Suicide: Views of Christianity and Islam
On November 1 2009, I created a thread "The Muslim Faith and Ethical Issues: Questions to My Muslim Visitors" A student wrote to me the following comment about suicide, comparing Christianity and Islam. I thought the topic was worthy for a separate thread for specific discussion about suicide from the religious perspective. Can any of my visitors comment further about what the student wrote? ..Maurice.
The world religions of Christianity and Islam have many common themes. For example, both faiths believe: in a monotheistic deity, to have divinely inspired scriptures, in the sanctity or dignity of human life and that ‘gift’ of human life should be preserved, in the notion of eternal life and the ‘Day of Judgement,’ and that God is the owner of all life and has pre-determined the time of birth, life and death. These shared ideas can help to formulate Christian or Islamic perspectives for and against ‘active’ forms of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
Religious opponents may view euthanasia as a form of suicide, as a way of interfering with the divinely appointed time of death (e.g. ‘Playing God’), as a way of destroying the sanctity of human life, and as a way of possibly incurring divine punishment. For example, a Christian opponent of euthanasia may cite the Biblical commandment of ‘You shall not kill,’ the idea of respecting the dignity of human life and the pre-destined moment of death, and enduring suffering as arguments against euthanasia. Similarly, a Muslim opponent may refer to: the Quranic verse 4:29 which states, ‘Do not kill yourselves, surely God is merciful to you,’ the Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) viewpoint of not desiring one’s own death, the traditional notion of caring for or respecting older persons, and submitting to the divinely appointed time of death. Since similar arguments can be developed from different faith or traditional backgrounds, it is possible that a Christian principle against euthanasia may appeal to a Muslim or vice versa.
On the other hand, some proponents of euthanasia may also formulate their arguments based on religiously based principles. For example a Christian or Muslim supporter of euthanasia may use the concepts of mercy and compassion to intentionally hasten death in a terminal disease or extreme pain to relieve pain and suffering and not be a burden on others. In addition, some proponents have cited deterioration in quality of life, the thought of God’s unwillingness to make one suffer, the notion of treating human life as one wishes since it is considered a ‘gift,’ autonomy to make one’s own decisions (e.g. ‘Right to Die’), and preserving respect for the dignity of human life as further reasons for euthanasia in terminal or extreme cases. Another religious argument for intentionally hastening death blurs the line between martyrdom and suicide and questions individual intention since some have argued that aiming at death is justified in order to reach paradise ‘faster.’
Graphic: Artistic composition by George Grie 2007 and contributed to Wikipedia and subsequently minimally modified by me using Picasa3 and displayed on this blog under Fair Use provision.
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 9:01:00 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Just a minor correction - if one takes the side of the religious perspective, one is a religious proponent. Against the religious perspective, a religious opponent.
I'm familiar with Islamic arguments against euthanasia and the Sharia (Islamic Jurisprudence) is based very much on the Hadith you've cited as well as various 'ayah' or verses from the Qur'an. The pro-euthanasia argument (i.e. compassion and "God’s unwillingness to make one suffer") conflict with the mainstream Islamic perspective. As Muslims (I'm trying to avoid speaking for everyone), we believe that God only permits as much suffering as someone can withstand. Mercifully, suffering is seen as a time-limited phenomenon that will either end in resolution (e.g. cure or justice) or a complete end of suffering in the form of one’s death. We don’t “own” our lives in the classical sense. Lives are not simply a “gift” either. From my understanding as a Muslim, we are merely given custodial power our own lives. We are free to do what we want with the life that we are given; but we are not free to dispose of it. Our custodial relationship with ‘life’ finishes only when Allah (SWT) chooses to terminate the contract (for want of a better term). The third point your writers argument concerns the blurring of martyrdom and suicide. Intentionality of a fundamental aspect of Islam. What one intends is sometimes regarded as more important than what one actually puts into action or achieves. Can one justify a course of action in which ones death is knowingly 100% certain in order to reach paradise ‘faster’? Strictly speaking, no. This argument has been used to justify terrorism and suicide bombings. By choosing to terminate their lives, these people stand apart from the Islamic perspective on the sanctity of life. The stated intention might be to undertake a course of action for the purpose of pleasing God; but their methods constitute a grave sin. This would differ markedly to someone undertaking a course of action in which ones own death was foreseeable, but not guaranteed. From the biomedical perspective, the above situations might be analogous to suicide and euthanasia in the first case and consenting to a radical (almost hopeless) experimental medical/surgical procedure in the other.
To Anonymous in the first comment here, thanks for your awareness of syntax. Although I can't speak for the student, it appears to me that the words "proponent" and "opponent" were used in the context of the subject (euthanasia, suicide, etc.) rather than the religion itself. The use of the word "religious" I would think simply identified the person as one within the context of religion and not, for example, one within the context of politics or within the context of a healthcare provider both could also be an opponents or proponents of the particular action.
Also, in view of Charles excellent dissertation, I will write the student and encourage the student to come and post rebuttals or other comments to what has already been written here.
Thanks to both of my visitors. ..Maurice.
To Anonymous:
This is R.M., the one who wrote the piece from this post. Thank you for your comments. I was referring to proponents and opponents in the context of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Although many think that a person of religion or spirituality would be against euthanasia and mercy killing, this is not always the case. Rather, as I wrote in the piece based on a project that I am currently conducting, some proponents of religious background avidly argue for euthanasia especially in terminal or extreme pain cases from the perspective of providing mercy and compassion to the patient. On the other hand, there are many, as you may be aware, who argue against euthanasia. The reasons for opposing euthanasia are often very similar among Christians and Muslims.
To Mr. Meekings:
Thank you for your post. This piece that I wrote is part of a project where I am examining various methods of philosophical arguments for and against euthanasia by Muslim and Christian scholars. As a fellow Muslim, I am aware of the almost unanimous prohibition of euthanasia in Islam based on the Qur’an, Hadith, Sharia Law, consensus of scholars and the Islamic Code of Medical Ethics. As you probably already know, this prohibition is based on the premise that God is the owner of all life and that pain and suffering are: tests of faith, a process of spiritual and physical purification, and a way of appreciating divine gifts (e.g. good health). Thus, as stewards of our life we must not discard or harm our life, but rather pain and suffering should be endured and reinforced with patience, prayer and trust in God. So your understanding is correct in accordance with the Islamic guidelines.
However, in this project I am also researching any scholars that may have a different interpretation in favour of euthanasia. Case in point, the arguments that I have listed for euthanasia are argued by an Islamic scholar in bioethics and, as you may imagine, this scholar is in the minority. Indeed, I agree that pro-euthanasia positions can conflict with unanimous rulings by sending the wrong message that suicide bombings are justified to supposedly achieve martyrdom or achieve paradise faster. For indeed, it will, as you have said and as I have objected in my project, achieve the opposite result of divine punishment not to mention also that martyrdom and suicide have distinct intentions. Still, it is intriguing to examine the sources and/or line of reasoning they use to formulate their argument. This need not imply that this unconventional argument will have a profound impact on a patient who desires to intentionally hasten death. Nor should it imply that I explicitly endorse the pro-euthanasia standpoint. Instead, such a standpoint provides a different perspective to the issue of euthanasia and our ongoing dialogue in the interfaith discussion. Thanks again for your comments, Charles.
R.M.
Thanks Anon. I was just discussing this blog and the debate with my wife who brought up an interesting point...one which I'm kicking myself for not having thought of earlier and to which I really don't know the answer. From an religious perspective (Christian, Jewish, or Islam) is there a difference between active and passive euthanasia? Active, willfully ending someones life is haram from the mainstream Islamic view. But I've got no idea at all about where Islam or any of the other religions stand on turning off "the machine that goes bing" (excuse the Monty Python reference).
- Charles Daud Abdullah Meekings
Charles,
In response to your question, Christianity and Islam allow passive forms of euthanasia which imply withdrawing or withholding treatment deemed futile in terminal conditions. Such a stance has been endorsed from people like the late Pope John Paul II to Muhammad Tantawi, the present rector at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The reasoning behind this stance is because although life is unconditionally good and should be preserved in most cases, it is not an absolute good implying that earthly life for believers is not the only phase of human existence, but rather only one phase toward eternal life. Thus, when there is no significant or reasonable progress for recovery, such as turn of events is often interpreted as God’s will and passive euthanasia is permitted as opposed to prolonging life indefinitely. It is noteworthy to mention that since withdrawing or withholding futile treatment often occurs in terminal cases today, it is not really labelled as passive euthanasia, but rather viewed as conventional treatment.
R.M.
R.M., actually in the United States, in terms of ethics consensus, we don't look upon withholding life support or terminating life support as euthanasia. These decisions are made by the patient with the intent not to accept unwanted treatment (withholding) or to reject treatment that is already being provided (withdrawal). The primary intent is not to expose oneself to anticipated or realized burdens or suffering by accepting or continuing this treatment. Both rejection and termination are legal in the United States.
Euthanasia is where the primary intent is to accelerate the death of a patient but in manner which avoids suffering. Passive euthanasia could apply to the physician-assisted suicide as practiced in the states of Oregon and Washington where the physician does not commit the active act of causing the patient's death but only provides the patient with the tools (pills)which the patient can finally decide on his or how own volition whether or not to use the tools. If the patient decides to use the tools, then the patient will do so at their own time and use the tools without the doctor's presence. Active euthanasia is where the physician, him or herself, performs an act, such as injecting a lethal dose of chemical into the patient, which is the direct cause of the patient's "good death". ..Maurice.
Maurice (if I may),
Yes, I agree that withdrawing or withholding treatment is not viewed as euthanasia specifically; however some scholars refer to it as a passive form since it is the disease or the illness which is causing the death and not deliberate means to hasten death. Thus one may refuse treatment considered burdensome or ineffective. Similarly, in Islam a competent patient’s right to refuse futile treatment is the gold standard. It is noteworthy to add, however, that in many Middle Eastern cultures, it is the patient and family as a unit that make the decisions, which some critics have argued undermines individual autonomy often seen as a granted right in the Western world. This brings me to my second point. It is interesting how your understanding is different is from mine since I understood physician-assisted suicide as an active form of euthanasia based on different texts regardless of how the patient hastens their own death (e.g. pills or lethal injection).
R. M.
Yes, it is the underlying illness that causes the death of the patient when treatment is withheld or withdrawn and therefore what follows may or may not represent a "good death" in terms of terminal suffering and therefore is really not euthanasia.
With regard to active vs passive euthanasia, it is related to the degree of participation of the physician (or others) in the final decision and the final act itself to end in death. In physician-assisted-suicide (PAS) the physician has no control over if or when the patient will take the lethal dose of pills and is not present at the time when the patient acts and then succumbs. The physician's participation therefore represents a passive act of euthanasia.
The role of the family, clan or tribe in making end of life decisions for the patient is another interesting issue to consider when discussing cultural or religious differences with regard to patient suicide. ..Maurice.
I don't believe euthanasia could ever be considered compassionate for a great majority of Christians who hold this belief: that it takes more than just believing in God (sola fide) to get to heaven. Even the devil believes in God. Rather, suffering on earth can be offered up as a prayer/sacrifice in union with the cross. There are redemptive qualities to it. Mother Theresa, a primary example of a Christian, took suffering patients of all religions and gave them dignity in death not by ending their lives, but instead by the human practice of loving, and teaching people how to be loved. What a depressive idea it is to think you are so insignificant that you are better off dead! I suggest learning theology from people who practice it if you want to have opinions that cover more than atheist/agnostic philosophies.
Post a Comment
<< Home