Abstract
While some physicians and patients agree and support euthanasia, Biblical and Buddhist worldviews strongly oppose the practice due to the sanctity of life. The Christian perspective considers life as a sacred creation that only God has the right to end. Buddhist worldview suggests that people should not allow the physical pain to cause mental suffering, and in turn, affect the potential for reaching the state of enlightenment. The sanctity argument is the most ethical and should be used to preserve the patient’s life. Therefore, the care providers should guide the patients and offer effective interventions to make their life comfortable as the disease progresses.
Keywords: Christianity, Buddhism, suffering, death, and dying, euthanasia
Euthanasia in Biblical and Buddhist Worldviews
Every individual has a worldview, whether one believes in God or not. People have presuppositions about what they hold as the truth, especially about life and the assumptions become the basis for the judgment of right and wrong. Every system has the framework for considering what it is moral or not. The beliefs have significant influence in the care process since the health providers, patients, and their families differ in various aspects of the treatment and healing process. The disparity often creates ethical dilemmas, especially when the physicians are prepared to offer the best treatment, but they are opposed by the recipient of care (Shelly & Miller, 2006). The aspect of ending life is one of the challenges facing the healthcare system due to the divergent views about its ethicality. While some doctors and patients agree to and support euthanasia, Biblical and Buddhist worldviews reveal strong opposition to the practice considering the sanctity of life.
Biblical Worldview
The biblical worldview is the Christian standpoint about various aspects of life, including the truth and morality. According to the assumptions, some things are absolutely right while others are wrong. The suppositions form the basis for the important decisions that believers make in real-life (Shelly & Miller, 2006). Six basic components make up the Biblical Worldview. According to Genesis 1:1, God is the Creator of the universe and the laws that govern it. The second one is the Bible as God’s Word for humanity and the source of accurate answers to all questions regarding human existence (2 Timothy 3:16). Christians believe in the reality of absolute moral truth that emanates from God and his Word (Psalms 102:25–27; Malachi 3:6). The fourth component relates to Jesus as the son of being God (1 Corinthians 15:3–4; 1 John 4:9–10). The presumptions also point to the reality of Satan and his efforts to defeat God’s plan for his creation (1 Peter 5:8). The last element is the belief in salvation that comes from faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9).
Notably, the biblical worldview is comprehensive and affects all areas of life, including morality. The scripture teaches the expectations of a real Christian in relating with others, such as in healthcare settings. Personal beliefs affect the decisions that people make every day while the believers evaluate situations depending on what they believe to be God’s will. They seek to learn, apply, and trust in His truths in everything they do, hence develop a broad and comprehensive faith (Shelly & Miller, 2006). For instance, whenever Christians are confronted with a crisis, they go deep into the Biblical teachings to make the right decision and form suitable reactions to questions on controversial issues such as euthanasia (Schaffer, Sandau, & Missal, 2017). The Bible teaches not to “conform to the pattern of this world, but being transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). Therefore, Christians are expected to follow God’s word and their faith even when dealing with worldly challenges.
Buddhist Worldview
Buddhism is a system that calls upon the believers to explore principles that would allow them to achieve the state of enlightenment in the hope that they would have a life devoid of suffering. The goal is noble and worthwhile and guides the way of life for those subscribing to the faith. According to the teachings, the Buddha has laid out a path that they should follow, including the expectation for many rebirths before they finally attain the perfect place (Ray, 2016). The assumptions are the basis for their efforts to deal with the struggles of the daily life as it helps to believe that the suffering is only for a while and that one will be reborn in a better state. They conceive morality as the most responsible behavior that reduces pain. Therefore, ethics are founded on the self-evident and universal compassion (Arai, 2017). Five precepts guide decision-making among the believers, including respect for life, taking what is given only, avoiding misusing sex and senses, embracing honesty, and speaking in a restrained manner as well as refraining from intoxication. Therefore, the principles of Buddha may lead to an ethical existence.
Interpreting George’s Malady and Suffering
Christians explain sickness and suffering as naturally-occurring due to the fall of man that brought sin into the world. People’s imperfection is the cause of ailing and death as Paul declares in Rom. 6:23. Thus, the demise is not only spiritual but also physical, and as long as the world exists, these aspects would always persist. However, it does not mean that George is necessarily responsible for the condition, but he lives in a setting where it is inevitable. The only hope to relieve the suffering, especially in the afterlife, is repenting and turning to God for redemption. Thus, even though the body dies, there is hope of eternity (Grundmann, 2014). Therefore, faith forms the foundation for a better and healthier life.
Buddhists believe that physical pain and suffering are inevitable parts of human life. Sickness, just like death, cannot be avoided and some level of anguish usually accompanies it (Ray, 2016). Therefore, George has not done anything to deserve the illness, but it has happened since he lives in the world where it is inescapable. While it is acceptable to mitigate the effects using available treatment, if the pain persists, he should bear it mindfully through forbearance and patience. The challenges also occur as a means to cultivate desirable mental states. Therefore, the disease might present itself as a chance for George to return to the path of enlightenment.
George’s Analysis of his Own Life
As a Christian, patients should see their life as valuable in God’s eyes. However, one experiences difficulties accepting the reality of an incurable disease. George might begin by questioning the intentions of God for his life. While he had a worthy life before the illness, it can change his feelings entirely since it is bound to make him incapacitated. Possibly, the reaction to the malady is the reason he considers euthanasia since he views his life as the one without value. Regardless of the suffering, a true Christian would maintain Faith in God (Grundmann, 2014). He should believe that the Supreme one still finds his life valuable and that He promises a better experience after the pain and suffering.
As a Buddhist, George would take the time to reflect upon his life. According to this tradition, the spiritual value does not come from the illness, but the human reaction to it, which is the reason for the condemnation of self-mortification and mistreatment of the mind or body (Ray, 2016). Although the patient could be discouraged by his condition, the faith should give him the necessary motivation to bear it to the end. The individual should consider the body as a valuable instrument that should not be changed by sickness. A firm believer will engage in constant meditation to deal with the physical pain and suffering, especially when it is incurable.
Values and Considerations
George opts for euthanasia due to the reality of the incurable disease. The sanctity of life is fundamental to the biblical explanation of the practice. Although the argument relating to the “quality of life” abides, it should not take precedence over the value of human life (Hedlund-de Witt, 2014). God is the creator, and He is the only one with authority to end life. Therefore, the physician or patient does not have the moral power to decide when one should die and how. Care providers should consider the situation from the perspective of ending pain and suffering, but the decision does not belong to them. They should leave God to decide when the patient should die even if the disease is incurable.
Buddhism is also opposed to voluntary euthanasia due to the implications of the state of mind. The idea is that if George accepts to end his life, it is due to the fact that he has allowed the physical suffering to cause mental pain. Therefore, he can avoid the negative thoughts through meditation to achieve the right state. The other consideration is karma that should occur as a natural process (McCormick, 2013). Thus, ending life before the right time will affect the natural process and possibly jeopardize the transition to the next life. It might not be clear about the outcome of the euthanasia, but it would not be right to terminate a natural process prematurely. Worth noting is that ending life might also have implications on the path to enlightenment.
Morally-Justified Actions
George has two options, to accept treatment and have a prolonged and comfortable life until the end or opt for euthanasia. Guided by the beneficence and nonmaleficence principles, the physician might agree to honor the patient’s wishes. The desires are also in line with his autonomy as he is competent enough to make such a decision. However, the two worldviews differ in the morality of the action. The Christian will find it unethical for one to be allowed to take his life before the time of death. The perspective considers the importance of preserving life as much as possible, which is what the care providers and the patient should do. Therefore, the ethical course of action in the situation is providing the available therapy to George and making his life comfortable until the time of his death.
A Buddhist would not allow euthanasia in this particular case. As a believer, George should consider the possible implications of the decision, especially the effect on the mind and body. Besides the treatment given by his doctors, he should also engage in regular meditation and other mind exercises to maintain health and take the path of enlightenment. Therefore, he should agree to the available interventions for the condition even if it is incurable.
Personal View
Life is sacred and should be protected at all cost. Therefore, any decision to end it prematurely is not ethical and should not be an option in this situation. It is agreeable that George is experiencing a crisis that might get worse due to the incurable disease, but this does not make euthanasia the right process. Physicians should consider the quality of life, and align it with the efforts to make the patients more comfortable as they die naturally. George and his family should support his treatment as much as possible to relieve the pain and suffering. Life has dignity and value that every person should protect; therefore, difficulties or inconveniences caused by the disease should not be the basis to end life (Grundmann, 2014). Evidence from the case study reveals that George is considering the option on the basis of fear of the outcome and has not considered other alternatives. The moral act for the care providers is to guide him on other viable options, including the available treatment. Death should not be a choice as it shall eventually come in the fullness of time.
Conclusion
George and his care providers face a serious ethical dilemma involving pain and suffering. The patient has an incurable disease that will become worse, leave him completely incapacitated, and finally die. The patient considers euthanasia as the only solution to escape the impending anguish. However, from an analysis of the Biblical and Buddhist worldviews, the option is not the most ethical. Human life is sacred and should be protected and not taken at will. Therefore, he should agree to the available treatment even though it would only make his life comfortable and less painful as he waits to die. Physicians should advise on the interventions and should not consider ending his life as one of the options since it is unethical.
References
Arai, T. (2017). Toward a Buddhist theory of conflict transformation: From simple actor-oriented conflict to complex structural conflict. Peace and Conflict Studies, 24(2), 5-34
Grundmann, C. H. (2014). To have life, and have it abundantly! Health and well-being in Biblical perspective. Journal of Religion and Health, 53(2), 552-561.
Hedlund-de Witt, A. (2014). Rethinking sustainable development: considering how different worldviews envision “development” and “quality of life.” Sustainability, 6(11), 8310-8328. doi:10.3390/su6118310
McCormick, A. J. (2013). Buddhist ethics and end-of-life care decisions. Journal of Social Work in end-of-life & Palliative Care, 9(2-3), 209-225. doi:10.1080/15524256.2013.794060
Ray, M. A. (2016). Transcultural caring dynamics in nursing and health care. Philadelphia: FA Davis.
Schaffer, M. A., Sandau, K., & Missal, B. (2017). Demystifying nursing theory: A Christian nursing perspective. Journal of Christian Nursing, 34(2), 102-107. doi:10.1097/CNJ.0000000000000375
Shelly, J. A., & Miller, A. B. (2006). Called to care: A Christian worldview for nursing. Westmont: InterVarsity Press.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
