The ethicality of euthanasia is a controversial issue in the philosophy of medicine, ethics, law, and other disciplines connected to the notions of death and the right to it. Euthanasia has divided people into two main camps – those who see it as a crime against God or some higher institution and those who see it as a prerogative of each individual. The main argument of the last is that to leave a patient suffering is uncivilized and that a dignified death should be granted for everyone. Following this point of view, the best option is to help a sufferer to end their life. The pain that terminal patients undergo cannot be experienced by medical staff or their family members. Nevertheless, the decision to end the misery often is up to the third party.
Euthanasia is translated from Greek as “good death,” still in various cultures and religions it is not viewed as such (Tarabeih and Gonţa 7). Euthanasia is considered illegal in many counties, and even in those where it is legalized, doctors may apprehend performing the procedure. Nevertheless, euthanasia has developed several subtypes that are classified based on the party who makes the decision. Voluntary euthanasia happens when a patient requests the procedure themselves to end their suffering. Non-voluntary euthanasia is applied to a patient who is not able to make a conscious decision. Moreover, there is involuntary euthanasia, which is performed against the will of a patient (Tarabeih and Gonţa 7). Despite the moral differences that may arise from each type of euthanasia, religious practices seemingly don’t make a distinction in their approach and form their general perspective to the notion entirely.
Choosing to die may seem like a personal decision; however, euthanasia involves three parties – the patient willing to die, the doctor who performs the act, and, potentially, the patient’s relatives. From a medical point of view, there are several options for terminating a patient’s life that fall under the definition of “euthanasia.” Turning off the life support equipment is known as passive euthanasia, while a medical overdose of painkillers would be considered as active euthanasia (Tarabeih and Gonţa 14). In this way, along with the medical progress in the sphere of alleviating a person’s suffering, the debates around the topic can spark especially acute reactions among religious people.
The debates around ending someone’s life in a consensual medical way became especially poignant, approximately, by the end of the 20th century. In media, it has been presented as an issue to be regarded from ethical or religious points of view rather than from the scientific one (Tarabeih and Gonţa 14). Religion remains one of the most significant influences for the considerable number of pious people on this planet. Following moral demands of the higher being, such as God, introduces inner conflict into the lives of believers, which expresses itself in the ambiguity of human life. Moreover, the concept of the afterlife takes the central place in the majority of religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have particular views on how euthanasia affects a patient’s afterlife.
Although Islam is the youngest of the major worldwide spread religions, it has accumulated the second largest number of followers (Chaïma 3). Islam teaches that all its people are Allah’s vicegerents, who gave them power over many things on Earth. As Allah’s wards, Muslims are supposed to possess, among other, two qualities that would help them to cope with adversities – patience and endurance. Additionally, one of the primary duties of a Muslim is to be socially useful. Muslims are required to try to stay in proper health and to lead a life that could ensure their soundness and maximize their helpfulness. The social system established in the Islamic countries provides its members with a set of rules, which is supposed to give them moral, physical, and emotional maintenance (Ahaddour 22). Looking after the ill and old, in Islam, is the duty of a family as in many other traditional societies.
One of Islam’s teachings says that Allah gives life and thus has full power to take it away; it is his prerogative. According to Islamic beliefs, Allah determined the lifespan of each individual, and prolonging or reducing it is not up to anyone but him. Thus, death is a matter that is entirely in Allah’s hands, and taking it away is supposed to only happen by Islamic rules. Allah instructs in Qur’an, “do not take life which Allah made sacred, other than in the cause of justice” (The Qur’an 17:33). This verse and many others overtly forbid euthanasia or any kind of assisted or unassisted suicide. Besides, Qur’an prohibits someone precipitating their physical deterioration, and it presents a clear position that Islam has towards euthanasia. In Islam, unlawful killing, helping others to die, and consenting to suicide are prohibited acts. Any pain or adversity in a Muslim’s life is a trial sent by Allah to prove a believer’s faith and endurance. Thereby, suffering should not overpower and discourage a Muslim to a degree where life would seem irremediable.
It may seem as if Qur’an and Muslim savants agree upon the ungodliness of euthanasia without a dissenting voice. It is the case for active euthanasia and mostly right for passive euthanasia, where treatment of a disease is suspended. For instance, the discussion of the ethicality of switching off a life support machine in Islam continues, and various conflicting points of view are presented (Ayuba 10). For example, some Islamic scholars accept the removal of the life support machine, if the sufferer has no potential for recovery (Ayuba 10). Therefore, the question of permissibility of passive euthanasia in Islam remains open, while active euthanasia is unanimously condemned. A Muslim’s life could be seen as an endurance test with a fixed deadline, where death is not the end but the final barrier between earthly life and the return to the Creator.
Judaism has a broader division of opinions on controversial topics: this also applies to euthanasia, on which there is no unanimous stance within this religion. Rabbis from different movements within Judaism tend to interpret to a degree different religious texts on which they base their opinions on euthanasia. Nevertheless, it seems that a lot of rabbis are contrary to this medical procedure. For instance, Rabbi David Bleich, when talking about euthanasia, underlines that “the quality of life which is preserved is never a factor to be taken into consideration” (Tarabeih and Gonţa 39). According to the rabbi, it is a Jewish duty to preserve and continue life with disregard to the circumstances that could push a Judaist into considering ending their life. Moreover, Bleich states that “never is he [man] called upon to determine whether is a life worth living – this is a question over which God remains the sole arbiter” (Tarabeih and Gonţa 39). Thus, Bleich represents a common opinion on euthanasia in Orthodox Judaism.
However, rabbis who advocate euthanasia also represent a valid group of Judaist religions. For example, Rabbi Sherwin, after an investigation of the sacred texts to form his opinion on euthanasia, concludes that there are exceptions to the rule of life preservation. The rabbi affirms that suffering that most definitely will result in death should be alleviated, if necessary, with the help of euthanasia (Tarabeih and Gonţa 43). In this way, Judaism asserts that human life is of infinite value, but recognizes that life is still finite. Moreover, a clear distinction between suicide and euthanasia is made by some rabbis, who find the latter permissible. Besides, attitudes toward active and passive euthanasia also vary from a rabbi to a rabbi – while some find that withdrawing life support machines is in agreement with Judaism, others do not.
When viewed from Judaism’s position, the attitude to euthanasia stems from the religion’s primary stances. These Judaist religious convictions are: the human body is a property of God, humans are mortal, and humans are obliged by God to care about their health (Dorff 155). Since the Jewish body belongs to God, they are required to preserve it and seek both preventive and curative treatment. Partially for this reason, Judaism strongly advises against resigning someone’s right to live without regard to circumstances that may push a person in this direction. Although, a terminal patient in Judaism is not supposed to commit suicide (medically assisted or not), they may pray to God and ask to accelerate death’s arrival (Tarabeih and Gonţa 44). Judaists piously believe that only God has the right to prolong or reduce someone’s lifespan.
While Orthodox Judaism forbids all types of euthanasia, some Christian confessions may allow, for instance, withdrawing a life support machine in severe circumstances (Raz and Schicktanz 6). Although specific movements permit euthanasia, strong opposition to the procedure can be found within Christianity’s broader belief system. It is argued that the human body should not be viewed simply in materialistic ways; thus, physical life on this planet should not be a primary concern for a Christian (Cherry 10). According to Christian tradition, life is God’s gift, and even though death is unavoidable, it should be met with dignity and faithfulness. On this belief, the unacceptability of all types of euthanasia in several Christian churches is based.
The main counterargument of pro-euthanasia Christians is that there is no support in the Bible for the stance that life should be prolonged for as long as possible (Tarabeih and Gonţa 43). This reasoning may shed a different light on passive euthanasia, making it more acceptable in the eyes of some believers. Nevertheless, a terminal patient who is suffering should be comforted but not pushed forward into the arms of death – this is the opinion of those Christians who oppose the procedure entirely (Tarabeih and Gonţa 43). Consequently, it may be concluded that a large number of confessions and movements within Christianity oppose euthanasia. Still, a smaller percentage of its proponents can be found as the religion transforms, adapting to contemporary society.
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity being Abrahamic religions, are to have similarities in their belief systems. One of them is the approach towards life and death questions, human health, and killing. Without diminishing the peculiarities of each religion, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity seem to agree about euthanasia to a certain degree. Moreover, the reasoning behind this is also similar: God is the giver of life, it is only up to the Creator to decide who is to die, and the human body is only a temporary asylum for an infinite soul, which can be corrupted by euthanasia. This simplification limits all the possibilities for discussion, as the sacred texts contain myriads of nuances that can be interpreted to one’s liking.
Works Cited
Ahaddour, Chaïma, et al. “God is the Giver and Taker of Life”: Muslim Beliefs and Attitudes Regarding Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia”. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, vol. 9, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1–11.
Ayuba, Mahmud Adesina. “Euthanasia: a Muslim’s Perspective“. Scriptura: Journal for Biblical, Theological, and Contextual Hermeneutics, vol. 115, 2016, pp. 1–13.
Cherry, Mark J. “Physician-Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia: How Not to Die as a Christian”. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, vol. 24, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1–16.
Dorff, Elliot N. “Jewish Perspectives on End-of-Life Decisions”. Death and Dying: Comparative Philosophy of Religion, vol. 2, 2019, pp 145-167.
Raz, Aviad E. and Silke Schicktanz. Comparative Empirical Bioethics: Dilemmas of Genetic Testing and Euthanasia in Israel and Germany. Springer Briefs in Ethics, 2016.
Tarabeih, Mahdi and Victoria Gonţa. Euthanasia – the Right to a Dignified Death. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2019.
The Qur’an. Trans. by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford UP, 2005