Religious Approaches as Methods in Healthcare Ethics Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction

Medical practitioners are given the daunting task of making end of life decisions, and must answer questions such as “Will treatment prolong dying?”, “Will the doctor’s good intentions negate his act of assisted suicide?”, “Are other alternatives postponing the inevitable?”, “Should patient autonomy count for something?” and “How will the physician’s actions affect medical integrity?” Through an analysis of Catholic and Jewish theological principles concerning euthanasia, this paper will look at the moral plausibility of physician assisted suicide in medical practice, and hence demystify this complex component of healthcare ethics.

Theological principles that are relevant to healthcare ethics

The value of human life

The value of human life is one of the overriding principles in Catholicism and Judaism. This stems from the belief that man was made in God’s image, and that God is the ultimate preserver of life¹. Human beings are worthy because they reflect the intrinsic value of God². Man is like God because he has been granted dominion over other creatures.

Nonetheless, this dominion should be treated with caution because it has its limits; man should think of himself as a steward in creation rather than the ultimate exerciser of dominion. Man is like God because he also has the capacity to think and decide to change things for the better. This implies that human life has dignity owing to creation³. Catholics also believe that God commands man to protect life. They are required to behave in the ways of the Holy One because he is the ultimate creator⁴.

Understanding the meaning of human life is critical to the healthcare ethics field because it causes healthcare stakeholders to really think about the repercussions of their actions. They will refrain from taking ethical shortcuts when they learn about the value of human life, and this will definitely improve their outcomes⁵. Indeed this theological principle acts as a guide on how to apply theology in healthcare ethics.

The importance of redemptive suffering

Catholics ascribe to the belief that human life is not supposed to be assessed on the basis of what one achieves in this life. Instead it should be an amalgamation of the virtues and the lessons drawn from it⁶. Suffering is useful because it has important virtues that it can instill in the concerned individual. A suffering person can seek God, and therefore teach others the importance of staying true to one’s principles. Another author reiterates these same sentiments by explaining that there is indeed an important lesson that can be learnt from redemptive suffering. ⁷

Since Jesus suffered in order to redeem mankind, then man can gain an appreciation of his sacrifice by going through the same. Such a principle is highly applicable in healthcare ethics as the importance of suffering can alter crucial life changing decisions. It should be noted that redemption also has serious implications on the dignity of human life because it denotes the value of grace⁸. This author explains that it was God’s plan that man should live in Christ. God had predestined that man should live in covenant with him. It was therefore necessary for God to redeem man from sin through his son Jesus Christ⁹. It was by grace that man was restored to his rightful place, and this was achieved through suffering. One cannot underscore the importance of this quality in Christianity, and the same can be carried forward into the healthcare ethics area.

Relationship to others

Catholics ascribe to the belief that all human beings have a sort of familial responsibility to one another. They are expected to safeguard each other’s well being by preventing illnesses, death or even injuries¹⁰ Since God works through people, then he expects his followers to protect the weak from injustices. In terms of autonomy in healthcare, both Jews and Christians generally support respecting a patient’s decisions, however, this principle must only be followed if it does not infringe upon the principle of the preservation of life¹¹. Similarly, Reform Jews claim that autonomy should be given precedence only if it does not violate man’s covenant with God. This group believes that death is the ultimate exception when it comes to patient autonomy.¹²

Euthanasia as a violation of man’s relation to others

Catholics and Jewish thinkers both explain that euthanasia would be a violation of man’s relationship to others because those who participate in it are not safeguarding the lives of their counterparts. Catholics claim that persons should avoid excessive use of utilitarian approaches¹³.

This is because it reflects some sort of arrogance on the part of one human being against the other¹⁴. Instead of showing mercy to one individual through other less convenient methods (like pain management), a person who participates in assisted suicide is basically illustrating that he or she does not care about the value of his neighbor’s life. He or she is showing false compassion and choosing the easy way out.

Theoretical basis of these opinions on euthanasia

In the Jewish faith, the use of reason, experience, tradition and scriptures are heavily relied upon¹⁵. This is why Jews warn against arrogance when making decisions on euthanasia because it violates God’s sovereignty; it is a concept in Jewish scriptures. Catholics tend to depend on natural law¹⁶. Natural law can be understood as “Ethical judgments that have meanings that can be verified.

Reason and experience assist in discovery of right and wrong.”¹⁷ Contemporary catholic medical ethics depends on this application of natural law because it has embraced the notion of personalism over physicalism.¹⁸ The physical components of a medical decision were considered while the spiritual, social and psychological were ignored¹⁹.

It was found that this approach neglected the structural aspects of ethics so it needed to be replaced with personalism where man is regarded as an integrated whole of the spiritual, social, mental and physical²⁰. This is why the Catholic faith tends to use reason when opposing euthanasia. For instance, Catholics explain that euthanasia would cause the patient to take on a greater evil for a lesser one²¹. This assertion that euthanasia is wrong has therefore been verified through the latter reasoning, and thus constitutes natural law.²²

Euthanasia

As a negation of the value of human life

The vast majority of Jews and Christians oppose physician-assisted suicide. They believe this because it contravenes God’s commandments. ²³ As explained earlier, most religious people think that life should be preserved. Tthis duty is undermined when one takes away one’s life. Suicide, even among the Jews, is considered a rejection of God’s sovereignty. Both religions bring forward the argument that man was created according to God’s image.

He must therefore abide by God’s plan for him. Taking away one’s life, either directly or indirectly through euthanasia, undermines this plan. This perspective encompasses thinking about human beings as creatures of God. Man has the duty to preserve life as he does not really own it; it belongs to God. The Jews particularly argue that when there is a contradiction between the wants of a person and that of God, then God’s wishes should be given precedence. The act of euthanasia is regarded as a sin. It isolates one from God and from other people.

As a result, it eradicates any moral dimension from decision making. ²⁴ The main problem with western societies is their obsession with rationalizing things. Decisions are made in a secular setting without considering the theological ramifications, yet moral obligations are often derived from this background. Man is becoming increasingly arrogant. He is taking on the role of master, and presuming that he can manipulate and destroy whatever he wants. Developed nations tend to focus too much on competence without realizing that all life has value regardless of how impaired one is. ²⁵

It can be easily seen that these stances are derived from the principle of God’s sovereignty over human life. Catholics, in particular, have a ‘declaration on euthanasia’ which states that God is the supreme creator, so he is the only one who has a right to take away life. The Jews also claim that since God is the creator of the entire universe, then he is the only one with the right to take it away. In this regard, euthanasia cannot be permitted. Most modern endorsements of euthanasia is that they presume that man is superior.

They forget that God has dominion over all life. ²⁶ In the field of health care, one must ask how God, as the creator and the maintainer of life, will fit into this end-of-life decision. Human life is sacred, and should not be terminated regardless of the reasons given. Euthanasia is perceived as a violation of God’s authority by tying it in with the creation concept²⁷. For that reason, people who oppose euthanasia on the basis of the value of human life, define it using the significance of the relationship between man and God. If man was to be analyzed based on the value that he draws from God’s image, then his life would be worth preserving, even when filled with immense pain or suffering.

Euthanasia and the concept of human suffering

Some people have supported euthanasia by claiming that it offers the patient a particular benefit. However, most Catholic scholars have refuted that point by stressing the importance of human suffering. They argue that man is obligated to take on the challenges of this life until the right time comes for him to go into the next life; a fact that can only be decided by God. ²⁸ People who endorse euthanasia automatically assume that suffering is a bad thing. However, sometimes it plays an important role in religious circles because it brings one closer to God through one’s association with Jesus’ redemptive suffering. ²⁹

Supporters of physician-assisted suicide may claim that people need euthanasia in order to escape the problems of this life; however, these theologians argue that taking away one’s life is the greatest level of suffering. Assisted suicide would be like leaving certain dangers on earth and taking on even greater miseries after. This contradicts the earlier mentioned principle of minimization of suffering. Since man is his brother’s keeper, then he has the duty of reducing the suffering of others as much as possible. According to the Jews, suffering is not as dire as death.³⁰

Human beings have the responsibility of preventing others from suffering. This should be instated especially among the weakest in society. If euthanasia is proliferated, then the weak may become victims of healthcare cost-cutting. Society may choose to terminate their lives once it has been established that they are dying. This may even spiral out of control when older parents start requesting for assisted suicide in order to eliminate the burden that they may have placed upon their children owing to their ill health.

When looking at the concept of physician-assisted suicide, the principle of suffering can be considered in both ways. Man is expected to follow after God’s character as depicted through Jesus Christ. He needs to consider the virtues of suffering, and should not try to eradicate it at all costs. ³¹

Conclusion

Three faith-based principles have been studied; the value of human life, human suffering, and man’s relationship to others. It has been shown that reason, scriptures and experience are useful in health care ethics. These have different interpretations when it comes to end-of-life challenges in healthcare.

When these principles are applied to euthanasia, it can be found that theologians oppose euthanasia because, as a co-creator, man is obligated to prevent the suffering of others that may be affected by excessive proliferation of assisted suicide. As a creature, man is obligated to adhere to God’s dominion over his life rather than become his own master.

In terms of human suffering, euthanasia prevents man from reaping the benefits of redemptive suffering. It also causes man to deal with more suffering by facing death. Therefore, religious people tend to consider the complexities of a health care issue, and then reconcile tensions in their own principles by taking a particular stance. With regard to man’s relationships with others, theologians do not support euthanasia because it denotes false compassion and it fails to protect the weak.

Bibliography

Kelly, David. Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.

Mackler, Aaron. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003.

Footnotes

1. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 8.
2. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 12.
3. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 13.
4. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003),6.
5. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 43.
6. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 70.
7. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 44.
8. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 14.
9. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 21.
10. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 12.
11. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 14.
12. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 53.
13. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 47.
14. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 69.
15. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 44.
16. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 55.
17. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 88.
18. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 96.
19. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 29.
20. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 89.
21. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 67.
22. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 94.
23. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 66.
24. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 46.
25. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 70.
26. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 43.
27. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 65.
28. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 67.
29. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 46.
30. Aaron Mackler. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A comparative Analysis (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 68.
31. David Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 47.