Voluntary Euthanasia Essay Example

with the intention of extending life, yet ultimately resulting in indirect death. In contrast, PAS occurs when a doctor provides medication to hasten the patient's death. The differentiation between ordinary and extraordinary means is also significant, as ordinary means refers to minimal treatment necessary for maintaining life while extraordinary means encompass measures that may cause excessive suffering and have a low chance of saving the patient's life. Peter Vardy (3) identified these concepts as influential factors in shaping people's opinions on euthanasia.

The issue of euthanasia is closely tied to the existence of God. If God exists, taking a life may be considered immoral because it conflicts with His will. However, in the absence of God's existence, individuals have the right to choose whether or not they want to continue living but must consider how their decision may impact others. Legalizing euthanasia raises concerns about the "slippery slope" argument that it could result in more deaths and make ending the lives of disabled people seem normal. Some argue that allowing euthanasia could blur distinctions between it and suicide. To address these issues, different approaches can be taken such as adopting a Natural Law approach, a Situation ethics approach, or proportionalism based on assessing whether an act is inherently good or its morality depends on its consequences.

The Sanctity of Life concept (1) is based on the Christian principle that life is a gift from God and can only be ended by Him. According to this view, human beings are obligated to safeguard life due to its intrinsic value. However, modern medical advances have blurred the lines between living and dying, resulting in closer examination of traditional religious

convictions. The crux of the argument for Sanctity of Life rests on distinguishing between 'being' and 'person.' While a being refers to any member of a species, a person denotes an individual who is cherished and known by name.

The act of killing can be lessened by dehumanising people. The question of euthanasia is centered on whether we perceive an individual as a being or a person. Philosophers identify basic goods that are necessary for personhood. John Finnis lists seven equal basic goods, such as the desire for mental and physical pain-free life, knowledge seeking, play, aesthetic experience, sociability or friendship, practical reasonableness, and religion meaning collaboration and community. These goods add value to life, but are not considered moral goods. On the other hand, Joseph Fletcher has identified indicators associated with humanhood that include self-awareness, self control, sense of the future and past, capacity to relate to others, concern for others, communication and curiosity.

According to the QOL perspective, Sanctity of Life arguments fail to acknowledge strong beliefs about life's significance and one's freedom to end it. Instead, external factors like the desire for life and the right to die determine the value of life. The QOL viewpoint supports individuals' autonomy in making end-of-life choices based on personal preferences rather than strict absolutes. M's 'The Sanctity of Life' delves deeper into this subject.

Wilcockson outlines five key factors that determine whether a life can be preserved or taken, including Desires, Preferences, Autonomy (which is divided into Liberalism, Existentialism and Moral Law), Rights and Contract, as well as Life as a conscious being. A person's worth is determined by their desire to live; however, this may not

always be reliable due to changes in mental perspective. Liberty plays an important role in shaping values and morality for individuals while existential philosophy distinguishes humans from other entities. Lastly, Moral Law ensures that individuals are respected and protected against exploitation.

Egoism is among the many starting points of social contract theories that provide various explanations for taking and sustaining life. According to Thomas Hobbes, the right to preserve one's own life at all costs is superior to pain/pleasure or concern for others. Therefore, means such as killing, stealing, and adultery are all legitimate. Jonathan Glover supports this idea by suggesting that life should not only be defined as a living body biologically but also as one where consciousness is exercised (1).

An acknowledgement that voluntary euthanasia is contradictory to the beliefs of numerous individuals exists, and numerous grounds have been presented against it. One of these is the 'slippery slope' argument, where legalising euthanasia for one individual may lead to it being permissible for everyone. Another option available to the terminally ill is hospices, with specially trained professionals equipped to handle all cases. Dame Cicely Saunders (7) states that hospices alleviate pain in nearly every patient, employing the same techniques as surgeons do to preserve life in operating theatres and intensive care units. Additionally, the opposition from a religious perspective consists of various element components.

According to the Bible, voluntary euthanasia is strictly prohibited (4), as seen in quotes such as Exodus 20:13's 'Thou shall not kill'. However, the Bible (10) also stresses the importance of preventing unnecessary suffering; thus, withholding pain relief is not considered euthanasia. The Christian Sanctity of Life argument comprises

of four key tenets espoused in the Bible. The first highlights the notion of being created in God's image. This Christian anthropology maintains that each human being possesses a unique and divine essence, set apart from every other creature and capable of cultivating the earth as God's stewards.

John 1:14 states that the manifestation of God's Word in human form through Jesus affirms the sacredness of human life in its connection with God. Additionally, the viewpoint includes the concept of Destiny, which asserts that as the creator of life, God has control over its conclusion. This implies that in typical situations, individuals cannot make decisions to prolong or shorten their lifespan.

The Bible reminds us in Job 1:21 that we enter and exit the world without possessions, and it is God who grants and removes them. Thus, we must honor His name. In line with this, we should choose life as emphasized throughout the scriptures where killing is prohibited not only for murder but also in respecting others' belongings, our parents, and our interactions with spouses and neighbors. Deuteronomy 30:19 stresses the importance of "choosing life" to pay tribute to God's creation while Exodus 20:13 prohibits killing. Ultimately, love completes our stance.

Christian beliefs dictate that love entails displaying respect and providing protection to all individuals, irrespective of their gender, age or status. The New Testament frequently employs the Greek term 'agape', which suggests that love is an active sentiment requiring an individual to relinquish their own happiness for others. Per the biblical citation, "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (I Corinthians 13:6). In his analysis on 'Euthanasia,' Peter

Vardy (3) underscores that some Protestants employ the Bible to oppose Euthanasia; however, interpreting the sixth commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' literally proves infeasible.

The Bible's commandment against killing in Exodus 20:13 is contradicted in Exodus 21:12-16, where four exceptions are outlined. These include instances of striking one's parents, committing murder, kidnapping someone, or cursing one's parents. The Bible even permits warfare and capital punishment. Additionally, the Bible does not condemn suicide; examples include Saul (1 Sam 31:4), Anthithopel (2 Sam 17:23), Samuel (Judges 16:30), and Judas (Matthew 27:5). Despite this, Christians uphold the sanctity of life due to their belief that suffering is a part of God's plan.

In his novel, Power and the Glory, Graham Greene conveys that earthly suffering is linked to heavenly joys, as per an unnamed whiskey priest. A counterargument commonly cited against euthanasia is the belief that "Life is Sacred." If something is considered sacrosanct, it must be treated as holy according to divine law. Hence, life cannot exist independently and must be revered due to its connection with God. Those who lack faith in God are incapable of regarding life as sacred.

In accordance with the Catholic declaration on Euthanasia (3), Roman Catholics firmly reject voluntary or direct euthanasia in any situation. The document is composed of four primary sections that recognize the majority's belief that life is a sacred and valuable gift from God. Included are three norms, beginning with a worldwide ban on efforts to terminate an innocent person's life. The second criterion mandates living according to God's plan, which involves leading productive lives and striving for eternal life while achieving personal potential.

According to the third statement, suicide is

forbidden as it goes against God's sovereignty and plan, disrespects oneself and the desire to live, and neglects responsibilities of justice and charity. However, it should not be mistaken for self-sacrifice in the name of love for others and God's glory. Peter Vardy's book Euthanasia notes that the term euthanasia has different interpretations among people. The document defines it as an action or lack thereof that leads to death with the intention of ending all suffering. It is not acceptable for one person to do this to another or request it for oneself even when pain and suffering are prolonged or unbearable.

The experience of death can be eased by certain circumstances such as long-term illness or old age, but it is a natural occurrence that often causes distress. It is recognized that extreme pain may lead to the desire to end life at any cost, even through painkillers. Pope Pius XII stated that the use of narcotics to alleviate suffering, even if it hastens death, is acceptable when all other options have been exhausted and religious and moral obligations are still achievable. The fourth section of the declaration emphasizes preserving human dignity and respecting life during the moment of passing while warning against excessive technological interventions. The "right to die" is not interpreted as permission for active suicide but rather as an entitlement to die peacefully with respect. According to the Church of England (10), human life is a divine gift that must be safeguarded; therefore, except in self-defence or defence of others, taking human life is prohibited.

The distinction between intentionally killing someone and administering painkillers or discontinuing treatment may ultimately shorten their life. Maintaining

human life through medical intervention presents a ethical dilemma and does not mandate doctors prolong life at all costs. Collaborative decision-making between multiple doctors is crucial in end-of-life situations. Additionally, it is both a Christian and state duty to protect the most vulnerable. This includes those who may feel burdensome to others and may consider hastening their own death. While human autonomy is important, it is limited and requires caution in end-of-life decisions. The House urges careful consideration before altering public policy on this topic.

The Hospice movement is still being praised for its work, and Christian Churches are advocating for its support as places where terminally ill patients can receive care and dignity without resorting to euthanasia. Early hospices were established by Christians who sought compassionate alternatives to euthanasia.