Euthanasia in the light of Christian morality

1. Entity type Lemma
2. Original titleEutanasia în lumina moralei creştine
3. Language term Romanian
4. lemma author Stavinschi, Alexandra
5. lemma category Ethics - Scientific theories and disciplines > Medicine
6. Publication date 2012
7. lemma work Apostolu, George [Author]. Eutanasia în lumina moralei creştine [Euthanasia in the light of Christian morality]
8. lemma manifestations http://www.crestinortodox.ro/sanatate-stiinta/eutanasia-lumina-moralei-crestine-72610.html
9. Keywords suicide - eugenetics - euthanasia
10. Url Click Here
11. Lemma body

    1. The author reviews the history of euthanasia across cultures and then takes at look at the ethical concerns surrounding it from his double perspective as a priest and a medic. He starts by mentioning the oldest evidence of such practice in primitive societies, and later in Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. In sharp contrast there was Israel, where even disabled, blind or orphan children were taken care of. In the same line, Christians believed that only God can take away life. The reasons for practising euthanasia may vary drammatically: they range from compassion and the concern for a dignified life to economic reasons, leading to eugenic euthanasia. The idea of euthanasia for humanitarian reasons was supported in ancient times by Epictetus, Seneca, Pliny the Younger and others. More recently, two thinkers passionately advocated for it: Thomas More and Francis Bacon. But it was only at the end of the XIX century when it came into the public eye. Given the progress of science and the inexplicable healing of some individuals, the author maintains that we should not interfere with God’s work. Another obvious reason to reject this practice is the possibility of abuse. Remarkably, the only modern State that made legal the euthanasia for disabled individuals or for those who were seen as a burden to society was Hitler’s Germany. The author goes on to explain the difference between euthanasia, which is triggered by more ‚objective’ reasons, and suicide, which is usually a consequence of the inadaptability of the individual. Based on (I Cor. 6, 15, 12, 27 ; Efes. 5, 30; (IICor. 6, 16), (I Cor. 3, 16), (I Cor. 3, 17), he reminds us that Christianity has always condemned both of these practices. However, in the case of euthanasia, the individual has already and inevitably entered the death process. Another important distinction that should be pointed out is that between euthanasia and life not worth living. Disabled babies, impaired people and elderly people suffering from dementia fall into this category. In these cases, the author considers that we are not allowed to judge what a life not worth living is and therefore we should always offer help. The author believes that euthanasia could only be accepted when it comes from a place of love; therefore, it only makes sense in the case of people who have irreversibly entered the process of death, who experience sharp pain, and for whom this is the only way to escape unbearable suffering. He goes on to discuss the three ways in which we can understand the term, ranging from a very narrow interpretation to a wider one. He also distinguishes between active (or direct) euthanasia, when there is active intervention to speed up the death process, and passive (or indirect) euthanasia, which simply means suspending the therapeutic action intended to keep the patient alive. There are two basic arguments in favour of euthanasia: a) compassion for the dying, for those in physical pain and for those suffering from incurable diseases; b) "everyone's right to end their life and ask for its termination". The author concentrates more on discussing the first argument, which is apparently in line with the Christian teachings, while he cites many biblical excerpts to refute the second. However, based on the scriptures, he comes to the conclusion that the first one should be rejected as well. To summarize, he claims that sufferings, trials and tribulations are generally given to man or permitted by God for these beneficial purposes: 1) as a trial (Solomon 3, 6); 2) for repentance (Isaiah 26, 16); 3) for humility (II Cor. 12 , 7); 4) as proof of empathy and love from those who do not suffer to those who suffer; 5) for the honour and glory of those who endure and fight right to the end (Matthew 5, 10); 6) to show God's omnipotence (e.g., the blind man); 7) for punishment (e.g., the plagues sent by God to Pharaoh); and for many other purposes. Therefore, believers must endure what is given by God through repentance because, according to the Christian teaching, there is no sin that cannot be forgiven by Him. Trusting in the mercy and love of God, the author concludes that we never have the right to intervene brutally in suppressing the life of those who suffer, with the excuse of mercy or compassion. We should follow the example of the Saviour who "healed all disease and helplessness in people" (Matthew IV, 23) and live his life by doing good and healing everyone (Acts 10, 38).