Essay Euthanasia Religion

The practice of euthanasia has caused much controversy in today s society. Sickness and disease have been with man since the beginning of life, and in biblical time death was probably inevitable. In today s medical world, technology has given man the means to prolong an individual s time of existence. The idea with prolonging someone s life can bring up the issue of extending the individual s suffering. On a religious aspect, the implementation of euthanasia to end a person s pain can be looked at as interfering with God s divine plan. God will never give a person any more than they can handle. With this in mind, people should understand that God always gives support to people in suffering circumstances.

From birth to death, the Bible views life a sacred experience; and life should be looked upon as a gift from God. Because the bible teaches us that man was created in the image of God, and that God is Lord over life and death, euthanasia can be viewed as being biblically incorrect. Paul reminds us in I Corinthians 6:19,20:

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

A person that wants to end their life because they are unwilling to face the pain and misery in death are not just destroying their own spirit but also the spirit of the Lord. There is no glory for God in euthanasia.

To suffer is to understand and become closer to God. In 2 Corinthians 1:5,7 Paul states:

For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comforts .

One should rely on God even when facing agonizing situations. Euthanasia is both immoral and unnecessary. II Corinthians 12:9,10 says:

But he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness, Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ s power may rest on me. That is why in Christ s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong .

Moreover, death should not be decided by man, it should be God s decision. Because God is the reason for creation, God then holds the decision as to when creation will be destroyed. Life is a gift from God, Placing it under His sovereignty (Wennberg pgs. 95,87). Life should be looked at as a precious thing, not only to God but also to man. We must look at each individual as being here for a purpose, God s purpose . With God s purpose in mind, life should not be terminated prematurely before one has filled their purpose. By choosing to leave through suidcide questions God s reasoning for placing us here on earth. Letting one s life be carried out to its natural end can give that individual time to find God, and to affirm their life purpose (Wennberg pg. 95,87).

In addition, people must also reject the notion that everything must be done to save a person s life at any cost. Paul speaks in II Corinthians 5:6, Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord . II Corinthians 5:8 states, We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. It is unnecessary to be so tied to earthly life that extensive operations are performed in order to extend life . Philippians 1:21 states,

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain . In relation to a dying patient or loved one, people should provide comfort and spiritual care to those that are suffering. Galatians 6:2 says, Carry each other s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ .

It is easily seen that within a biblical aspect euthanasia is not the right answer to a terminally ill person s life. The human body belongs to God and God should make the decision on how to dispose of it. Euthanasia can only be called one thing, murder. People should follow Christ s example by caring for the ill and not killing them. Only God has the right to decide when death is necessary. If euthanasia is practices, God s divine plan is put into jeopardy. Using the Bible and the teachings of Paul as a guide through life, one can face any questionable dilemma that life present.


Holy Bible, New International Version.

Wennberg, Robert M. Terminal Choices. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989

There are many religious views on euthanasia, although many moral theologians are critical of the procedure.


Main article: Buddhism and euthanasia

There are many views among Buddhists on the issue of euthanasia, but many are critical of the procedure.

An important value of Buddhism teaching is compassion. Compassion is used by some Buddhists as a justification for euthanasia because the person suffering is relieved of pain.[1] However, it is still immoral "to embark on any course of action whose aim is to destroy human life, irrespective of the quality of the individual's motive." [2]

In Theravada Buddhism a lay person daily recites the simple formula: "I undertake the precept to abstain from destroying living beings."[3] For Buddhist monastics (bhikkhu) however the rules are more explicitly spelled out. For example, in the monastic code (Patimokkha), it states:

"Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (thus): 'My good man, what use is this wretched, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life,' or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in communion."[1]




The Declaration on Euthanasia is the Church's official document on the topic of euthanasia, a statement that was issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1980.[5]

Catholic teaching condemns euthanasia as a "crime against life" and a "crime against God".[5] The teaching of the Catholic Church on euthanasia rests on several core principles of Catholic ethics, including the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, concomitant human rights, due proportionality in casuistic remedies, the unavoidability of death, and the importance of charity.[5] It has been argued that these are relatively recent positions,[6] but whatever the position of individual Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church's viewpoint is unequivocal.[7]


Protestantdenominations vary widely on their approach to euthanasia and physician assisted death. Since the 1970s, Evangelical churches have worked with Roman Catholics on a sanctity of life approach, though some Evangelicals may be adopting a more exceptionless opposition. While liberal Protestant denominations have largely eschewed euthanasia, many individual advocates (such as Joseph Fletcher) and euthanasia society activists have been Protestant clergy and laity. As physician assisted dying has obtained greater legal support, some liberal Protestant denominations have offered religious arguments and support for limited forms of euthanasia.however they are leaner then the Roman Catholic Church

Christians in support of euthanasia[edit]

Groups claiming to speak for Christians rather than the official viewpoints of the Christian clergy have sprung up in a number of countries.[8]


See also: Prayopavesa

There are two Hindu points of view on euthanasia. By helping to end a painful life a person is performing a good deed and so fulfilling their moral obligations. On the other hand, by helping to end a life, even one filled with suffering, a person is disturbing the timing of the cycle of death and rebirth. This is a bad thing to do, and those involved in the euthanasia will take on the remaining karma of the patient.[9]

It is clearly stated in the Vedas that man has only two trust worthy friends in life, the first is called Vidya (knowledge), and the 2nd is called Mrityu (Death). The former is something that is beneficial and a requirement in life, and the latter is something that is inevitable sometimes even unexpected. It is not the euthanasia that is the act of sin, but worldy attachment which causes euthanasia to be looked upon as an act of sin. Even a Sannyasin or Sannyasini if they decide to, are permitted to end his or her life with the hope of reaching moksha i.e. emancipation of the soul.


Muslims are against euthanasia.They believe that all humans life is sacred because it is given by God, and that God chooses how long each person lives. Human beings should not interfere in this.[10][11] It is forbidden for a Muslim to plan, or come to know through self-will, the time of his own death in advance.[12]


Main article: Sallekhana

Jainism is based on the principle of non-violence (ahinsa) and is best known for it. Jainism recommends voluntary death or sallekhana for both ascetics and srāvaka (householders) at the end of their life.Sallekhana (also known as Santhara, Samadhi-marana) is made up of two words sal (meaning 'properly') and lekhana, which means to thin out. Properly thinning out of the passions and the body is sallekhana. A person is allowed to fast unto death or take the vow of sallekhana only when certain requirements are fulfilled. It is not considered suicide as the person observing it, must be in a state of full consciousness. When observing sallekhana, one must not have the desire to live or desire to die. Practitioner shouldn't recollect the pleasures enjoyed or, long for the enjoyment of pleasures in the future. The process is still controversial in parts of India. Estimates for death by this means range from 100 to 240 a year.[17] Preventing santhara invites social ostracism.[18]


Like the trend among Protestants, Jewish medical ethics have become divided, partly on denominational lines, over euthanasia and end of life treatment since the 1970s. Generally, Jewish thinkers oppose voluntary euthanasia, often vigorously,[19] though there is some backing for voluntary passive euthanasia in limited circumstances.[20] Likewise, within the Conservative Judaism movement, there has been increasing support for passive euthanasia (PAD)[21] In Reform Judaismresponsa, the preponderance of anti-euthanasia sentiment has shifted in recent years to increasing support for certain passive euthanasia options.[citation needed] Secular Judaism is a separate category with increasing support for euthanasia.[22] A popular sympathiser for euthanasia is Rabbi Miriam Jerris.[23]

A study performed in 2010 investigated elderly Jewish women who identified themselves as either Hasidic Orthodox, non-Hasidic Orthodox, or secularized Orthodox in their faith. The study found that all of the Hasidic Orthodox responders disapproved of voluntary euthanasia whereas a majority of the secularized Orthodox responders approved of it.[24]


In Japan, where the dominant religion is Shinto, 69% of the religious organisations agree with the act of voluntary passive euthanasia.[25] The corresponding figure was 75% when the family asked for it. In Shinto, the prolongation of life using artificial means is a disgraceful act against life.[25] Views on active euthanasia are mixed, with 25% Shinto and Buddhist organisations in Japan supporting voluntary active euthanasia.

Unitarian Universalism[edit]

The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) recommends observing the ethics and culture of the resident country when determining euthanasia. In 1988 the UUA gathered to share a commitment to The Right to Die with Dignity document which included a resolution supporting self-determination in dying.[26]

Influence of religious views[edit]

Religious views on euthanasia are both varied and complicated. While one's view on the matter doesn't necessarily connect directly to their religion, it often impacts a person's opinion. While the influence of religion on one's views toward palliative care do make a difference, they often play a smaller role than one may think. An analysis of the connection between the religion of US adults and their view on euthanasia was done in order to see how they combine. The findings concluded that the religious affiliation one associates with does not necessarily connect with their stance on euthanasia. [27] Research shows that while many belong to a specific religion, they may not always see every aspect as relevant to them.

Some metadata analysis has supported the hypothesis that nurses’ attitudes towards euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are influenced by religion and world view. Attributing more importance to religion also seems to make agreement with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide less likely.[28] A 1995 study of public opinion found that the tendency to see a distinction between active euthanasia and suicide was clearly affected by religious affiliation and education.[29] In Australia, more doctors without formal religious affiliation were sympathetic to active voluntary euthanasia, and acknowledged that they had practised it, than were doctors who gave any religious affiliation. Of those identifying with a religion, those who reported a Protestant affiliation were intermediate in their attitudes and practices between the agnostic/atheist and the Catholic groups. Catholics recorded attitudes most opposed, but even so, 18 per cent of Catholic medical respondents who had been so requested, recorded that they had taken active steps to bring about the death of patients.[30]

See also[edit]



  • Kakar, Sudhir (2014), "A Jain Tradition of Liberating the Soul by Fasting Oneself", Death and Dying, Penguin UK, ISBN 9789351187974 
  • Jain, Vijay K. (2011), Acharya Umasvami's Tattvârthsûtra, Vikalp Printers, ISBN 978-81-903639-2-1,  
  1. ^ abKeown, Damien. “End of life: the Buddhist View,” Lancet 366 (2005): 953. SocINDEX with full text, EBSCOhost.
  2. ^Keown, Damien. “End of life: the Buddhist View,” Lancet 366 (2005): 954. SocINDEX with full text, EBSCOhost.
  3. ^This is the first of the Five Precepts. It has various interpretations.
  4. ^Thanissaro Bhikkhu (1994). Buddhist Monastic Code I: Chapter 4, Parajika. Retrieved 2007-11-11.
  5. ^ abc"Declaration on Euthanasia". Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 5 May 1980. 
  6. ^McDougall H, It's popularly believed that Catholics are anti-euthanasia. Do Catholics believe we don't have the freedom to do as we like? The Guardian 27 August 2009
  7. ^Catechism of the Catholic Church
  8. ^In Australia:
  9. ^"Religion & Ethics - Euthanasia". BBC. Retrieved 2009-02-14. 
  10. ^Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 71. University of Southern California. Hadith 7.71.670. 
  11. ^Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 35. University of Southern California. Hadith 35.6485. 
  12. ^Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 35. University of Southern California. Hadith 35.6480. 
  13. ^"Fasting to Death" in: Docker C, Five Last Acts – The Exit Path, 2013:428-432 (details benefits and difficulties)
  14. ^Colors of Truth Religion, Self and Emotions: Perspectives of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Sikhism and Contemporary Psychology by Sonali Bhatt Marwaha, 2006:125.
  15. ^For example, J. David Bleich, Eliezer Waldenberg
  16. ^Such as the writings of Daniel Sinclair, Moshe Tendler, Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Moshe Feinstein
  17. ^See Elliot Dorff and, for earlier speculation, Byron Sherwin.
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^Baeke, Goedele, Jean-Pierre Wils, and Bert Broeckaert, “‘We are (not) the master of our body’: elderly Jewish women’s attitudes towards euthanasia and assisted suicide,” Ethnicity and Health 16, no. 3 (2011): 259-278, SocINDEX with full text, EBSCOhost.
  21. ^ ab"9.3. Implications of Japanese religious views toward life and death in medicine". Retrieved 2009-02-14. 
  22. ^Euthanasia: A Reference Handbook - Page 24, Jennifer Fecio McDougall, Martha Gorman - 2008
  23. ^Moulton, Benjamin E., Terrence D. Hill, and Amy Burdette. "Religion and Trends in Euthanasia Attitudes among U.S. Adults, 1977–2004." Sociological Forum 21.2 (2006): 249-72. Web.
  24. ^Religion and Nurses’ Attitudes to Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide, Nursing Ethics 2009. The subject is also dealt with at length in Johannes A. van der Ven, Hans-Georg Ziebertz (eds.) Human Rights and the Impact of Religion, Koninklijke 2013.
  25. ^Caddell D, Newton R, Euthanasia: American attitudes toward the physician's role. Soc Sci Med. 1995 Jun;40(12):1671-81.
  26. ^Baume P, O'Malley E, Bauman A, Professed religious affiliation and the practice of euthanasia. J Med Ethics 1995;21(1): 49–54.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *