Interpreting Suffering and Euthanasia in Christian Worldview

In Contemplating His Future Life With Als, George Begins To Dread The Prospect Of Losing His Mobility And Even Speech. He Imagines His Life In Complete Dependence Upon Others For Basic Everyday Functions And Perceives The Possibility Of Eventually Degenerating To The Point At Which He Is a Prisoner In His Own Body. Would He Be Willing To Undergo Such Torture, Such Loss Of His Own Dignity And Power? George Thus Begins Inquiring About The Possibility Of Voluntary Euthanasia.

In the past few eras, health care professionals have struggled to balance the care process by shifting it towards more spiritual roots, identifying that spirituality is highly correlated with the health and wellbeing of the individuals. Diverse religions incorporated the explanation of why people become ill. Moreover, religions have developed various perspective regarding the ways people should respond to suffering (Schaffer, Sandau & Missal, 2017). At this juncture, one of the most fundamental concerns addressed by diverse religions is how patients suffering from terminal illnesses should respond to the problem. Hence, this paper aims to provide a critical analysis of the ethical issue raised for a man named George, a man who is developing a terminal illness that will result in a lot of suffering and death. This paper will provide how George will interpret his suffering in the Christian world view, values and beliefs as a person and decision making according to the Christian world view in the following paragraphs.

Death takes on a specific sense when it is viewed from the perspective of Christian narratives. It is, in fact, not the greatest evil that could befall a human being and is furthermore transformed in the light of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rieg, Newbanks & Sprunger, 2018). Human being are living in a fallen world where aches, pain and illness are constant reminders of fallenness of the world. Considering the Christian narratives from the perspective of fallenness of the world, death is considered a will of the god where suffering is considered as the trial taken by the god to provide a pathway to go the heaven (Chang, 2016). Taking a deep insight into the situation, George is suffering from a terminal illness, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis which impacted his quality of life by impairing his daily activity. At this juncture, by considering the voluntary euthanasia as an option, he is considering his suffering as a loss of hope of living a purposeful life (Stephens, 2016). In this context, he is taking action against the will of the god that can hinder him from going to heaven. 

Interpretation of Suffering From Christian Narratives

While discussing the suffering from the perspective of the Christian world view, especially from the point of view of hope of resurrection, it is crucial to discuss Jesus’s Resurrection. Jesus’s Resurrection indicated god’s goodness as the creator and the sense of justice of the god as redeemer. Jesus’s Resurrection is considered as God’s plan for us is not an escaped from our bodies into some heavenly realm that presents above the cloud. This also signifies the diving commitment to justice (Mugg & Turner , 2017). At this juncture, Resurrection of Jesus becomes the Christian basis of hope since against all hardships, god defeated the death and demonstrated the immense power of the god (Doran, 2017). Hence, the hope of resurrection allows individuals to live a life which is characterized by the hope offered by the god since hope offer judgment on the present situation from the point of view of god. The hope one fined through the resurrection of Jesus since it is the source of novel possibilities that encourage the individuals to transform the possibilities into reality. Hope inspires mankind to criticize injustice way of living and suggests the novel solution for living a life in a way through actions that serve the wills of the god (Mugg & Turner , 2017). Considering the case study of George, he is suffering a terminal illness that impacted his daily activity and quality of life. At this juncture, terminating his suffering is against the will of the god as it will hinder him from involving in the actions that will serve justice. At this juncture, in the light of the Christian narratives, there is no hope of resurrection since he is terminated his suffering through euthanasia. 

As discussed by Harris and Yancey (2017), the value of human life is intrinsic as it derived from the god and made human being as their own image. Similar to life, physical death is inevitable and it is frequently accompanied by the sufferings, illness and physical pain. Considering the Christian world view, the value of the life of a person is solely determined by the actions that have been taken by the person and the extent to which a person is able to perform the actions even within the sufferings. In this context, suffering enables individuals to develop a hope in Christ who has conquered death and sympathize human suffering. However, a contrast to the suffering, ending someone’s life for relieving suffering or inconvenience is not only unforgivable but also breach clearly defined moral order of God. At this juncture, Christian world view will inform him that by considering euthanasia as an option can end his suffering but reduce the value of his life a person and quality of life. Hence, in order to serve the order to God, he must not reduce the quality of life and value of him as a person.

Interpretation Of Suffering From Christian Narratives From The Focus Of Hope Of Resurrection

In order to discuss values and consideration regarding euthanasia, it is noteworthy to discuss the Christian world view. Considering Christian world view voluntarily assisted euthanasia should not have opted as Christians are mostly against the voluntary assisted euthanasia. According to the Christian world view, while suffering is not good but a result of living in the fallen world, it serves the releasing purposes in the life of the individuals who is experiencing sufferings (Rieg, Newbanks & Sprunger, 2018). At this juncture, as discussed above ending someone’s life for relieving suffering or inconvenience is not only unforgivable but also breach clearly defined moral order of God as it interferes with the natural process of death (Snyder, 2019). Hence, by pursuing the euthanasia as an option, George will involve in the act of sin that will reduce his value as life and he should consider the suffering as a way of serving the order of God.

In Christianity, intentional killing is considered as the act of sin as it interferes with the natural process of death. At this juncture, Utilitarianism can be applied to discuss the moral justice of euthanasia. Ethical theory Utilitarianism that governs justified actions from unjustified actions by concentrating on outcomes. According to Utilitarianism,   one choice can be considered as the most ethical choice if the choice will produce the greatest good for the greatest number in mankind (Piacquadio, 2017). In contrast to this theory, Kantianism is a deontological moral theory that suggested that rightness or wrongness of actions that does not depend on the outcome of the action rather than actions one is involved to fulfil the predetermined duties (Crowell,2017). At this juncture, considering the Christian world view, euthanasia can be considered as the morally unjustified since the outcome will not provide the greatest good rather it will interfere with the god’s will. Hence, it is morally unjustified to opt for the euthanasia.

If I was George, I would have chosen euthanasia since it will fulfil the personal goal of health from the perspective of health care. As discussed above Kantianism is a deontological moral theory that suggested that rightness or wrongness of actions that does not depend on the outcome of the action rather than actions one is involved to fulfil the predetermined duties. Considering Kantianism, from the perspective of health care professionals, a personal goal of individuals is to live a purposeful life by fulfilling the duty (Daskal, 2018). However, since terminal illness can increase the sufferings by impairing the ability to involve in the daily activities, it also reduces the ability to fulfil the duty. At this juncture, euthanasia will end the sufferings and provide a comfortable dying supported by Kantianism theory. Hence, euthanasia will be the most suitable choice.

Value of George as a Person

Conclusion

On a concluding note, it can be said that the religions have developed various perspective regarding the ways people should respond to suffering and death. The case study focused on a man who is suffering from terminally ill disease and inquired regarding the euthanasia. Considering Christian worldview, death is considered a will of the god where suffering is considered as the trial taken by the god to provide a pathway to go the heaven. By choosing euthanasia he will hinder the process of going to heaven and trails taken by God. There is no hope of resurrection since he is terminated his suffering through euthanasia. It will also reduce his quality of life and value as a person since George will involve in the act of sin by interfering the natural process of death. Considering the Christian view, euthanasia is morally injustice as according to Utilitarianism, the action will not produce greater good for the greatest number. However, considering the personal decision, euthanasia will be a suitable decision that will fulfil the personal goal and reduce sufferings.

References

Chang, S. S. (2016). In Search of a Biblical Worldview: Exploring Paul’s Gospel Worldview in His Letter to the Romans. Journal of Christian Education & Information Technology, 30, 51-74.

 Crowell, S. G. (2017). Neo‐Kantianism. A Companion to Continental Philosophy, 185-197.

 Daskal, S. (2018). Support for Voluntary Euthanasia with No Logical Slippery Slope to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 28(1), 23-48.

 Doran, C. (2017). Creation Care this Side of the Resurrection. The Greening of Religion, 57.

 Harris, H. W., & Yancey, G. (2017). Values, dissonance, and rainbows: Practice tips for Christian social workers in a polarized world. Social Work and Christianity, 44(1/2), 123.

 Mugg, J., & Turner Jr, J. T. (2017). Why a bodily resurrection?: The bodily resurrection and the mind/body relation. Journal of Analytic Theology, 5(1), 121-144.

 Piacquadio, P. G. (2017). A fairness justification of utilitarianism. Econometrica, 85(4), 1261-1276.

 Rieg, L. S., Newbanks, R. S., & Sprunger, R. (2018). Caring from a Christian Worldview: Exploring Nurses' Source of Caring, Faith Practices, and View of Nursing. Journal of Christian Nursing, 35(3), 168-173.

 Rieg, L. S., Newbanks, R. S., & Sprunger, R. (2018). Caring from a Christian Worldview: Exploring Nurses' Source of Caring, Faith Practices, and View of Nursing. Journal of Christian Nursing, 35(3), 168-173.

Schaffer, M. A., Sandau, K., & Missal, B. (2017). Demystifying nursing theory: A Christian nursing perspective. Journal of Christian Nursing, 34(2), 102-107.

 Snyder, B. F. (2019). Christian Environmental Ethics and Economic Stasis. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, 23(2), 154-170.

 Stephens, M. (2016). The fall and Christian education. Christian Teachers Journal, 24(1), 4.