Thou Shalt Not Kill?
How can it be justifiable to take life? I suspect that many people will consider the answer to this to be self-evident, after all, the fifth commandment clearly states ‘Thou shalt not kill’. Life is very precious, but the quality of life is equally as important. Thus, John ch. 10 v.10, “I have come that you may have life and have it to the full.”
God did not just give life, but stressed the richness of it and in certain cases voluntary euthanasia can be the most merciful escape from a life which has become a burden.
The word euthanasia is derived from the Greek for ‘beautiful death’, and for a person suffering from an incurable disease it can be just that. There is a whole world of difference between murder and medical assistance for voluntary death. Of course euthanasia can be a dangerous tool if used in the wrong hands and for the wrong reasons. The Nazi programme of terminating thousands of what they considered to be useless lives under the euphemism of ‘mercy killing’ is clearly against the ethics of Christianity and anathema to the general ideas of what is moral and acceptable for society.
The dangers of introducing laws to legalize euthanasia are very real ones. Pressure on hospital beds, knowledge of a large inheritance following the death of a wealthy relative and the weariness of carers of looking after a sick relative or badly handicapped child have been put forward by people wishing to present euthanasia from gaining general acceptance. Very strict guidelines would have to be laid down if any legislation on the issue was to be passed, to try to keep the misuse of euthanasia to a minimum, whilst still protecting the integrity of the doctors and taking into account their views. In the same way that euthanasia should be purely voluntary for medical reasons, so the option of administering it should not be forced upon a doctor, who may feel it is ethically or religiously wrong of him to take life even when it is at the wish of the patient.
Attempts have been made in the Netherlands to safeguard the choice of both patient and doctor. Cards similar to donor cards are available stating that the holder would wish euthanasia to be administered if they were ever so badly ill or hurt that there was no hope of a reasonable degree of recovery. A major problem with knowing when to resort to euthanasia is that a very ill patient may not be in a position to answer for himself, for example if he is in a coma or has lost the power to speak through a stroke. A ‘living will’ can be the way around such a dilemma. If a person has a signed and witnessed document stating that in such a situation he would like a painless death to be granted, the difficulties are eased. Nevertheless, the shady meaning involved in words such as ‘reasonable’ and the very real risk that what could be termed a ‘miracle cure’ may occur, makes the problems of knowing when euthanasia is best extremely acute.
It could be surmised that by stressing the drawbacks the case for feeling that euthanasia can still be compatible with Christian beliefs has been destroyed. What is needed however is a view of death not as either morbid, distant or something to be afraid of. Death is a certainty in the lives of us all, and whilst most people at some time fear dying, death itself — especially for Christians who can be strengthened by the promise of eternal life with Christ — is not to be feared.
Why then is it deemed so wrong to allow a person the right to such a death if they themselves wish it and find mortal life pain-filled and burdensome? Medical advances, especially in the last twenty or so years have revolutionized the ability of doctors to prolong life, but this is not entirely an advantage. The case of a person being kept alive artificially by drugs and perhaps a life support machine just because it is medically possible can be a harrowing experience for both the patient and his or her loved ones. Love is central to the Christian faith and Jesus urges us to “Love each other as I have loved you.” (John ch.15 v.12). In such cases it can be a greater act of love to consent to the wishes of the patient for voluntary euthanasia than to allow the person you knew and loved to be changed in a detrimental way both physically and in personality by illnesses such as Alzheimer’s disease, massive strokes or acute multiple sclerosis. Pity is shown to sick animals in putting them out of their misery and is generally accepted as the most humane option. Surely at least the same amount of compassion should be granted to human beings if they wish it.
Another method proposed by people opposed to direct medical termination of a life is to let nature take its course. This so-called ‘passive euthanasia’ is not necessarily as merciful as it may sound. Withdrawing medication, apart from a nominal level of painkillers to subdue the worst discomfort does not always lead to a pleasant death. Indeed, it is less Christian to allow a person to allow a person to linger on for up to a few weeks simply on ethical grounds that rapid release from such pain should not be administered.
We hear calls for Christians to be tolerant of so many aspects of modern society. Is there not also a case for tolerance of the wishes of someone who is terminally ill to be granted the right to die at a time of their choosing with dignity?