Religious Perspectives on Assisted Suicide

Abstract

Yale Kamisar's writings add up to an impressive argument against the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia, an achievement all the more notable because it does not depend on a blanket moral condemnation of these practices and so avoids becoming mired in the contemporary debate over moral pluralism. My assigned task, nonetheless, is to explore the contribution of religious thought to the debates over both the morality of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) /euthanasia and the moral implications of their legalization. I have chosen to end with feminist theological and philosophical reflections on these questions because they supplement in important ways the "official" positions of religious bodies and so illuminate the assisted suicide debate freshly. The whole cant of this discussion may reveal a medieval sensibility about the connections between law and morality: that the bindingness of law depends on its justice, and its justice is dependent on its genuinely advancing the common good. 1 But given our current understandings of the ways in which social practices construct morality, perhaps such medievalism is again appropriate. My reflections come in three parts. First, what do the religions say about PAS/euthanasia? Second, in what ways are those teachings relevant to courts and legislative bodies? And, finally, what can feminist philosophers and theologians contribute to the discourse?

Factors that Influence End-Of-Life Decision Making Amongst Attending Physicians

“…10 In Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, life is given an intrinsic, incalculable value, and treated as a sacred gift from God. 11 Part of their religious commitment may involve relinquishing the struggle that occurs at the end-of-life and accepting the natural process as “God’s will”. 3 Many assign particular value to this type of death as opposed to an induced one, as may be the case in patients that undergo PAS or euthanasia.…”

“…Earthly matters suffering do not end with the death of the current body, and the overall process of reincarnation is more significant than the death itself. 11 Atheists, on the other hand, place emphasis on intrapersonal, interpersonal, and natural interconnectedness, in order to find meaning in themselves, their family and friends, and the natural world, respectively. 12 Their definition of a “proper” death includes respect for their non-belief and exclusion of prayers or other references to a greater power.…”

Catholic Teaching: A Middle Ground and Guide for End-of-Life Care and Decision-Making and an Antidote for Dying Badly in America

“…Arguments against PAD are summarized as: (1) the slippery slope, (2) the erosion of trust in the physician-patient relationship, (3) PAD has a different intent than forgoing LST and is ethically distinct, (4) pain and suffering can usually be relieved, (5) the benefit of death is unknown and unknowable to medicine, (6) the goals of forgoing LST are achieved whether person dies or not, whereas the goals of PAD are achieved only if the patient dies, (7) PAD may alleviate biologic pain/physical suffering in the short term, but it may increase existential suffering in the long term, and (8) PAD is the opposite of compassion. Compassion from its Latin root means “to suffer with” or “endure with” and is the antithesis of prematurely ending or abandoning life (Goligher et al 2017; Kuczewski 1998; Sulmasy and Mueller 2017; Traina 1998). Understanding the arguments for and against each extreme provides insight into how patients in Catholic health care facilities—those who believe in the tradition and those who do not—view these issues and how the Catholic end-of-life teaching might appeal to them to consider the middle ground it offers.…”

Regulating Death: A Brief History of Medical Assistance in Dying

“…Among these were notions that life was a trust from God, and to shorten or prolong it would interfere with God’s plan; that artificially shortening life could preclude admission to the afterlife or reincarnation; and that suffering may have a divine purpose which ought to be accepted. [ 5 ] St. Thomas Aquinas condemned suicide on behalf of the Christian church in the 13 th century, claiming that its completion interferes with the natural inclination of self-perpetuation, injures communities, and violates God’s authority. [ 6 ] Common Law similarly forbade suicide and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the British and French colonies that spread West to the Americas and, although Renaissance philosophers had begun to challenge ecclesiastical authority in Europe, several centuries would pass before the legalisation of human euthanasia developed widespread interest.…”