Introduction
Euthanasia is a healthcare intervention that receives varied ethical opinions from a worldview and a Christian worldview. Healthcare providers come across multiple instances where a patient’s view on healthcare interventions gets influenced by their religious worldview or worldview. Patients’ religious beliefs can sometimes affect their health outcomes, given their perceptions of some healthcare interventions. Such instances force healthcare providers to make decisions laden with moral and ethical consequences (Bogue and Hogan, 2022). Nurses must understand such dynamics and learn to deal with different patients open-mindedly. Understanding a patient’s spiritual beliefs allows nurses to provide holistic care for their patients; thus, a nurse needs to understand the role of spirituality in their worldview. Christianity explains moral and ethical issues in a biblical context, hence the quest to answer philosophical and theological questions from George’s case study, affecting nursing practice in a Christian worldview.
Suffering and the Fallenness of the World
Human suffering and enduring pain and aches have been constant reminders of the fallenness of the world that haunts humanity. Christianity explains the narrative of pain and suffering from a perspective of hope, faith, and charity. Other natural moral virtues help to interpret suffering in a fallen world. What drives people through pain in hope and faith is patience, a virtue described by Christian philosopher Josef Pieper as the preservation of cheerfulness amid injuries that result in the realization of the good. Further, Pieper states that “Patience keeps man from the danger that his spirit may be broken by grief and lose its greatness” (LeBlanc, 2022). The Christian standpoint on suffering in a fallen world may consider pain as a trial from God and that one should endure suffering for the sake of God (LeBlanc, 2022). Christian narrative emphasizes patience in suffering, for its transcendence results in connection with the divine. Therefore, George would consider imitating the Christian patience rooted in God’s love to rise above suffering and see the good.
The Christian standpoint explains suffering and the world’s fallenness in conjunction with sin. Suffering and death get explained as the fate of human beings that “it is appointed for men to die once” (Hoehner, 2020), and that God has a morally justified reason for allowing suffering. A scholar says, “Just because we cannot find a reason for suffering does not mean that there is not one” (Scheurermann, 2022). It is understood that while suffering, one cannot reason clearly and, most times, may want to quit. However, where the Christian narrative may not give comfort, Christians rely on their finite nature and the limited capacity of the human mind to comprehend everything that happens in life. While Christians continue to exist in a fallen world of sickness, pain, and suffering, God promises forgiveness of sin to those who believe in Christ.
Suffering and the Hope of Resurrection
The Christian narrative on suffering and the hope of resurrection has often been relied upon to explain the ultimate purpose of suffering. Some theological explanations state that God created a perfect world without convicting God for allowing suffering, but humans mess it up. Still, Jesus’s death and resurrection give humans hope of resurrection (Scheurermann, 2022). The human distortion of the perfect world created by God allowed disease, illness, and suffering. Thus death results from the sin of human beings (Hoehner, 2020). The Christian narrative on suffering offers a promise of hope through resurrection, where those who put their faith in God shall enjoy an end to suffering in heaven (Scheurermann, 2022). However, it is essential to note that this narrative does not resonate with everyone since some people who have encountered suffering lose touch with the existence of a good God. Therefore, the Christian narrative urges those who suffer from believing in Jesus and the eventual end to their suffering when God determines.
The compassionate nature of God in the Christian worldview gives believers hope of resurrection after suffering. Despite the human weakness and distortion of the perfect world that God had created, God sought to redeem his creation. The Christian narrative explains that the incarnation of humans came through the birth of Jesus and his death for the atonement of human sin (Bogue and Hogan, 2020). Thus, resurrection forms the complete Christian narrative of redemption and an end to suffering. Living the risen life with God is living as humans were meant to (Roberts, 2017 b). The Christian worldview on suffering and the hope of resurrection may help those who suffer to see the good in their suffering and help them endure to the end. Therefore, the hope of resurrection assures those who believe in Christ of a new life free of pain and suffering.
Conflicting worldview attitudes towards death bring hopelessness and fear as human beings often seek to determine the nature of the end of their lives or control its timing. However, the Christian worldview gives guidance on the true meaning of life, human purpose, and death. The Christian narrative on suffering and the hope of resurrection seeks to explain death from a Christian view. Here, the hope of resurrection upon death gives human beings meaning for life (Hoehner, 2020). Explaining death in a world with scientific and technological solutions to extend and support human life can get complicated. However, the Christian worldview explains death as a result of sin, which one can escape by believing in Jesus (Hoehner, 2020). Those who die in Christ have the hope to get resurrected and given new spiritual bodies.
Value of Life
The Christian worldview on the value of life relies on the fundamental concept of God’s creation. Opinions on the value of life agree that “All human beings are created in God’s image” (Roberts, 2017a). Irrespective of the nature of organ development, and mental or physical functional capabilities, all humans still hold God’s image; hence they remain valuable, and that human life has incalculable value (Hoehner, 2020). God creates and supports human life despite sin and redeems them to receive eternal life hence the priceless nature of the value of human life. Decision-making on euthanasia often rotates around the value of life and human dignity. Since human dignity and the value of life have no standard definition, people may use different definitions to make decisions. The existence of a Christian worldview informing on the intricate value of human life plays a huge role in decisions about euthanasia. Therefore, for George, even with an illness whose progressive symptoms would lead to brain cell degeneration, he remains valuable.
The virtue of human beings being created in the image of God gives them an inherent worth. Regardless of age, sex or religion, all human beings are worthy (Bogue and Hogan, 2020). Therefore the Christian worldview raises a morality question as to whether anyone has a right to end a life. The argument around human beings being created in God’s image significantly influences the Christian worldview on decisions about euthanasia and death issues. Besides, the human being has inherent dignity, which must be upheld regardless of a person’s state of health. The God-given traits of value and dignity in human beings cannot get removed by anyone else except God, who is the giver of human worth. The Christian worldview on the value of life safeguards human life because it consolidates the authority to end a life to God alone instead of to human beings who can make irrational decisions.
The dignity of a person with degenerated brain cells must not get diminished or disrespected all over their mind or consciousness. J.P. Moreland articulates the concept of the mind: “the mind is that faculty of the soul that contains thoughts and beliefs along with the relevant abilities to have them.” (Roberts, 2017 a). Therefore, George’s illness with ALS would result in the degeneration of brain cells means he would lose his mind. In the persistent vegetative state(PVS), some Christian groups, such as Orthodox Christian scholars, would believe such patients as dead (Roberts, 2017 a). However, great contrast exists since most Christian views oppose assisted death. Therefore, as guided by the Christian worldview, the value of life gets determined by God, who deems all human beings worthy.
Christian Worldview Values and Considerations on Euthanasia
The Christian worldview forms a foundation for most ethical and morally challenging aspects of healthcare. Due to the complexity of the world and a wide array of ethical dilemmas, the Christian worldview has values and considerations to guide professionals in making sound, safe and beneficial choices. The consideration that every human being is made in the image of God and has inherent value receives focus from the Christian worldview (Bogue and Hogan, 2020). Since God gives life, he determines the value of all human beings; thus, no one has the power to end a life. Therefore, God being the sole authority to give and take life, the Christian worldview opposes euthanasia.
Secondly, the Christian worldview would focus on considerations of human personhood in euthanasia. As defined by Wells et al., euthanasia is a deliberate decision to terminate treatment or use medical interference to end a terminally ill patient’s life (2013). Scholars like Gilbert Meilaender hold that biological life is not disabled from one’s personhood, no matter how disabled (Roberts, 2017 b). Further, voluntary euthanasia is often gets frowned upon in most societies. Moreover, the Christian Worldview does not support euthanasia on the ethical grounds of suicide being a sin. The Orthodox Church strictly denounces euthanasia and does not support any form, even to relieve suffering (Roberts, 2017 b). Therefore, George would focus on such Christian worldview considerations and values in deliberating euthanasia.
Morally Justified Options
Human beings have an intrinsic dignity given by God; therefore, no one has the power to end a life. The Christian worldview provides morally justified options to those who suffer. First, George may believe in Christ for hope and deliverance from his condition. Those who believe in Christ receive the whole meaning of life (Hoehner, 2020). Since the Christian worldview on suffering assures an end to suffering for those who die in Christ, such would be a morally justified option for George.
Moreover, those who die in Christ have an assurance of eternal life after the resurrection. Secondly, George accepting his state and seeing value in his life would be another morally justified option. The Christian worldview insists that the value of human life gets determined by God, who has the sole power to give and take life. The same value of life gets given to all human beings regardless of their physical or mental well-being (Hoehner, 2020). Therefore, in accepting his situation, George must see that he is worthy of living and remains valuable no matter what the ALS illness may subject him to suffer.
Reflection Hypothesis of Personal Decision on George’s Situation
Euthanasia can become a moral dilemma for a patient, given the consideration of possible long-term suffering as one awaits death from an incurable illness. For instance, Anderson states that “Diagnoses of disability are now considered sufficient grounds for death.” (2015). On the other hand, patients who may not be in extreme pain or bedridden get denied voluntary euthanasia (Anderson, 2015). However, in George’s situation, I would request dignified care from physicians and doctors for as long as the medication can prolong the nerve degeneration. With the help of physicians, I would ensure to spend as much quality time with family as possible, considering the effects of undertaking voluntary euthanasia on the family. Voluntary euthanasia may compromise the family and intergenerational obligations since people may view the sick as an eliminable burden (Anderson, 2015). Moreover, with having a son, euthanasia would possibly cause him to consider himself a burden. A patient’s actions cause their family members to internalize the attitude displayed by their sickly family member. Allowing family members to care and provide for a sickly patient strengthens compassion and builds a family bond.
While ALS presents with degeneration of brain nerves and loss of motor neuron functions, I would consider using the available disease management avenues. Since the loss of motion can be aided by a wheelchair. Additionally, I would accept being put under ventilator support upon the inability to breathe. While human life does not need to be supported by every medical means possible (Anderson, 2015), using available means to extend a patient’s life upholds their human dignity. Moreover, I would consider being an organ donor, given the common medical considerations for patients progressing to a state of whole-brain death (Roberts, 2017a). Further, I would seek professional counseling (Wells et al., 2013) to guide me in handling the expected physical and mental effects of ALS. Upon the eventual loss of higher brain function and consciousness, one may be pronounced dead without regard for such action as sinful.
Conclusion
End of life decisions dominate the nursing practice and can get quite complex, especially determining the right and wrong way of practice. Euthanasia is one of the end of life decisions that patients and nurses have difficulty taking for a lack of standard measures of practice. However, Christian Worldview guides patients and healthcare providers on Godly-inspired practices. While the Christian worldview acknowledges the sad fate of human suffering, it condemns voluntary euthanasia since God is the sole authority to end a life. Worldview perspectives receive inspiration from the Christian Worldview to uphold the making of moral and ethical choices among nurses and patients.
References
Anderson, R. (2015). Always care, never kill: How physician-assisted suicide endangers the weak, corrupts medicine, compromises the family, and violates human dignity and equality. Health and care reform. Backgrounder, 3004. The Heritage Foundation.
Bogue, D. W., & Hogan, M. (2020). Foundational issues in Christian spirituality. In Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and decision making in health care. Web.
Hoehner, J. P. (2020). Death, Dying and Grief. In Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and decision making in health care. Cap 4.
LeBlanc, D. (2022). The pain- patience continuum: A humane understanding of our space-time reality. JOGTS, 3(1). pp. 31-48.
Roberts, A. H. (2017 a). The higher-brain concept of death: A Christian theological appraisal. Ethics and Medicine 33(3), pp. 177-131.
Roberts, A. H. (2017 b). Eastern Orthodox views on a “Higher-Brain” death criterion: Why theology must inform medical ethics. International journal of Orthodox theology, 8(2), pp. 115-133.
Scheurermann, R. (2022). Apologetics and disability: Reframing our response to the question of suffering. Great commission research journal, 14(2). Web.
Wells, K. R., Frey, R. J., & Catalado, L. J. (2013). “Euthnasia.” Gale Encyclopedia of Nursing and Allied Health. Web.