The present paper focuses on the examination of the euthanasia phenomenon in the context of Christianity with the help of a case study. The questions addressed in the paper include the notions of fall and resurrection as means of interpreting suffering, the Christian stance on the value of human life and euthanasia, and the discussion of possible solutions for the case study. The analysis of the relevant literature demonstrates that the process of active euthanasia as a central case to the case study is explicitly frowned upon in the Christian worldview, placing the ideas of nonmaleficence above one’s autonomy. The primary insight of the paper concerns the idea that the given case study deals with a situation when the patient undergoes the stages of accepting his diagnosis, making him rather vulnerable to make well-grounded decisions regarding his life and future.
In the face of a disease, people frequently tend to address the causes beyond one’s physical condition and health failure. Indeed, it is not uncommon for anyone to question why they were the ones punished by God and meant to suffer from a challenge. However, there are few people who realize the meaning intended behind this struggle. Fundamentally, it was never God’s intention to impose sins and sufferings on human nature, as every person brought into the world was meant to live in the image of God, helping Him to do good in the world (Grand Canyon University, 2020). However, it was Adam and Eve who could not resist the temptation to sin and act rebellious towards God’s intentions for human nature. As a result, human beings, although not inherently sinful, are destined to be predisposed to act in spite of God’s will to do good for the world, making every human choice a morally and ethically challenging endeavor.
For this reason, when speaking of disease in the context of the Christian narrative, people should never question God’s love for fellow humans and His omnipotence. Instead, they should acknowledge the inherent flaws of the world they live in and find the courage within themselves not to doubt Christian faith in the name of suffering. From a fundamentally Christian point of view, George should regard his illness as a manifestation of flaws swarming over physical existence. However, it is crucial to remember that one’s physical state is only a part of human nature, with a spiritual constituent playing a more significant role in the long term. Thus, when contemplating life with a disease, George should also consider how his actions might affect eternal spiritual separation from God.
As far as the context of hope and resurrection is concerned, the primary problem is the ability to find the strength within a human being to recognize the disease as something more than physical suffering. Thus, when regarding a health challenge through the lens of human existence as a spiritual phenomenon, the notions of physical life and death do not seem the ultimate values of one’s life. According to Grand Canyon University (2020), one of the fundamental challenges in terms of making a life-changing decision is the dissonance between the “already’ and “not yet” aspects of resurrection. On the one hand, humanity has already been saved and may expect a blissful eternal existence. On the other hand, however, the physical existence remains replete with suffering, pain, and struggle, making it easy for a person to lose faith in the face of challenges and obstacles (Grand Canyon University, 2020). For this reason, the ultimate reward for the suffering should outweigh the current physical and mental struggle.
Thus, when speaking of George’ perception of his life and the burden it would create for his family and himself, it is natural for him to question whether the fear or eternal spiritual separation from God and resurrection is worth the risks of his existence and battle that could last for years. Fundamentally, he should perceive his suffering as the ultimate confrontation of God’s creation and human fallenness, where the latter should be eventually defeated and overgrown with the restoration of the world in the initial God’s image and creation. Hence, through the prism of Christianity, while choosing euthanasia as a means of deprivation from suffering, George may as well deprive himself of the divine power of hope and redemption.
The Christian narrative places major emphasis on the phenomenon of human life as a central attribute of God’s creation. Moreover, there are considerations that appeal to the interrelation between all the living organisms in the world that eventually make up for a coherent world picture. When speaking of human life, it is necessary to dwell on the notion of moral status as a foundation for deciding whether someone or something is a subject of moral concern. Thus, according to the Christian perspective, human life is, by all means, of greatest value and moral weight. However, while some researchers such as RenĂ© Descartes view people with the ability to be reasonable and autonomous as the primary subjects for moral concern, the Christian perspective expands this definition to human life in general, claiming a human embryo to be as well God’s intended creation (Wireless Philosophy, 2014; Grand Canyon University, 2020). Hence, it becomes evident that there are no limitations that might potentially undermine the value of human life in Christianity.
In the case of George, his medical condition, despite projecting obstacles to the autonomous existence and proper reason, by no means depreciates his moral status and significance to the world, as every single human being was created in imago Dei. Moreover, it is of paramount importance to view George’s life as significant not only to himself but to his surroundings. Christianity, by its nature, is a collectivist belief that promotes the sense of community and compassion as a key for finding peace and redemption. For this reason, such an individualistic endeavor as making a voluntary decision to terminate life in order not to be a burden for the family may appear rather egocentric, as it will ease the suffering on one person at the expense of the family’s grief and suffer from losing a loved one.
Thus, it is necessary to dwell on the very perception of euthanasia from the Christian perspective. According to Frey and Blackwell (2018), the notion of euthanasia stands for the process of terminating one’s life either by administering lethal medications or withdrawing from the existing treatment plan. As a result, euthanasia may be either active or passive, with the latter presupposing no direct physician’s interference, and the refusal of treatment depends on the patient’s decision. Such an attitude towards euthanasia is remotely acceptable in the Christian community due to the fact that no other people participate in terminating one’s life, simultaneously acting against God’s will.
However, since there is no treatment for George’s condition, the only option for voluntary euthanasia, in this case, presupposes external interference and administration of lethal drug doses. In this scenario, the Christian narrative does not recognize the slightest possibility of condoning such behavior. Indeed, the paradigm of Christianity perceives human life as entirely controlled by God’s will, making God have “the ultimate power over death and life” (Frey & Blackwell, 2018, “Viewpoints” section). While the Christian stance may be understood from the viewpoint of preserving human life through hope, it is also necessary to take into account George’s feelings about the situation.
Considering the lifestyle George led in the past, complete dependence on others in order to exist is nothing but a living nightmare for him. For this reason, his intention to avoid overburdening the family is completely justified. The only thing that matters in this context is whether such a decision is well-grounded and enduring. Such a moral dilemma, according to Young (2020), is one of the fundamental objections to the legalization and moral permission of euthanasia. For this reason, from both ethical and moral perspectives, it would be necessary for George to spend some time thinking about his options and diagnosis in order not to make an irreversible decision. From the Christian perspective, on the other hand, no contemplation is necessary at this stage, as euthanasia in this context may be equal to murder and cannot be condoned by the existing religious dogmas. Hence, the Christian worldview by no means encourages George to opt for voluntary euthanasia.
Given George’s situation, it becomes evident that the only morally justified option for the patient would be to embrace his diagnosis and overcome physical health challenges in order to cognize the eternal existence and resurrection later. However, it was mentioned by Frey and Blackwell (2018) that while active euthanasia is unequivocally frowned upon in the Christian community, some cases of passive euthanasia could be accepted given the context. Hence, at the stage of disease progression when George will need assistance speaking and performing activities of daily living (ADLs), the choice in favor of euthanasia cannot be morally justified. However, once George needs medical assistance such as permanent ventilator support, it will be possible for him to voluntarily refuse treatment and opt for passive euthanasia. However, even such a decision will be against the Christian perspective of God being the only one capable of deciding on human destiny and passing away. For this reason, it may be concluded that the only morally justified option for George in the Christian worldview would be to restrain from euthanasia whatsoever.
If I were in George’s situation, I would also consider euthanasia as one of the first options that come to mind after contemplating the limited existence ahead. However, after realizing the risks of losing everything in the face of personal ego and the desire to come off as a strong individual, I would make the decision to live life to its fullest while everything is not as daunting and scary. Opting for euthanasia is a choice that could be made sometime later in life if I understood I could no longer bear the guilt of burdening my family. However, while it was not clear whether I could live for three or ten more years, I would consider trying my best to spend some quality time with my family and adjust to the new me. It is also necessary to note that, in my opinion, one’s decision to settle for euthanasia should be respected. Undeniably, people have to make sure such a judgment is competent and enduring, but the ultimate choice could and should be made by the patient who is expected to suffer.
References
Frey, R. J., & Blackwell, A. H. (2018). Euthanasia. In J. L. Longe (Ed.), Gale virtual reference library: The Gale encyclopedia of nursing and allied health (4th ed.). Gale. Web.
Grand Canyon University. (2020). Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and decision making in health care [E-book]. Web.
Wireless Philosophy. (2014). Philosophy – Ethics: Moral status [HD] [Video]. YouTube.
Young, R. (2020). Voluntary euthanasia. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.),Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy(2021 ed.). Stanford University.