggin 2003, p. 82
  13. Dowbiggin 2003, p. 91
  14. Dugdale, Lydia S.; Alcott Ridenour, Autumn (2011). "Making Sense of the Roman Catholic Directive to Extend Life Indefinitely". The Hastings Center Report. The Hastings Center. 41 (2): 28–29. doi:10.1353/hcr.2011.0058. JSTOR 41059015. PMID 21495514. S2CID 42781856.
  15. "Declaration on Euthanasia". Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 5 May 1980.
  16. Povoledo, Elisabetta (22 September 2020). "Vatican Reiterates Its Opposition to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide". The New York Times. New York. Retrieved 7 August 2022.
  17. Winfield, Nicole (22 September 2020). "Vatican: Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia "Intrinsically Evil"". Associated Press. New York. Retrieved 7 August 2022.
  18. Pullella, Philip (22 September 2020). "Vatican Steps up Opposition to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide". Reuters. London. Retrieved 7 August 2022.
  19. Moran, Dan (7 November 2018). "Methodists and Catholics Unite against Euthanasia". Juicy Ecumenism. Retrieved 19 April 2022.
  20. "The Orthodox Christian view on Euthanasia". www.orthodoxchristian.info. Archived from the original on 12 August 2017.
  21. "Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Assisted Dying – Also known as Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Euthanasia". Retrieved 2019-09-25.
  22. "Religion & Ethics - Euthanasia". BBC. Retrieved 2009-02-14.
  23. Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 71. University of Southern California. Hadith 7.71.670.
  24. Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 35. University of Southern California. Hadith 35.6485.
  25. Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 35. University of Southern California. Hadith 35.6480.
  26. Kakar 2014, p. 175.
  27. Jain 2011, p. 102.
  28. Kakar 2014, p. 174.
  29. Jain 2011, p. 111.
  30. "Fasting to Death" in: Docker C, Five Last Acts – The Exit Path, 2013:428-432 (details benefits and difficulties)
  31. Colors of Truth Religion, Self and Emotions: Perspectives of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Sikhism and Contemporary Psychology by Sonali Bhatt Marwaha, 2006:125.
  32. For example, J. David Bleich, Eliezer Waldenberg
  33. Such as the writings of Daniel Sinclair, Moshe Tendler, Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Moshe Feinstein
  34. Pulling the plug: What does Jewish law say about 'passive euthanasia?' "In general, Jewish law supports employing palliative measures to reduce suffering, such as those utilized at hospices. This even includes gradually increasing morphine injections as long as one intends to reduce pain and not to hasten a patient’s death. At the same time, Jewish law prohibits suicide or so-called “mercy killings.” For this reason, Israel and many other countries do not permit active euthanasia or even the slightly more moderate model of physician-assisted suicide whereby healthcare professionals provide the necessary tools for the patient to take his own life. However, Jewish bioethicists significantly disagree [with each other] regarding “passive euthanasia,” which can constitute either the withholding or withdrawing of treatment from the terminally ill. In the 16th century, Rabbi Moshe Isserles codified three major principles regarding the treatment of patients approaching death (goses): (1) One should not cause them to die more slowly; (2) One may not do any action that hastens the death; (3) One may remove something that is merely hindering the soul’s departure. Unfortunately, these principles remain subject to different interpretations..."
  35. See Elliot Dorff and, for earlier speculation, Byron Sherwin.
  36. "Physician-Assisted Death". 25 October 2019.
  37. "Rabbi Miriam Jerris, Phd". www.ifshj.net. Archived from the original on 2009-09-30.
  38. Baeke, Goedele, Jean-Pierre Wils, and Bert Broeckaert, “‘We are (not) the master of our body’: elderly Jewish women’s attitudes towards euthanasia and assisted suicide,” Ethnicity and Health 16, no. 3 (2011): 259-278, SocINDEX with full text, EBSCOhost.
  39. "9.3. Implications of Japanese religious views toward life and death in medicine". www.eubios.info. Retrieved 2009-02-14.
  40. Euthanasia: A Reference Handbook - Page 24, Jennifer Fecio McDougall, Martha Gorman - 2008
  41. Moulton, Benjamin E., Terrence D. Hill, and Amy Burdette. "Religion and Trends in Euthanasia Attitudes among U.S. Adults, 1977–2004." Sociological Forum 21.2 (2006): 249-72. Web.
  42. Religion and Nurses’ Attitudes to Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide, Nursing Ethics 2009. The subject is also dealt with at length in Johannes A. van der Ven, Hans-Georg Ziebertz (eds.) Human Rights and the Impact of Religion, Koninklijke 2013.
  43. Caddell D, Newton R, Euthanasia: American attitudes towards the physician's role. Soc Sci Med. 1995 Jun;40(12):1671-81.
  44. Baume P, O'Malley E, Bauman A, Professed religious affiliation and the practice of euthanasia. J Med Ethics 1995;21(1): 49–54.

Sources
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.